    [House Hearing, 107 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                    DEPARTMENTS  OF  VETERANS  AFFAIRS  AND

                     HOUSING  AND  URBAN  DEVELOPMENT,  AND

                      INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS

                                    FOR 2003

    _______________________________________________________________________

                                    HEARINGS

                                    BEFORE A

                               SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                           COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                             HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                          ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
                                 SECOND SESSION
                                    ________
                SUBCOMMITTEE ON VA, HUD, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
                       JAMES T. WALSH, New York, Chairman
     TOM DeLAY, Texas                    ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia
     DAVID L. HOBSON, Ohio               MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
     JOE KNOLLENBERG, Michigan           CARRIE P. MEEK, Florida
     RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina
     ANNE M. NORTHUP, Kentucky           ROBERT E. ``BUD'' CRAMER, Jr.,
     JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire       Alabama
     VIRGIL H. GOODE, Jr., Virginia      CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
     ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama

     NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Young, as Chairman of the Full
    Committee, and Mr. Obey, as Ranking Minority Member of the Full
    Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees.
              Frank M. Cushing, Timothy L. Peterson, Dena L. Baron,
             Jennifer Miller, and Jennifer Whitson, Staff Assistants
                                    ________
                                     PART 7

                         ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

                                    ________
             Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
                                    ________
                         U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
     79-524                     WASHINGTON : 2002

                          COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                       C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida, Chairman

     RALPH REGULA, Ohio                  DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin
     JERRY LEWIS, California             JOHN P. MURTHA, Pennsylvania
     HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky             NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington
     JOE SKEEN, New Mexico               MARTIN OLAV SABO, Minnesota
     FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia             STENY H. HOYER, Maryland
     TOM DeLAY, Texas                    ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia
     JIM KOLBE, Arizona                  MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
     SONNY CALLAHAN, Alabama             NANCY PELOSI, California
     JAMES T. WALSH, New York            PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana
     CHARLES H. TAYLOR, North Carolina   NITA M. LOWEY, New York
     DAVID L. HOBSON, Ohio               JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
     ERNEST J. ISTOOK, Jr., Oklahoma     ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut
     HENRY BONILLA, Texas                JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia
     JOE KNOLLENBERG, Michigan           JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts
     DAN MILLER, Florida                 ED PASTOR, Arizona
     JACK KINGSTON, Georgia              CARRIE P. MEEK, Florida
     RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina
     ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi        CHET EDWARDS, Texas
     GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, Jr.,          ROBERT E. ``BUD'' CRAMER, Jr.,
    Washington                           Alabama
     RANDY ``DUKE'' CUNNINGHAM,          PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
    California                           JAMES E. CLYBURN, South Carolina
     TODD TIAHRT, Kansas                 MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
     ZACH WAMP, Tennessee                LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California
     TOM LATHAM, Iowa                    SAM FARR, California
     ANNE M. NORTHUP, Kentucky           JESSE L. JACKSON, Jr., Illinois
     ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama         CAROLYN C. KILPATRICK, Michigan
     JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri            ALLEN BOYD, Florida
     JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire       CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
     KAY GRANGER, Texas                  STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey
     JOHN E. PETERSON, Pennsylvania
     JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California
     RAY LaHOOD, Illinois
     JOHN E. SWEENEY, New York
     DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
     DON SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania

     VIRGIL H. GOODE, Jr., Virginia

                     James W. Dyer, Clerk and Staff Director

                                      (ii)

    DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND
                  INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2003

                                  ----------

                                               Tuesday, March 12, 2002.

                        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

                                   WITNESSES

    CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN, ADMINISTRATOR
    RAY SPEARS, DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF
    MORRIS X. WINN, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF
        ADMINISTRATION AND RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
    JEFFREY HOLMSTEAD, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION
    SYLVIA K. LOWRANCE, ACTING ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF
        ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE
    MARGARET N. SCHNEIDER, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF
        ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION
    LINDA M. COMBS, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
    MICHAEL W.S. RYAN, DEPUTY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
    ROBERT FABRICANT, GENERAL COUNSEL, OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL
    NIKKI TINSLEY, INSPECTOR GENERAL
    JUDITH AYRES, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL
        ACTIVITIES
    STEPHEN L. JOHNSON, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF PREVENTION,
        PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES
    HENRY L. LONGEST, II, ACTING ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF
        RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
    MARIANNE HORINKO, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND
        EMERGENCY RESPONSE
    DIANE REGAS, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF WATER
    THOMAS GIBSON, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF POLICY, ECONOMICS AND
        INNOVATION
    EDWARD D. KRENIK, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL AND
        INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS
    JOSEPH MARTYAK, ACTING ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF
        COMMUNICATIONS, EDUCATION, AND MEDIA RELATIONS
    JOSEPH L. DILLON, COMPTROLLER, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
    NANCI E. GELB, DIRECTOR, ANNUAL PLANNING AND BUDGET DIVISION
    ROMONA TRAVATO, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF CHILDREN'S HEALTH PROTECTION

                        Chairman Walsh's Opening Remarks

        Mr. Walsh. Good morning. The subcommittee will come to
    order.
        Good morning, Administrator Whitman. Today we will continue
    our fiscal year 2003 budget hearings by taking testimony from
    the Environmental Protection Agency on its 2003 budget
    submission. For fiscal year 2003, the agency has requested
    $7,723,600,800, a decrease of nearly $459 million from the
    adjusted fiscal year 2002 appropriated level. I have used the
    word ``adjusted'' in the context of this comparison for three
    reasons: First, the final enacted 2002 level includes, by EPA
    accounting, nearly $502 million of congressionally-mandated
    priority spending matters.
        Although these Congressional priorities represent just a
    little over 6 percent of the entire EPA appropriation, it is no
    surprise that these have been excluded from the 2003 request.
    One could say that the decrease for 2003 is due entirely to
    this fact alone. Second, a little over $183 million was
    provided to EPA in the supplemental portion of the 2002 defense
    appropriation bill for security and counterterrorism-related
    matters, some of which is not expected to be a recurring cost.
        The 2003 request, in fact, includes some $128 million for
    Homeland Security-related matters, a reduction of over $54
    million below the 2002 appropriated level.
        A third final adjustment deals with the addition in the
    budget request of just over $107 million for the accrued costs
    for legislation proposed by the administration and employees
    pension and health benefits. While I expect the issue of
    whether or not the Congress approves this legislative proposal
    will be determined at a later time, and undoubtedly at an
    appropriations-wide basis. For the purposes of a fair apples-
    to-apples comparison between 2003 and 2002, I have included in
    the final 2002 enacted level mention about the equivalent costs
    of this proposed legislation.
        Testifying before the committee this morning, and again
    this afternoon, will be EPA's very able administrator, former
    New Jersey Governor, Christine Todd Whitman. Madam
    Administrator, we welcome you back.
        As you are aware, our schedule leading to markup of the
    2003 appropriations bills has been tightened considerably,
    making it very difficult to schedule more than one day for this
    hearing. I am sure you are very disappointed that we won't be
    going more than one day. Nevertheless, you now have a year of
    service under your belt, and I am sure that we can have a very
    productive session today.
        As a housekeeping matter, I would just like to note that
    because there are no votes until after 6:30 this evening many
    of our members will be flying into Washington today from their
    districts and may arrive late during the morning session or
    into the afternoon. When they do arrive, I will make every
    effort to recognize them as quickly as possible so that all
    members will have the opportunity to participate fully.
        With the indulgence of my colleagues, I would like to begin
    this morning with a few more general comments. First, I would
    note that EPA's 2003 budget request is not only well-conceived,
    but perhaps the most realistic budget document we have seen for
    the agency in at least 8 years. While it is far from perfect,
    it includes, after all, only executive branch earmarks and no
    legislative earmarks. There seems to be a trend there, and it
    is disappointing to see that recurring throughout the
    appropriations budget, and there has been a lot of discussion,
    particularly about the Army Corps of Engineers budget. It will
    be an issue for us, a very serious issue.
        But it does include significant funding for many
    Congressional priorities. To mention just a few of these, the
    Brownfields program is proposed for $200 million. The 1-year-
    old Beach Grant program for $10 million, and the Section 319
    Nonpoint Source Pollution Grant programs for $238 million; the
    Endocrine Disrupter Research program for $12 million; and the
    Great Lakes program for $15,128,000. All of these funding
    levels are at or above the 2002 appropriated level.
        Perhaps more significant than any other program request is
    the fact that you have asked for a very realistic $1.212
    billion for the Clean Water SRF program tells me that you are
    more interested in presenting and pursuing a responsible budget
    than you were in playing silly budgetary games with Congress.
        This committee and the Congress will obviously make some
    changes in the document that you have presented to us.
    Nevertheless, I would submit that you have made our job just a
    bit more difficult by submitting a budget that we will be
    challenged to find great fault in.
        Madam Administrator, you and your agency are to be
    commended. In the same vein, I would like to take this
    opportunity to publicly thank you as well as your fine staff
    for the excellent and most difficult job you did in
    decontaminating the Hart Senate Office Building following the
    anthrax exposure last fall. The local media so often focused on
    this problem or that problem, this person's complaint or that
    person's complaint, they missed the real point, that the Hart
    Building is not only large; it is an extremely complex
    structure.
        EPA undertook and accomplished, in relatively short order,
    something that no one had ever done before. If I may signal out
    two key players in this effort, all of us should thank Mr.
    Richard Rupert, EPA's on-scene coordinator, who literally gave
    up months of his life to move to Washington in order to take on
    this challenge; and Mr. Tom Voltagio, EPA region 3's deputy
    regional administrator, for the countless hours they and their
    team spent to undertake this incredible task. They, every bit
    as much as our military forces and police and firefighters and
    paramedics in New York City, at the Pentagon and elsewhere
    around the Nation, are, in my opinion, the true heroes of the
    war on terrorism.
        Finally, I would like to take a moment to comment on
    unfair, and I think totally erroneous, allegations made
    recently through the media that Administrator Whitman and the
    agency have been backing away from proper enforcement of the
    Clean Air Act through actions taken on the New Source Review
    program. The facts by themselves would seem to put this
    ridiculous notion to rest.
        Since January 2001, the agency has issued 87 information
    requests to power plants, refineries and other facilities for
    specific pollution data required under section 114 of the Clean
    Air Act. They have issued 22 notices of violations or findings
    of violation under section 113 of the Clean Air Act.
        They have filed and concluded, administratively and
    otherwise, 7 violation cases and conducted numerous other
    miscellaneous enforcement actions using the many authorities
    provided by law. But I do not wish to speak for the Agency or
    the Administrator on this or any other matter. It is, I
    believe, incumbent on us to not allow erroneous, and perhaps in
    this case, malicious accusations to linger without being
    challenged. This is an issue which the Subcommittee has
    followed for quite some time, and, I might add, not necessarily
    in agreement with the Agency on how they have interpreted the
    scope of what constitutes a New Source Review under the law.
        Rather than trying to somehow subvert the law, I believe
    the Administrator has done nothing more than tried to reach out
    to industry in an attempt to negotiate solid, statutorily
    consistent, environmental results rather than drag folks
    immediately into court.
        Should the soft touch not get the job done, I am quite
    certain, and the statistics I noted a moment ago bear this out.
    There will be no hesitation to take the administrative and
    legal routes. As the Administrator herself stated in her
    confirmation hearing a little over a year ago, `I intend to use
    the carrot, but I won't throw away the stick.'
        I hope this unfortunate and unnecessary diversion is put to
    rest so the Administrator and the Agency can continue to
    concentrate on the important environmental issues before them.
        I thank you all for your indulgence and would like now to
    recognize my friend and colleague, the ranking member, the
    gentleman from West Virginia, Mr. Mollohan, for any remarkshe
    would like to make.

                   Ranking Member Mollohan's Opening Remarks

        Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Governor Whitman,
    welcome. I would like to join the chairman in welcoming you to
    the hearing this morning. First, let me congratulate you on the
    excellent work you have done under very trying circumstances in
    your first year on the job. I look forward to your testimony
    here today.
        Last year, none of us knew the incredible challenges our
    Nation would be facing in the coming months. September the 11th
    added another dimension to EPA's mission to protect the
    public's health and safeguard the environment. I read your
    budget submission with interest, and am pleased to see the
    request for $127 million in new funding for homeland security.
    I will be interested to hear you talk about the lessons that
    have been learned from EPA's on-site work at the World Trade
    Center site, and the anthrax cleanup at the Hart Building and
    other locations in Washington, D.C.
        Also, I am pleased to see that your proposed budget
    increases the funds available for Brownfields reclamation,
    providing $200 million. This will help meet the growing demand
    and is definitely a step in the right direction. Your budget
    proposal also provides $21 million for a new watershed
    initiative, which will target up to 20 watersheds around the
    country for improvement. Not only will this result in cleaner
    water, it will do so by building on the public/private
    partnerships that have proven so crucial in efforts to work
    with stakeholders to restore the environment in my home State
    of West Virginia.
        However, there are aspects of this budget that concern me:
    the cut in funding for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund,
    for example. The administration's budget proposes to cut it
    from $1,350,000,000 to $1,212,000,000. $500 million of
    congressionally-mandated water and sewer infrastructure
    projects are also cut out of your budget. We can argue about
    who has the best system for selecting projects, but we
    shouldn't use that disagreement as an excuse to cut funding for
    these critical purposes.
        I look forward to working through these differences with
    you and working with the chairman as the process moves forward,
    and I look forward to your testimony here. Thank you. Thank
    you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Walsh. Thank you. Madam Administrator, it is now my
    pleasure to recognize you for your opening statement and the
    full text of your testimony will appear in the record.

                    Administrator Whitman's Opening Remarks

        Ms. Whitman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, members of
    the committee. I am pleased once again to have this opportunity
    to discuss with you the President's budget request for the next
    fiscal year for the Environmental Protection Agency. The
    President's budget provides the Environmental Protection Agency
    with the funds EPA needs to efficiently and effectively carry
    out its mission to safeguard the environment and protect public
    health.
        As you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, in your opening remarks,
    the President's total request for EPA for fiscal year 2003 is
    $7.7 billion, and I am just rounding. You have it--all the
    numbers there. This request is a $200 million increase over
    last year's request. Overall, our proposed budget reflects the
    goals that President Bush and I share, leaving America's air
    cleaner, its water purer and its land better protected. I
    should also point out that EPA's proposed budget is part of the
    administration's record overall request of $44.1 billion for
    environmental and natural resources, the highest ever such
    request representing a $1.1 billion increase over enacted
    levels for the current fiscal year.
        If I may, Mr. Chairman, I would like to discuss some of the
    highlights of our proposal, while submitting a somewhat more
    detailed statement for the record. In addition, I know there
    are some specific questions that members will have, and I look
    forward to having the opportunity to discuss those once we are
    finished with the formal statements.
        First, almost half of our budget, as you know, goes for
    grants to State, local and tribal governments. This reflects
    our experience that many innovative, creative and effective
    environmental achievements are being made by State, local and
    county governments. As I have traveled around the country
    during the past year, I have seen some very exciting works in
    action, whether it is the preservation of additional land in
    the great swamp of New Jersey where Congressman Frelinghuysen
    and I had an event together, to the good work being done by
    Project Pride in Kentucky, the citizens down there, and in
    countless other communities across America. EPA is building
    strong partnerships for environmental success, and the results
    speak for themselves. In this budget, we will build on those
    results to achieve even greater environmental progress.
        Next, this budget more than doubles the funds available for
    Brownfield reclamation, providing $200 million. This money will
    lead to thousands of acres of better protected land in the
    years ahead. The success that so many communities have had in
    cleaning up our less challenging Brownfields will now be
    replicated in the more difficult sites, by cleaning up the more
    difficult sites that we find across the country.
        We have also continued to ask for steady funding for the
    Superfund program at $1.3 billion. I should also point out that
    our request for Brownfields funding is, in addition to the
    Superfund request, not a part of it, a change from the practice
    in the past. Third, this budget provides important funding for
    the New Watershed Initiative, again, as the Chairman mentioned:
    $21 million to enable us to identify 20 of America's most
    challenged watersheds to work in partnership with the States
    and local communities to help restore and protect those
    precious acres.
        This initiative will show the real results that
    partnerships can achieve, and how such partnerships can bring
    together existing programs in a united effort. That is an
    important aspect of what we are doing here with this proposal.
        Nonpoint source pollution is a critical challenge that we
    all face. The watershed initiative fits into that, and we
    propose funding the Nonpoint Source Grant program at $238.5
    million. As a result, this budget will help improve water
    quality for drinking, boating, swimming and fishing in the
    watersheds that we target.
        There are numerous other important initiatives in our
    proposed budget. They include funding to increase the
    development of new technologies for environmental progress,
    funding for research that could lead to significant curtailing
    of animal testing by building on the discoveries from the human
    genome project and funding to increase our knowledge base about
    air quality challenges so that we can help save lives and
    prevent illness, such as asthma among America's children. In
    addition, the combined funding that we have proposed for the
    drinking water and Clean Water StateRevolving Funds is the
    largest such combined request ever.
        Of course, our budget request also includes significant new
    money to help EPA meet its homeland security responsibilities.
    $124 million in new funding we are requesting will support such
    important efforts as protecting the Nation's drinking water
    infrastructure, by funding vulnerability assessments in the
    Nation's water utilities, securing additional equipment and
    personnel to expand our ability to respond to biological
    attacks, and investing in research designed to enable the
    Nation to better detect and respond to chemical or biological
    attacks.
        I am pleased to say, Mr. Chairman, that taken together, the
    President's proposed EPA budget for fiscal year 2003 fully
    supports the work of this Agency. It will enable us to
    transform EPA's 30-year mission to meet the challenges of the
    21st century, and it brings us that much closer to realizing
    our goal of cleaner air for all Americans to breathe, purer
    water for all Americans to drink and swim and fish, and better
    protected land for all Americans to enjoy and cherish for the
    generations to come.
        Thank you very much, and I would be pleased to answer your
    questions.
        [The information follows:]

                  [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Walsh. Thank you. We will proceed with questions now.

                            INDOOR AIR AND RESEARCH

        I would like to begin my questioning this morning with a
    discussion of the importance of and the budget request for
    indoor environments. We all recognize that EPA has no statutory
    authority to regulate indoor air. Common sense dictates that
    the indoor environment each of us deals with on a daily basis
    contributes greatly to numerous health-related issues. Indeed,
    some of the studies indicate that Americans spend as much as 90
    percent of their time indoors, where they are exposed to levels
    of certain pollutants far greater than those found out of
    doors. The fallout literally from the World Trade Center attack
    and the surrounding neighborhoods, homes and apartments, and
    the experience of the anthrax cleanup, have only emphasized the
    importance of the issues surrounding indoor air.
        I am aware that the EPA's budget includes the objective to
    ensure healthier indoor air within its preventing pollution
    activity. Within that objective, some $40 million is requested
    for 2003, which I should note is an increase of $652,000
    compared to fiscal year 2002. Of this $40 million-plus, $38.5
    million appears to be available to carry out the agency's
    principal program strategy for indoor environments, which is to
    increase public awareness and increase partnerships.
        Among the activities funded in this area are the children's
    indoor environments program, the indoor environment program for
    houses, schools and buildings, radon detection and education
    programs, and the radon and air grants made through the
    agency's STAG account. I am confident these are all fine
    programs, but my comments--and my comments should not be
    perceived as a criticism. Rather, I am trying to make the point
    that while significant funds are being spent to educate people
    about the dangers posed by indoor environments, precious little
    is being spent to conduct research aimed at detecting and
    resolving many of these indoor air problems. Of the $40 million
    provided in this area, just $1.7 million is proposed for
    research. An added complex to all this has to do with the very
    subject for which I praised you and your employees just a few
    moments ago, fighting terrorist attempts like anthrax which
    severely impact on indoor environments.
        It seems to me that among other things, we should be doing
    significant research aimed at developing building defense
    systems for chemical and biological attacks. I was approached
    just last week by a group who have developed a consumer-sized
    sensing system for water, but not for air. Unfortunately this
    also appears to me to be missing in the EPA's budget
    submission. Other similar research areas that seem to be
    missing as well might include the development, evaluation and
    demonstration of advanced indoor environmental quality
    technologies. The more advanced understanding of air, heat,
    moisture and contaminant transport within buildings. The indoor
    environment impacts resulting from air and contaminant flow
    around homes and buildings and the interaction of indoor air
    quality, thermal comfort, lighting and acoustic quality, and
    the effect that these have on human health and productivity.
        Madam Administrator, I would not ask you to respond at this
    time to each of these suggested research areas, although you
    may wish to or you may wish to do so at a later time in the
    record. Rather, I would ask whether you agree that we are not
    doing enough in this area of indoor environmental research.
        Ms. Whitman. Well, Mr. Chairman, we have a number of
    different research actions or research programs underway right
    now aimed at understanding the health effects of indoor
    pollutants and reducing the risk of those contaminants. That
    research is across the board. It is not always focused solely
    on indoor air. Sometimes we are looking at the contaminant
    itself and what the long-term health impact is of that. It may
    not appear as being just an indoor air quality problem, because
    we are looking at biological contaminants, particulate matter,
    volatile organic compounds. There are 13 research labs across
    the country with which EPA works. We have our own labs, and we
    also contract to ensure that we are focusing on what you have
    identified as--and we believe are also very important issues.
        We do need to get a better understanding of, I believe, how
    we put together a program on indoor air to meet the kind of
    challenge that we faced at the World Trade Center. As you may
    know, the Office of Homeland Security has formed an inter-
    agency building air protection work group, of which the EPA is
    a member, that is directed to do--precisely the kind of
    research you were talking about, to meet those individual
    challenges. But as you pointed out, we also have, and are
    doing, a lot of work on children's health risk. We are focusing
    on the long-term health effects of biological contaminants
    found in the indoor air environment and what we can do to
    prevent them. The Indoor Air Quality tools for schools program
    that you talked about and the education program are all a part
    of making people aware of what they can do to reduce their
    exposure.
        We have a pollution prevention research program that we are
    funding to develop tools to characterize and prevent emissions
    of biological contaminants from indoor sources.Again, focused
    primarily on indoor air. We have a particulate matter research program.
    I would be happy to take the list that you enumerated and get back to
    you on all of those, because I don't know all of them off the top of my
    head, but suffice it to say that we do have a very robust research part
    of the Agency.
        In fact, research and sound science are the very core of
    the Agency. Without that we cannot make the kinds of decisions
    and determinations that we are required to make. So we are very
    sensitive to that issue, and are looking for ways to
    continually ensure that sound science is integrated at the
    onset of any decision-making process and to make sure that the
    research that we are doing is the very best that can be done.
        [The information follows:]

                     Indoor Air Quality Technology Research

        EPA conducts research on indoor air quality as a component
    of several larger multi-disciplinary research programs. These
    programs include efforts aimed at understanding: (1) the
    sources of indoor pollutants; (2) levels of pollutants people
    are exposed to indoors, particularly sensitive sub-populations;
    (3) health effects associated with indoor pollutants of concern
    (biological and chemical); and (4) techniques to reduce risks
    from indoor contaminants. Specific areas of research include
    studies to better understand the sources, causes and options to
    mitigate childhood asthma; research to better understand the
    impacts of biological and chemical indoor pollutants on human
    health; and research to understand the relationship between
    outdoor and indoor pollutant concentrations and quantify
    exposures.
        Additionally, as part of the FY 2003 President's Budget
    Request, $75 million is proposed for Homeland Security
    research. EPA plans to work collaboratively with other federal
    agencies and the private sector on better ways to detect and
    contain biological and chemical warfare agents and bulk
    industrial chemicals in buildings, and research to improve
    techniques to decontaminate buildings once a contaminant has
    been introduced, and evaluate safe disposal of residuals. The
    Agency will also pursue an aggressive program to transfer all
    available and new information to those who would need to
    respond to any future building contamination events. Selected
    research activities to be pursued include development, testing,
    and verification of detection devices (technologies will be
    developed and evaluated for rapid detection and measurement of
    contaminants to support pre- and post-clean up monitoring and
    assessment, worker protection, risk assessment, and early
    warning of contamination events), studies to understand
    dispersal of biological and chemical contaminants in and around
    buildings, air cleaning/filtration and decontamination of rooms
    and HVAC ducts, chemical and physical methods for
    decontamination of indoor surfaces, risk assessments of
    decontamination methods, assessment of conditions for safe
    incineration and disposal of residuals, field testing of new
    approaches by first responders, and tools for rapid assessment
    of risks on site.

                          AIR QUALITY: LOWER MANHATTAN

        Mr. Walsh. Given the intensity of the experience we have
    just had relating to indoor air, I have spoken with Congressman
    Nadler, whose district encompasses the World Trade Center
    neighborhood and Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, whose
    constituency also is just to the south of the World Trade
    Center. They have grave concerns about the health of those
    neighborhoods, and it would seem to me anyway, that this would
    be an ideal time to focus that research more--rather than to
    shop it out to 13 different centers. I am just not aware of a
    focus on it or more intensity to that research because of the
    experiences we have just seen.
        Ms. Whitman. Well, that certainly is a point that I have
    actually just discussed yesterday with our Office of Research
    and Development. There is a great deal more we do need to know.
    We need to figure out the best ways to do it. We do have a
    specific task force that we have called together for lower
    Manhattan. I would just hasten to use this opportunity to add
    that we have taken over 10,000 air samples in lower Manhattan
    and in the environs.
        We have been very cognizant of the concerns and the needs
    of the citizens, and we recommended from the very beginning
    that people who went back into their homes that contained a
    great deal of dust, get professional cleaners, and understand
    that they need to continually clean with a heightened sense of
    attention, using the HEPA vac and the wet wipe. We have been
    working very closely with the City of New York in providing
    that information to citizens and to businesses in lower
    Manhattan. We have looked and done the air quality sampling.
    ATSDR did some sampling and found that the indoor air quality
    did not show significant elevated levels to cause concern of
    asbestos in the air or the other particulate matter.
        In dust, however, they did find some elevated levels, and
    that would, again, bring us back to the point that we have been
    making continuously, which is, you need to clean in an
    appropriate way, and in fact you probably should get
    professional cleaners in when you first go back into a home.
    But as far as your concern of concentrating the work done on
    the research, I would be happy to work with you on that and
    have our science advisor, once we get him confirmed, work with
    you on that as well.
        Mr. Walsh. We can't help you there.
        Ms. Whitman. Oh, you have lots of influence.
        Mr. Walsh. Maybe we can.
        Well, if we could find a way to make sure that your other
    research priorities were met and work with you to provide some
    resources for this more focused research on indoor air quality,
    would you be willing to advocate and support that?
        Ms. Whitman. I am certainly willing to work with you to see
    what makes the most sense. I would have to bow to the advice of
    the scientists of the Agency, because they are the ones who
    know best how to maximize the research that we are getting, and
    I am not a scientist. I would have to go with them.
        Mr. Walsh. Thank you.
        Mr. Mollohan.

                              BROWNFIELDS CLEANUP

        Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Governor Whitman,
    the budget includes a doubling of funding forBrownfields
    cleanups to implement the new law passed in September, the total goes
    from $98 to $200 million, an increase for which you are to be commended
    and for which I suspect most Members of Congress will be enthusiastic,
    given the extent of the problem with pollution at industrial sites in
    many of our communities, certainly in my Congressional district.
        Can you tell us how the newly expanded program will work
    and, in particular, how funds will be allocated to the States
    and to individual projects by EPA?
        Ms. Whitman. We are in the process now of finalizing how to
    move forward with the program and how we are going to work with
    the States on these various programs. $50 million in the
    funding will go to the States themselves. We have a grant
    competition that we anticipate an outreach and support of the
    Brownfields, there are a number of activities that we will be
    undertaking that include the programs themselves and the
    administrative expenses.
        We are looking to work with the States to help identify
    those Brownfields that are the ones that can be most readily
    addressed through the monies that we are going to be providing
    them. They will have the opportunity to establish their
    programs to determine how they want to address Brownfield
    challenges in their States. We are going to have $50 million to
    fund new functions and activities that will be created with
    this budget, revolving loan funds that will be managed by the
    State, funding of insurance mechanisms to provide incentives
    for cleanup, additional funds for targeted Brownfields site
    assessment.
        We are going to be working very closely with the States in
    providing them the technical assistance they need to better do
    the assessments, and we look forward to seeing a very robust
    program here.

                        BROWNFIELDS: PETROLEUM SET-ASIDE

        Mr. Mollohan. You said $50 million was to go to the States
    themselves. There is a requirement in the law that 25 percent
    of the funding is to go to petroleum cleanup.
        Ms. Whitman. Right.
        Mr. Mollohan. How are you interpreting that 25 percent?
    What base are you operating off of?
        Ms. Whitman. The 25 percent is off the $121 million that
    will be awarded in grants. The way we do it--the money that
    will actually go to the cleanups. The $30.3 million 25 percent
    of the $121 million.
        Mr. Mollohan. There is some disagreement about what that
    base ought to be.
        Ms. Whitman. I know there are those who question, but this
    is the way that we have been doing it. That is kind of the
    traditional way that the agency has done it. That is off the
    money that actually goes in the grants.
        Mr. Mollohan. How will the petroleum program work?
        Ms. Whitman. Well, for the first time, the public law now
    allows the cleanup of the petroleum sites within Brownfields
    area in conjunction with Brownfields assessment and cleanup.
    There would be $30 million a year if the $200 million is
    appropriated. For the first time this will allow us to get at
    things like gas stations, which form a bulk of the Brownfields,
    and allow for the liability protection as well as providing
    additional dollars to the States to be able to address these
    issues.
        Mr. Mollohan. So how is it going to work? Is it a formula
    program to the States?
        Ms. Whitman. It is not a flat amount. It will be similar to
    the way that we have done Brownfields to date. It is modeled on
    the Brownfields program that we have had as a part of the
    Superfund program, which has been very successful as far as it
    has gone. We don't anticipate any dramatic changes to the
    current Brownfields program, because, as I say, that has worked
    well. What we have here, though, is an expansion of authority
    to these petroleum sites that we were not able to get at
    before. Of course, there is the liability protection, which I
    feel is going to be, in fact, the most important part of this
    program, because it will allow for more private sector dollars
    to come into play here. The $30 million will be competitive for
    the petroleum.
        Mr. Mollohan. Be competitive----
        Ms. Whitman. Competitive applications.
        Mr. Mollohan. That will be run out of EPA, not out of the
    States.
        Mr. Walsh. Could you please identify yourself for the
    record?
        Ms. Horinko. Marianne Horinko, assistant administrator
    for----
        Ms. Whitman. Assistant administrator for Solid Waste
    Emergency and Response.
        Ms. Horinko. The Brownfields program will include $50
    million that will go to the States, to develop their programs
    to provide liability protection and technical assistance for
    both petroleum and nonpetroleum sites. It is a general $50
    million and will be a formula grant to the States for all
    Brownfields sites. Of the $121 million in grant money, 25
    percent will be specifically earmarked for tank sites, and so
    communities and other eligible potential recipients will submit
    applications, much as they do now. We will have a competitive
    process for awarding those grants, but 25 percent will be
    specifically earmarked for underground storage tanks.
        Mr. Mollohan. And run out of EPA.
        Ms. Horinko. Yes.
        Mr. Mollohan. And the $50 million to the States, is that
    for administration?
        Ms. Horinko. That will actually be for States to primarily
    strengthen their voluntary cleanup programs. The law contains a
    bar on EPA taking enforcement action where the States have
    actually developed voluntary cleanup programs that oversee
    Brownfields cleanups, and we feel that a critical part of
    making the law successful is ensuring that States have robust
    voluntary cleanup programs that really have the muscle to run
    programs that can oversee Brownfields cleanup.
        So this $50 million is really capacity building for State
    programs to oversee Brownfields so that we can feel confident
    that when States take action and declare a Brownfields clean,
    that these are good robust programs.
        Ms. Whitman. And some of that money will also be used,
    won't it, Marianne, to help them identify their Brownfield
    sites and to assess those sites?
        Ms. Horinko. That's right.
        Ms. Whitman. The funds can be used to determine the amount
    of pollutant, the type of pollutant that they are facing,
    because that will have a big impact on potential use, future
    use of that site.
        Mr. Mollohan. How did you decide how much money to put into
    the petroleum cleanup part of the program?
        Ms. Horinko. I believe the 25 percent was a formula in the
    law.
        Ms. Whitman. It was formula driven.
        Mr. Mollohan. I know it is, but how did you decide which
    base to use?
        Ms. Horinko. We consulted with our Office of General
    Counsel, and they indicated to us that using this $121 million
    base is consistent with the way similar set-asides were
    interpreted in the Clean Water Act programs. I believe a
    similar approach is used in the Clean Water Act Revolving Loan
    Fund and other big grant programs. So it is consistent with the
    way we do business in other parts of the agency.
        Mr. Mollohan. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Walsh. Thank you. Mr. Frelinghuysen.

                                ANTHRAX CLEAN UP

        Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Governor Whitman, good morning. Let me echo the sentiments
    and remarks of Chairman Walsh and ranking member Mollohan in
    terms of the work of your EPA staff, not only here in
    Washington, but the good people in Region 3 who were on the
    ground immediately after September 11th, and they are still on
    the ground doing important things to assure public safety and
    welfare, do the air sampling. Some have suggested that you
    haven't been vigorous enough, but from what I heard--and I know
    most of your people from Region 3 live in the area, so they
    have a personal stake in helping, and this has taken a huge
    emotional toll, I know, on a lot of people. But I want to
    commend you and your staff for a lot of professionalism and
    compassion. If more needs to be done, we will support you.
        Ms. Whitman. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Frelinghuysen. And then you add in the fact that our
    State appears to be the origin of this anthrax situation. A lot
    of time and effort has been spent, certainly, in tracking that
    down, but reassuring a lot of people that--who were handling
    mail that--it has sort of gone off the radar screen, but from
    your agency standpoint, it never goes off the radar screen.
    From what I can gather, the laboratories in your area harks
    back to the 1940s, and I have been told by your Region 3
    administrator, that that might be worthwhile to do some more
    investment. The burden on your agency is huge, and you are
    dealing with a pretty antiquated situation.
        I would also like to thank you, since you were good enough
    to mention in your opening remarks, for coming up to New Jersey
    to my district to assist--a big assist in transferring a
    Superfund site from one Federal agency to another. You would
    think we were trying to move the mountain here. You would think
    agencies would be able to cooperate, and I want to thank you
    and your staff for confronting the virtual paralysis which was
    associated with that site and for moving that transfer along
    and accomplishing it.

                           SUPERFUND REAUTHORIZATION

        I would like to focus, if I could for a few minutes--I know
    in your prepared remarks, in your testimony, you highlighted
    Brownfields. Many of us are concerned about the future of the
    Superfund program. So maybe starting with a budget, can you
    sort of review where we are going with Superfund? There is an
    issue of reauthorization. Where are we going in terms of the
    EPA's budget for Superfund?
        Ms. Whitman. I would be happy to answer that, because I
    think it is very important. There has been a lot of discussion
    about what is happening with Superfund and some concern has
    been raised about the Agency's commitment to polluter pays as
    an approach. The budget is $1.3 billion, which as I mentioned
    earlier in my testimony, is exclusive of Brownfields. That $200
    million for Brownfields is separate from the Superfund dollars
    and used to be part of it. So the $1.3 billion is exclusively
    for Superfund.
        $593 million will come out of the trust fund this year for
    this year's budget, and about $700 million out of general
    revenues. We are continuing to see about 70 percent of the
    sites cleaned up by polluter with polluter paying. That is not
    the same as saying that 70 percent of the dollars, it is the
    sites, because some sites are more expensive, and in fact, it
    may be more than that or it may be less. The important thing is
    that we continue to see real results here. The problem we
    have--and I know it is one that you share--is that the number
    of sites that will be completed over the coming year has
    dropped.
        That number, has dropped not so much because of money and
    the trust fund levels, reauthorization or nonreauthorization of
    the trust fund dollars, as the drop comes from a number of
    different problems. I am very concerned about it. Some of them
    have to do with the fact that the most recent past history of
    Superfund has been focusing on sites closest to completion and
    completing those and not starting on some of the others. We
    find ourselves now in a position with a number of mega sites,
    very large, very polluted sites, that require a lot of
    attention and require a lot of dollars. That is slowing down
    the number of completions we think that we can achieve.
        However, we are doing it--going as fast as we can. I have
    asked that a pipeline study be done, and Marianne is actually
    in charge of that. Within 3 weeks, she will have to do a study
    of how we move things through the pipeline. How are we
    targeting which are the most important Superfund sites? I mean,
    for instance, on a mega fund site, if there is one, part of it
    that is particularly hazardous to the surrounding community,
    should we clean that up first. Then, if the rest of it isn't so
    bad, stop and go to the other site where it is that intense?
        We need to take a look at how we handle Superfund sites,
    whether we are doing it in the right way, and that should be
    ready to be submitted to me within 3 weeks. We also are going
    to launch a national dialogue with NACEPI on the future scope
    of the NPL and moving beyond construction completions to
    achieve more meaningful environmental outcomes.

                                 SUPERFUND TAX

        Mr. Frelinghuysen. But the public perception in the
    newspapers is that somehow the administration is backing off
    from the notions that polluters pay. That is not the case.
        Ms. Whitman. No. That is not the case.
        Mr. Frelinghuysen. They are somewhat forgetting the fact
    that the trust fund is running out of money, that Congress has
    enacted--because the taxes haven't been collected since
    December of 1995, to that--and we are not suggesting that those
    that have paid those taxes are polluters, but there is a
    certain percent of what you are using for revenue, which
    polluters are actually paying. Is there a dollar amount in
    terms of----
        Ms. Whitman. $1.7 billion last year.
        Mr. Frelinghuysen. Well, in terms of what responsible
    parties are paying, is that the figure.
        Ms. Whitman. $1.7 billion is what responsible parties paid
    last year.
        Mr. Frelinghuysen. I know that you and your predecessor,
    you more than your predecessor, have worked with Congress in
    terms of getting Brownfields legislation. What are we doing
    relative to working with authorizing committees on this issue
    in terms of requesting the renewal of the tax?
        Ms. Whitman. The President did not include the renewal of
    the tax in the budget request this year. The feeling was that
    Congress has failed to reauthorize since 1995. We are
    continuing to fund Superfund at the same level as last year.
    And that is where the confusion comes in. People assume because
    the trust fund is winding down--I believe it will be at 28
    million next year, which is--you know, we are going to have to
    find the money elsewhere. We have been----
        Mr. Frelinghuysen. Well, that elsewhere is the
    discretionary----
        Ms. Whitman. Right. But that still doesn't go to the
    polluter pays principle. As I said, about 70 percent of the
    sites are continuing to be paid for by the responsible parties
    where we can identify them, and that is critical. The other
    money is spent on those sites that we call orphan sites; ones
    where we can't identify the responsible party or where the
    responsible party has gone bankrupt, and we have no way of
    getting to them.
        So we look forward to working with Congress. There are
    obviously concerns about the Superfund program itself, and a
    need for another look at it. Reform of Superfund has been an
    issue that has been discussed for some time: liability,
    clearing up the liabilities, giving some liability protection
    there, understanding, whether school boards are liable when
    they have sites that are in Superfund areas, those kinds of
    things.
        And I would be happy to work with Congress on how we move
    that forward. But right now, the important thing is to
    understand that the same amount of dollars are going to
    Superfund as have gone in the past. We anticipate continuing to
    move forward with cleanups, but we do recognize another problem
    that really is one of how we have identified these sites and
    how big the ones remaining sites are.
        Mr. Frelinghuysen. We have existing sites that need to be
    cleaned up, they need resources, and as you point out, larger
    sites appear to be identified and added to the list. And I may
    be speaking from the minority position, but we need to
    reauthorize the Superfund program. I think it is entirely
    appropriate.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Walsh. Thank you, Rodney.
        Mrs. Meek.

                   BROWNFIELDS PROGRAM: LIABILITY PROTECTION

        Mrs. Meek. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome back,
    Governor Whitman. Good to have you here.
        Again, my favorite subject is Brownfields. Last year you
    promised this committee quite a few things about Brownfields,
    and guess what? You kept your promise. Thank you for that.
        In my Congressional district, I have 19 Brownfields, and
    most of it is located in the older areas of my district. And
    very little is being done about them, and it also causes sort
    of a catch-22 when it comes to the utilization of community
    development block grant funds, which is used quite a bit in
    housing and other things, but we can't get developers in there,
    because of the problems with Brownfields. And everyone is
    concerned about rebuilding these neighborhoods, one at a time,
    but it is very difficult, because certainly developers would
    rather go into the suburbs where it is much easier, there is no
    problem with Brownfields there.
        So you asked for an increase last year, and you just told
    us there is money in the program, and you also said we needed
    to pass legislation, which we did. So now I would like to know
    what can you do with such a small amount of money to--in the
    inventories phase, someone has asked about this. Will you be
    able to coordinate with HUD in terms of implementing a
    Brownfields program? My major point is that we really need the
    Brownfields program to exist, particularly in the older urban
    areas.
        Ms. Whitman. Congresswoman, I couldn't agree with you more.
        Mrs. Meek. Excuse me. I want to tell you your region has
    worked very closely with us.
        Ms. Whitman. I want to say that that is one of the reasons
    why we had such strong support from the mayors across the
    country for the Brownfields legislation that you all passed,
    and we are very thankful for that.
        Let me just put aside my EPA hat for a second and return to
    my previous job as a governor. I think the biggest, most
    effective thing in this Brownfields legislation, to address the
    needs that you have brought up, is the liability protection.
    There is never going to be enough money. It is not a question
    of the Federal Government paying for all the Brownfields
    cleanup, but as we certainly saw in New Jersey, we were
    aggressive in providing legislation at the State level to offer
    incentives and to provide some protection for developers. But
    we could never offer them the surety that Superfund liability
    wasn't going to come in on top of them.
        You did that with this law. You give them that sense that
    they could move forward, and if they had not had any kind of
    involvement with the previous contamination and under certain
    very limited circumstances, if it didn't migrate into another
    site or on to a Federal site and pose an immediate health
    hazard, they would not be held liable. That is what is really
    going to free up the developers. There are a number of them now
    that have begun to develop expertise in the area of Brownfield
    sites cleanup. That has become their niche in the market, and
    with the kind of protection that Congress has now given them
    with the Brownfields legislation, I believe you are going to
    see a great deal.
        Having said that, we have requested a doubling of the
    amount of money for the Brownfields program to allow us to
    engage with the States in technical assistance and provide them
    the money to help do the kind of assessment on Brownfield sites
    that they need to do.

                           TITLE VI: CIVIL RIGHTS ACT

        Mrs. Meek. Thank you very much. My next question has to do
    with Title VI, the Civil Rights Act, and some of the complaints
    that EPA has been receiving long before you got there,
    governor. And they are still there. They are areas in which we
    really need protection for our children in our community,
    because they are chosen as toxic waste sites, and your agency
    gives them permits. And these permits give them a chance to
    build on these toxic waste sites so that it creates a big
    problem for people, particularly people of color in
    neighborhoods.
        Now, I know that these complaints have been here for years,
    and I am just asking you for some further insight as to which
    strategy are you going to use in trying to resolve some of
    these complaints, and hopefully it will get a little bit
    farther up on your priority list.
        Ms. Whitman. Well, Congresswoman, I have to tell you,
    particularly since our discussion last year, it has been
    something that has been at the forefront and environmental
    justice for new programs is something that is taken into
    consideration by the agency any time we make a decision. As of
    January the 31st of this year, the backlog of the Title VI
    cases had been reduced from 66 to 42. That is about a 36
    percent reduction in those Title VI cases. On Title VII cases,
    we have reduced the backlog by 90 percent. While no decision on
    the merits have yet been issued, as a result of the task force
    operations that are underway, we expect to propose resolution
    on a number of the complaints in the next few months. We have
    assigned a task force to it. We have increased the staffing,
    the attention to this, and it has become a very high priority
    for the Agency. We are working hard to work our way through the
    issues that are involved in these various complaints.

                            ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION

        Mrs. Meek. Thank you. Now, in terms of environmental
    education, I don't think it was a good decision to move that
    from EPA and place it under the National Science Foundation. I
    don't think it will get the priority treatment that your agency
    gave it. Of course, I have a feeling it came from EPA--not from
    EPA, but from OMB, and I am not asking you that question,
    Governor. I just know that that should have been--remained
    under your agency, because that environmental education is so
    important to the children and to the people in the communities.
    And it is my understanding, Mr. Chairman, that it is going to
    stay under this committee anyway--Mr. Chairman?
        Mr. Walsh. Yes?
        Mrs. Meek. I understand that environmental education is
    going to stay under the reaches of this committee. So I would
    just like to ask you to keep it in here when it comes here.
        Mr. Walsh. I thank the gentlewoman. I have questions about
    that issue, too, and I agree that the program has been well run
    by EPA. We need to hear more about the issue.
        Mrs. Meek. Yes. Thank you. You heard that. That is a
    promise.
        Mr. Walsh. I didn't promise anything.
        Mrs. Meek. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Walsh. A promise is a promise if it is a promise.

                              DEEP WELL INJECTION

        Mrs. Meek. You have helped us with our deepwell injection
    in Florida. We are the only State with that kind of wastewater
    treatment. And it is becoming a little bit of a problem, but
    not enough for me to wave a red flag, but we want to continue
    to--it appears to me that there needs to be some kind of
    concentrated look at this, in that in Florida, some cities and
    municipalities and jurisdictions are using one way of treating
    that. Others use it another way. And it could become a problem.
    So if you will ask your research people to continue to look at
    the deepwell injection, it will help us tremendously, and I
    thank you very much.
        Ms. Whitman. Congresswoman, on that, let me just say we
    expect to make the draft relative risk assessment report, which
    is a relative risk assessment of wastewater management
    operations for treated effluent in South Florida, available for
    public comment this Spring, and complete the assessment in the
    Summer of 2002. We published a proposed rule on July 7th of
    2000, and we are looking forward to completing that for the
    Florida class 1 wells.

                                 LEAD POISONING

        Mrs. Meek. Thank you. And thank you for your treatment of
    lead poisoning. That is a big problem in my district, and
    particularly among the poor communities and the children. I was
    pleased to read in your budget justification that some of your
    lead activities will lead toward a stronger contribution to
    eliminating lead poisoning of our Nation's children. I think
    that is a very worthwhile goal, and thank you.
        Ms. Whitman. We definitely made that a goal, and it was a
    charge that I gave one of our advisory committees. That is an
    entirely preventable problem. We should be able to deal with
    lead poisoning as it affects our children and as it affects all
    of us.
        I would like to just comment on the Star program----
        Mrs. Meek. Yes.
        Ms. Whitman. It is being moved to the National Science
    Foundation to consolidate the educational programs, but the
    funding for the minority academic institutions still stays with
    us and will continue to stay within the Agency. I just wanted
    to clarify that for you.
        Mrs. Meek. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Walsh. Thank you. Mrs. Northup.
        Mrs. Northup. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome----
        Ms. Whitman. Administrator.
        Mrs. Northup. Madam Administrator. I want to say Secretary.
        Ms. Whitman. We would love it if you could----

                           VEHICLE EMISSIONS TESTING

        Mrs. Northup. No. I have never quite understood the
    distinction, but clearly you--much of what your department does
    is of great interest to the people across this country and in
    my community.
        There is a lot of focus these days in my community about
    the vehicle emissions testing program, and I think there is a
    lot of debate going on currently right now in our State
    legislature where they are actually being asked to take some
    actions, and a lot of misinformation. So I would sort of like
    to start with that and ask you several questions.
        There is a strong belief in my county that improved air
    emission controls on new cars, that gasoline additives that
    have improved air emissions, and the local law that requires a
    minimal investment by older cars, has reduced the effectiveness
    and the benefit derived by the VET program, the vehicle
    emission testing program, to the point that the benefits no
    longer outweigh the time and cost. And I just wondered if you
    would tell me, what would happen if our State legislature
    eliminated the VET program entirely?
        Ms. Whitman. Well, Congresswoman, in the Louisville area,
    they are now in attainment.
        Mrs. Northup. Yes, they are.
        Ms. Whitman. Therefore, there is not a requirement that
    they implement that program. The requirement under the Clean
    Air Act is that they be able to show us a modeling plan that
    guarantees their continued attainment for a 10-year period. How
    they choose to reach that attainment is really up to their
    discretion, because they are in attainment now, unlike some
    other areas, that unfortunately Congressman Frelinghuysen and I
    know it only too well. Of 21 counties in New Jersey, 18 were
    out of attainment, so we were told we had to have the enhanced
    inspection maintenance. But in Louisville, because they are in
    attainment, they don't have to. We are not enforcing that,
    except that under the Clean Air Act, they do need to be able to
    show a modeling plan that would show they can stay in
    attainment for the next 10 years.
        Mrs. Northup. So if the legislature cancelled the program,
    we would expect that our State would have to go back to the
    drawing board to--in a sense--enact a new SIP program, a State
    Implementation Program, that would capture the benefits that
    have been captured by the VET previously in order to stay in
    attainment.
        Ms. Whitman. Exactly.
        Mrs. Northup. Would they have some time to do that? I mean,
    let us say the legislature canceled the program in the next 2
    weeks. Federal highway dollars don't stop flowing in the next 2
    weeks, do they?
        Ms. Whitman. No, they don't. And I know Region 4 has been
    working closely with the legislators to try to work our way
    through this, working with the department--I don't know whether
    they are called the Department of Environmental Protection or
    the Environmental Quality Agency--but we have been working very
    closely with the State to try to keep them from getting into
    any kind of a situation where you would have an immediate
    negative impact. But clearly it is an issue. We are driven by
    the law; we can't put people at risk. We need to ensure that
    they can provide that certainty about keeping the air clean,
    and the better way from our perspective to do it would be to
    have the SIP plan reworked and have some indication prior to an
    elimination.
        Mrs. Northup. I think the problem is that they have not
    been able to get any cooperation with the State drafting a new
    SIP program. I mean, the truth is only Jefferson County cars,
    which Kentucky has 120 counties, that gives you an idea of how
    small a county is in a geographic area. So many of the people
    who commute to and from work into Jefferson County, which is
    the only county that has to have the testing, actually bring
    cars that are untested. So nobody else in the State
    particularly minds that Jefferson County has a vehicle
    emissions testing program. Jefferson County residents feel they
    are bearing the burden that should be more widespread. So I
    guess my question is if the legislature eliminated the vehicle
    emissions testing, then in a sense you would be calling upon
    the State. They would have to draft the time----
        Ms. Whitman. We would give them time. We would not
    immediately impose the sanctions.

                                    MOBILE 6

        Mrs. Northup. Okay. Let me ask you further, I understand
    that about one-sixth of the benefits we derive from all of the
    actions we took to get into compliance come from the vehicle
    emissions testing program. So that would be about 16 percent.
    There is a new model, MOBILE 6, that is coming out. To date,
    communities that have run the benefits of their current vehicle
    emissions testing under the new model, do they get an increased
    number of credits or a decreased number of credits?
        Ms. Whitman. I will get Jeff Holmstead, the Assistant
    Administrator for Air and Radiation to answer this question.
    This is too technical for me.
        Mrs. Northup. There is a new model we are going to be using
    at some point; is that correct?
        Mr. Holmstead. That is correct, MOBILE 6.
        Mrs. Northup. Would we expect, based on communities that
    have already run this model based on their current VET test, do
    they get more credits or fewer credits for their vehicle
    admission testing based on the new model?
        Mr. Holmstead. The model is highly specific on the mix in
    different areas. So I think we all need to understand that. But
    in general, the new test shows that cars are more durable and
    get better performance than we previously thought, which is
    good news. The bad news is it suggests that these sorts of
    vehicle I/M programs don't give you as much credit as we
    previously thought.
        Mrs. Northup. So if we get 16 percent of our sort of
    compliance credits right now, it is probable maybe that we
    would get fewer than that and we are going to have to put in
    place in the SIP program anyway, I take it, new initiatives to
    stay in compliance.
        Mr. Holmstead. That is correct. We would certainly use the
    new MOBILE 6 model, in terms of looking at the benefit for
    these sorts of programs; but I think as you explained, the key
    thing now is that the State needs to have a maintenance plan. I
    think we are prepared to work very closely with the State to do
    that, whether it is some sort of I/M program or some other
    program that would get equivalent reductions.

             VEHICLE EMISSIONS TESTING: IMPACT OF DROPPING PROGRAM

        Mrs. Northup. And I hope you will. I have to say that from
    my own experience, I have lived there through the entire time,
    I think that the VET program was very popular because it was
    very clear to all of us who lived in Jefferson County that our
    air needed to be cleaned up, and it is not just something you
    measure with highly technical equipment. You can see all the
    way downtown in my community these days in the middle of
    summer, and there is great support for the effects of this. The
    decrease in support is coming from the fact that more and more
    people's cars are passing. They are aware that they are paying
    a high price for their cars to get this improved equipment.
    They see more and more people coming, commuting into our
    county. It would be highly politically unpopular to get those
    counties to adopt a VET program, and it is becoming very
    unpopular, and so I am eager to know what our alternatives are
    and how we can responsibly address the very strong support for
    clean air with what is the best way to get there.
        Let me ask you, I am aware that there are some communities
    and some States that have dropped their vehicle emissions
    testing, where have they gone to redraft their SIP program and
    capture the number of credits they need, not just so they stay
    in compliance with the EPA but so that they also have the clean
    air, which is the whole point of it?
        Mr. Holmstead. There are a whole variety of things that
    States have done, though I can't tell you specifically for the
    areas where States have eliminated I/M programs, but there are
    other sorts of vehicle programs. There are fleet programs, that
    are retrofitting existing fleets of school buses. There are a
    lot of things that can be done.
        Now, 16 percent or whatever the number is, is no small
    feat. And as you well know, I think the folks in your area have
    done an excellent job of looking for the kinds of programs and
    have been very effective in cleaning up the air. But there are
    a variety of things, and we would be quite happy to sit down
    with you or folks in the State to walk through the options that
    they might have to replace the reductions that they would lose
    if they were to eliminate the I/M program.
        Mrs. Northup. Have you all done any sort of cost-benefit
    analysis with any of the States that have dropped it, comparing
    what the total cost is for the VET program that was eliminated,
    with the cost that other entities are required to pay in order
    to absorb the responsibility for clean air?
        Mr. Holmstead. I am sure we have, but I don't know off the
    top of my head how those programs stack up. One of the things
    that is difficult in looking at costs and benefits is looking
    at the cost to people just in the inconvenience of using up
    their time. And so when we look at the costs of ourdifferent
    programs, in some cases you can readily identify what the cost is and
    we can measure how much people have to pay for the programs, how much
    they have to pay to fix the cars that don't pass, but actually costing
    out the hassle factor is a hard thing to do.
        Mrs. Northup. Right.
        Mr. Holmstead. I think we have made an attempt at that, and
    we would be happy to provide you with some estimates of the
    costs and benefits of this program compared to other programs
    that are available.
        [The information follows:]

                  [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mrs. Northup. You might just be interested in what has
    happened in my city, is some of the possible adjustments we
    could make to the VET that would make it less onerous; for
    example, having cars tested just every other year, or new cars
    not tested, has brought a suit from the company that does it,
    saying that reducing his income is something that county would
    have to make up those dollars. So you know, it is----
        Ms. Whitman. It is not an unusual case, unfortunately. It
    depends on the contract. We have seen the same thing.
        Mrs. Northup. Well, the contract says if the district takes
    any actions. It is not clear if the legislature eliminated the
    program outright that there would be anybody required to meet
    those revenue expectations. Thank you.
        Mr. Walsh. The gentlelady's time has expired.
        Mr. Price.

                        RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK FACILITY

        Mr. Price. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Governor, welcome back
    to the committee. I appreciate your testimony. I want to also
    extend a special welcome to your new chief financial officer,
    Dr. Linda Combs, who came to you from the Treasury Department,
    where she was Assistant Secretary for Management. But before
    that, as you probably know, she has a respectable North
    Carolina pedigree.
        Ms. Whitman. I couldn't tell it from the way she speaks.
        Mr. Price. Hard to figure. She was the education adviser to
    our Governor, she served on the Board of Education in Winston-
    Salem and was an executive for Wachovia Bank, so she is well-
    equipped for this new assignment and we welcome her as well.
        Governor, can you give us an update on the status of your
    move into the new Triangle Park research facility? I think we
    are becoming close to getting finished with that. That is the
    culmination of quite a few years on the part of EPA and this
    committee, 9 years of appropriations on this committee, as a
    matter of fact. I have heard through the grapevine that you
    might be able to come down to the EPA facility for a dedication
    ceremony sometime soon, possibly as early as May, which of
    course would be a fitting observation of Environmental Science
    Month. We would love to see you do that, but in any case would
    appreciate an update on how things are going.
        Ms. Whitman. Certainly. That is our target. I very much
    look forward to that. It is 96 percent complete. It is a 1.2
    million square foot facility and we are very excited by it.
    Obviously the scientists are extremely excited about it. The
    occupancy on the campus currently is about 50 percent. We are
    moving into it incrementally, 1,000 of the estimated 2,000 RTP
    staff are in place, and we are hoping to have full occupancy by
    the first quarter of the next fiscal year. I am very hopeful
    that it will be a May time frame and I will be able to go down
    and cut a ribbon.

               HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL BY ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS

        Mr. Price. Good. We will look forward to that.
        Let me move on to the question of hazardous waste disposal
    by academic institutions, a special case under RCRA which I am
    sure you are familiar with. In its fiscal 2001 report, this
    committee, directed EPA to participate in an initiative to
    demonstrate consensus best practices for managing hazardous
    waste in academic research institutions and asked you to report
    back to the committee with the results. The report by the
    participating academic institutions has been completed, and I
    understand that EPA's contribution is now pending at OMB.
        The report from the academic institutions concludes that
    the industry-oriented regulations of the Resource Conservation
    and Recovery Act are in fact ill-suited for the academic
    research setting. As you know, part of the problem here has
    been that different EPA regional offices and different States
    seem to have significantly different interpretations of RCRA
    requirements for academic research labs. The report recommends
    that EPA clarify for its regional offices and for States and
    universities how much discretion exists under RCRA to permit
    the use of the performance-based best practices recommended in
    the report. It also recommends that EPA encourage the adoption
    of these best practices.
        As I see it, there are two critical components to the best
    practices developed through the initiative. First, the
    environmental health and safety professional within the
    universities should make hazardous waste determinations as
    opposed to the individual lab workers. Secondly, these same
    professionals should be allowed to treat waste in order to
    eliminate their hazardous characteristics, thus reducing the
    overall volume of waste as opposed to simply disposing of the
    waste.
        So that leads me to two questions. One, does EPA concur
    with the conclusions of the report that implementing the
    performance-based consensus best practices developed through
    the initiatives would in fact result in improved environmental
    stewardship that would exceed existingrequirements while
    significantly reducing hazardous waste volume? And, secondly, is EPA
    planning to issue administrative guidance to regional offices and to
    States and to universities clarifying that many or all of the consensus
    best practices described in the report are compatible with RCRA
    regulations? Specifically, does EPA concur that this guidance should
    allow and encourage environmental health and safety professionals
    within universities to make the hazardous waste determination and to
    treat wastes, where possible, to eliminate their hazardous
    characteristics and to reduce their volume, reduce the volume that
    requires disposal?
        If so, when will this guidance be issued?
        Ms. Whitman. EPA supports developing effective alternatives
    for safely managing hazardous wastes at academic institutions.
    We believe that is entirely appropriate, and we are working
    closely with the stakeholders to develop a RCRA policy that
    reflects that need. We are also currently developing guidance
    that will address the specific concerns of academic
    institutions by clarifying EPA's policy pertaining to
    laboratory waste and operations. Of course we feel, as I think
    many people do, that one of the priorities should be waste
    reduction and recycling. And in fact, the Office of Solid Waste
    and Emergency Response in their Waste Reduction and Energy
    Recovery Initiative, to be announced in the very near future,
    will include how we can institute a performance-based approach
    to reuse and recycle of laboratory chemicals. We take this to
    be a separate challenge, an important challenge, and we are
    addressing it as such.
        Mr. Price. Do you anticipate that these best practices will
    or may require some regulatory changes?
        Ms. Whitman. At this point in time, until we have addressed
    all the concerns that OMB had on the final report to be
    transmitted to the Congress, we are still working our way
    through that. I am not sure at this point in time whether we
    think we will require statutory change or not. We do not know
    that yet.
        Mr. Price. Is there anything you would like to add about
    the problem that universities have encountered in terms of
    variations among the regional offices in their openness to some
    of these best practices and some of the differences between
    regions as to the inclination to require that the letter of the
    RCRA rules be followed?
        Ms. Whitman. Well, Congressman, one of the challenges that
    we face at the Agency is sitting in Washington, establishing
    national models that are perceived to be the same, and must be
    the same, and implemented in exactly the same way everywhere.
    The standards for safety, what is safe for human health, what
    is safe for the environment are the same.
        I am trying to allow the regions to have some flexibility
    in dealing with the particular challenges that they find in
    that region. However, when you are talking about universities
    and university laboratory settings, those are pretty standard.
    What they are dealing with, and what they have to address is
    pretty standard. We are looking right now at ways that I
    indicated to develop the kind of guidance that recognizes that
    they are different from other facilities where you have these
    kinds of chemicals and where you have this kind of activity
    going on, so that there is at least that recognition that the
    standards for what is safe to be put into the atmosphere and
    how we deal with chemicals is the same. How you address it when
    you are talking about a research institute and laboratory may
    be different than it is with a chemical company, with the
    manufacturer, and that kind of flexibility is going to be
    recognized.
        Mr. Price. Right. The evidence is apparently that some of
    the best practices that are being developed in universities
    around the country do, in fact, offer more in the way of
    hazardous waste volume reduction than standard practices. In a
    situation like this, the flexibility or the variation among
    regional offices is seen as something of a threat in that what
    is developed in one region in the way of flexibility and a
    cooperative working arrangement might in another region be much
    more rigid, much less flexible; and the prospect of a change in
    administrators or change in administration could be seen by
    these best practices institutions as somehow threatening, and
    making it more difficult to work out ways of handling these
    wastes.
        Ms. Whitman. Actually, the report I mentioned to you, the
    Waste Reduction and Energy Recovery Initiative, is going to be
    really a guidance document for the regions. That is why it is
    important that within that there be special recognition of the
    challenges to research universities.
        Mr. Price. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Walsh. Thank you. Mr. Goode.

                        TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOADS STATUS

        Mr. Goode. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First I would like to
    ask the Administrator about TMDLs, the same as last year. Can
    you give me the status of what you are doing on them?
        Ms. Whitman. We are continuing to work hard to come up with
    an appropriate standard. As you know, we gave some extra time
    to the whole research that is going on and to the review. We
    are continuing to work on that. We have got a number of
    comments, thousands of comments.
        Mr. Goode. A lot from Virginia.
        Ms. Whitman. Lots of comments on it, and we are working our
    way through those comments, which of course is required in
    rulemaking. So we are still in the process of trying to go
    through the comments and see how they impact on the proposed
    rule and what we need to do in order to ensure it is something
    that is workable and responds to the needs. It is one of the
    concerns I have that sort of goes to Mr. Price's question on a
    very different level: that we set one standard in Washington
    for everyone, but we have to be or should be cognizant of the
    impact and implementation on various parts of the country
    because it is very different.
        Mr. Goode. I would just ask that you continue to keep in
    mind there are a number of rural counties in Virginia that the
    levels of pollution in the water comes more from wildlife than
    anything else and that some of the nitrogen in the water comes
    more from the yards in Fairfax County for the Potomac than it
    comes from the farms in far western Virginia.
        Ms. Whitman. And we are working very closely with
    Virginia's Department of Environmental Quality on how to
    address this issue. They have been, as you know, very vocal on
    this and have expressed some very legitimate concerns. We have
    been working very closely with them on addressing the issue,
    how to solve the problem of high-quality TMDL in less time and
    at less cost.
        Mr. Goode. With regard to the rules that were done byEPA
    shortly before you came on board, I would like to read this statement
    about my opinion: These rules should be reviewed, looking at cost-
    benefit analysis, impact on small business, impacts on States, impacts
    on energy supplies and whether there are options to achieve the same
    environmental goals in an easier, less costly manner and use of sound
    science. In my opinion, we don't need a whole new expensive Federal
    program set up when we can achieve the same goals more efficiently and
    less costly with existing programs.
        Can you give me assurance that these last-minute rules
    which you encountered are going to go through a thorough
    regulatory review process before anything happens?
        Ms. Whitman. Congressman, we are not planning to implement
    the 2000 rule. We intend to publish a new rule in the Federal
    Register, which we expect to have ready in late spring, mid-
    2002. We will take public comment on that proposal and
    promulgate a revised final TMDL rule in late spring of 2003.
    But we are continuing to enforce the TMDLs that are currently
    in place, because there is an ongoing TMDL program in place. So
    I don't want any confusion on that. But we are not planning to
    implement the 2000 rule.
        Mr. Goode. Apart from TMDLs but just water rules in
    general, the same thing?
        Ms. Whitman. It depends, obviously, on the rule. We are not
    going forward with all rules, but we are focusing through all
    of our efforts on water to try to find ways that recognize the
    economic impact of what we do and the fact that economic impact
    affects behavior. It has a way of having unintended
    consequences that may jeopardize people's health--the very
    thing we are trying to protect--if we don't understand all the
    consequences of a proposed rule.
        Mr. Goode. To switch back to the TMDL for a minute, in some
    of the counties in Virginia and I know in other States, we have
    a number of small dairy farmers, and some of these TMDL rules
    just kill them. And I mean, I for one like fresh fluid milk. I
    don't want powdered milk from another country, and I hope we
    will do all we can to work with the local dairy farmers.
        Ms. Whitman. Congressman, as someone who drinks the milk
    produced by our New Jersey cows, I couldn't agree with you
    more.
        Mr. Goode. Mr. Chairman, I also would like to submit a few
    questions for the record and have the Administrator respond
    later, if that is all right.
        Mr. Walsh. That is absolutely all right. Without objection.
        Mr. Goode. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Walsh. Mr. Hobson.

                          TREMONT, OHIO CITY LANDFILL

        Mr. Hobson. Governor, nice to see you. I have got a couple
    questions for you. Some years ago I had a hard time with a
    previous Administrator, getting her to look at a landfill in my
    district, and finally they began to look at it. You know, it is
    funny because usually Congress people try to keep the EPA out
    of their district this is one time when I tried to get them
    into my district. I finally got them into it, and I am pleased
    that Region 5 is making progress in evaluating the Tremont City
    landfill site.
        In a public briefing held a few months ago, your regional
    staff and four of my constituents said all US EPA investigation
    activities are complete and the draft report is being prepared.
    On the enforcement side, I understand the EPA has identified
    the potentially responsible parties who dumped in the barrel
    fill, and you are working with them to begin the process of a
    remediation facility study. I must admit this process is taking
    quite a while, and we are on 3 years now, and I guess my main
    question to you is, what is the EPA doing to reduce the time
    and cost associated with the site characterization and site
    remediation activities? As I look at this chart that the EPA
    sends out, it will be 2036 before we really get anything
    completed in this, and I don't think the constituents want to
    wait that long to get this stuff done. And I know I am not
    going to be around, but the problem with this is this sits
    right over an aquifer in our community, and how it ever got
    sited here is beyond my dreams, but it did get sited, and I
    think we need to see how we can speed up the timetable on this.
    Do you have any thoughts on that?
        Ms. Whitman. Actually the region expects that the PRP
    action will begin by 2005, that remedial action construction
    will start in 2005. And as you know, the landfill has been
    closed and those post-closure activities are being done by the
    PRP under the supervision of the EPA. So they are trying to
    make sure that the public is protected, but the actual remedial
    construction is due to start in 2005.
        Mr. Hobson. The only other comment I would make on this is
    there seems to be a continuing effort on the part of certain
    people to re-permit in this area, and I think we need to be
    very cautious about any re-permitting or permitting where there
    is an aquifer situation, because once the aquifer is damaged or
    penetrated, the costs and the ability--and this aquifer runs
    all the way down to the Dayton area, not only the Springfield
    region, but it could be immensely costly, and so I would hope
    that the State and the EPA all would continue to monitor this
    to make sure that we don't inadvertently do anything that would
    cause a problem here in the future.
        Ms. Whitman. Absolutely.

                            PESTICIDE TOLERANCE FEES

        Mr. Hobson. I have one other question at this moment that I
    would like to ask about. It is in a totally different area, so
    I am switching on you. I see that the EPA anticipates
    collecting $59 million in pesticide tolerance fees in fiscal
    year 2003; however, you are only obligated to spend $15
    million. Your budget justification states the remaining
    collection will be used at some future time. Since our farmers
    and consumers are the ones that will bear the increased cost of
    these pesticide tolerance fees, I am interested why the EPA
    would think it is in the best interest of the American people
    to collect $43 million more than necessary, and do you have any
    specific plans for spending this money in the near future?
        Ms. Whitman. Congressman, I hadn't known that we had
    anticipated collecting that much in the tolerance fees. Steve,
    you are up on this. Steve Johnson, who is head of the Office of
    Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances.
        Mr. Hobson. We would all like to see money, but----
        Mr. Johnson. Mr. Congressman, yes, the----
        Ms. Whitman. It is a complicated fee structure, let me put
    it that way. There are a number of different fees.
        Mr. Johnson. Yes, there are a number of fee issues. And
    right now the current statutory authorities that we are
    operating under and the President's budget anticipates a
    collection of tolerance fees, and there are two components to
    the tolerance fees. One, a fee is associated with newtolerances
    for new products coming on the market. Second, a fee is associated with
    reassessing of old tolerances. And current legal interpretation is that
    we are not only authorized but directed to collect fees for work that
    has been done, so-called retroactive work. I think it is an area that
    is still controversial. It is a legal issue that the Agency is
    currently evaluating. But, as the budget is currently constructed, you
    are correct that this $58 million does contain this retroactive fee.
    Those fees are then put into a revolving fund; so they are not, if you
    will, going by the wayside or being wasted, but there are----
        Mr. Hobson. Are you a lawyer?
        Mr. Johnson. No, I am not.
        Mr. Hobson. You talk like one. I was worried we are going
    to get to the number there, whether the number was correct or
    not. See, I never admit I went to law school or I am a lawyer,
    because I lose votes when I do that. But what I am concerned
    about----
        Mr. Walsh. It is on the record now.
        Mr. Hobson. I know it is on the record now. We have a
    camera here, too. I am just concerned that we have got money
    here that was set up, and now the consumer and farmers who will
    tell you they are having a tough time, and then you have got
    these fees that Virgil was talking about, that now the farmers
    are now complaining about because it is coming down to their
    streams where they have got to do all this. And I don't worry
    about these rotating funds or where that money goes. We will
    have to audit that, too, I guess.
        I don't want to do that. I would like to see if we could
    look at the legislation and see if we have to keep taking that
    kind of money, because if I remember correctly, the
    subcommittee allocated $17 million in the 2002 pesticide
    reregistration and maintenance costs while prohibiting an
    increase in tolerance fees. And I guess you might have said
    this, but could you explain why the EPA, despite these past
    prohibitions, has allocated for an increase in the cost of
    these tolerance fees, if that is correct?
        Ms. Whitman. Hope springs eternal. As you know, we haven't
    been allowed to collect those fees since 1999. The total cost
    of the fee is a question of what the program demands of us, our
    ability to review new pesticides, get them into the
    marketplace, available. Many times the new pesticides are less
    expensive for the farmers. They require less per application
    for the farmers, but we need to go through a process to ensure
    that they do what they say they are going to do. The pesticide
    fees are the way we fund the program, but we have not been
    collecting these fees, which is why I was a little thrown off
    by the extra money we would be getting. That one I hadn't heard
    because we have been prohibited from finalizing the rule. But
    we keep hoping, because we feel that that is the appropriate
    way to pay for the kind of work that needs to be done in order
    to get the newest and most environmentally protective
    pesticides on the market.
        Mr. Hobson. But you are going to get more money. You say
    58, we say 59, but it is in that range.
        Mr. Johnson. If we are authorized to allow us to begin
    collecting fees. Currently, right now, we are prohibited this
    year from collecting any tolerance fees other than the current
    level which is about $1 to $2 million per year. When the Food
    Quality Protection Act was passed in 1996, it required the
    Agency to collect the full costs associated with tolerance
    assessment, both for new and old. And so that means a major
    increase for a particular chemical company, for a major food
    use chemical, currently they pay about $30,000 for tolerance.
    That is less than one-twentieth of the actual costs associated
    with the Agency doing the assessment.
        And so therein lies, in one sense, the difficulty; and so
    we continue to collect the $1 to $2 million, which is only a
    portion of the $30,000 per tolerance. The full cost is
    significantly more money and that is how that $58 million is
    derived. But as Governor Whitman has said, we have not been
    authorized to collect any of those fees. The only ones that we
    have been authorized to collect is the $1 to $2 million per
    year at this point.
        Mr. Hobson. So basically in your budget you are
    anticipating that you might be authorized to begin collections;
    is that----
        Mr. Johnson. That is correct.
        Mr. Hobson. Thank you very much. Thank you, Governor.

                  WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROCESS: ONONDAGA LAKE

        Mr. Walsh. We will begin the second round, and I would like
    to use this opportunity to talk about a specific wastewater
    treatment process, and maybe we can get somebody within your
    staff to comment on it. But leading up to that, as you know, I
    have been very interested in the reclamation of Onondaga Lake,
    which is in my constituency, partially in the city of Syracuse.
    And as you know, I would love to have you come up and take a
    look at the project. It has been a very expensive project, but
    it has strong partnership from the State and the local
    government and with the private sector. Honeywell, which owns
    the former Allied Chemical site on the lake, is negotiating
    with the New York State Attorney General for a very substantial
    settlement, which would include remediating all the toxins,
    including mercury, that they put into the sediments in the lake
    and the environs. There has been no agreement on the sediments
    yet, but, as you know, the sediments can be a ticklish issue.
        In any event, hundreds of millions of dollars are being
    spent to reclaim this very valuable resource and turn what was
    our community's greatest debit into its perhaps greatest asset.
    Because of the expenditure of public money to reclaim this
    resource, there has been a tremendous increase in private
    spending on the lake and the area around the lake. The lake,
    because it was so polluted and it is a Superfund site, never
    encouraged the development of the properties around the
    shoreline. So it is entirely encompassed by public property,
    which is really a marvelous development if you think about it,
    because it belongs to everyone in the community. So we are in
    the process of reclaiming it and trying to do an
    environmentally sensitive redevelopment of it, and it is a
    cause of great interest, if not pride, yet in the community.
        But the point was, one of the aspects of this project is,
    as a CSO project, closing off combines through overflows in the
    two major streams that flow into the lake, one of them flows
    right through the city. So we are closing off CSOs and taking
    that wastewater that combines storm and sanitary sewers and
    treating it for pathogens and then putting it back into the
    creek.
        There have been a number of proposals on technologies. One
    of them obviously is storage. And when you create storage, you
    can then wait until the storm subsides and the flow reduces,
    and then you can pipe it down to the Metro plant which is under
    major construction right now, about a $140 million construction
    plan to reduce nitrogen, phosphorus, to get it to clean water
    standards. The County believesthat they can reach those
    standards.
        But an interesting proposal was made to me by a local
    entrepreneur who has developed technology that I would like, if
    you could, to have one of your experts comment on it, and the
    idea is you take this stored water which is primarily storm
    sewer runoff from snow melt or rainstorms that does mix with
    sanitary in large-volume events, and pump it out to a remote
    area. Actually, it would be on these former Allied Chemical
    wastebed sites. You can only do this in cold weather, by the
    way and Syracuse has plenty of cold weather. That is one thing
    we have lots of, and you have to have a certain temperature in
    order to make this work. But they run it through like, if you
    have ever been to a ski area, snow-making equipment, and there
    is apparently a filtration process along the way, just a very
    simple filtration process to remove most of the solids, and
    then you just run it through this atomizer. It is working in, I
    believe, Westport, Ontario which also has lots of cold weather.
    It may be one of the few advantages that the Northeast has over
    the rest of the country, lots of water, lots of cold weather.
    But in any event, this atomization process of the water
    destroys pathogens.
        Just to comment--they are doing this, and I had my staff do
    some work on this, and I am going to review the memos. I
    haven't seen them yet--but just to comment if you have heard of
    this technology and what you think of it.
        Ms. Whitman. I'll ask Diane Regas to speak to whether she
    has heard of the particular technology to which you refer or
    not. We are seeing many more innovative technologies coming to
    the fore to address a host of problems, particularly when you
    are talking about water, drinking water, wastewater. This is an
    area of real concern where a lot of investment is being made.
    We are very excited about that and trying to do as much as we
    can to move technologies forward. But Diane, I don't know if
    you have heard of this.
        Ms. Regas. Mr. Chairman, while I haven't heard of this
    specific technology, we would be very interested. We work with
    some of the challenges of dealing with combined sewer
    overflows, and the pure volume of water that can be
    contaminated because of combined sewer overflows or sanitary
    sewer overflows is of concern. You are absolutely right that
    pathogens is one of the major environmental concerns with
    those. So a lot of communities have tried innovative ways of
    dealing with them, and we would be happy to come up and take a
    look or visit with the folks who are coming up with this
    technology.
        Mr. Walsh. Apparently it somehow separates out nitrites and
    phosphorus. So there is a residue because it creates a big pile
    of snow, obviously, and then as it dissipates in the spring, it
    leaves a residue. And what is neat about it if it works is that
    this area that I am talking about is a former waste bed site.
    It was a plant that broke down salt, NaCl, and created
    byproducts and industrial cleansers and so forth. But it very
    basic, alkaline. And this residue, it enriches this waste bed
    area and it becomes very fertile and you can grow grasses and
    plants and so forth. So it sounds great. It is almost too good
    to believe, and usually if it is, it is. But I would be very
    interested in having you take a look at it.
        Ms. Whitman. Certainly. We would be happy to do that.
        Mr. Walsh. Thank you. Mr. Mollohan.

                         SUPERFUND TAX REAUTHORIZATION

        Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Governor, do you
    support the general principle that polluters should pay to
    clean up toxic sites?
        Ms. Whitman. Absolutely.
        Mr. Mollohan. Last week in a television interview, you
    indicated that the reason for the use of general funds to pay
    for cleanups was Congress' failure to renew the tax. That
    statement left the administration's position on renewal
    somewhat vague, and the President's budget does not deal
    specifically with the tax question. In the budget documents
    submitted by OMB in February, however, there is a simple
    statement that, and I quote, ``The budget does not propose
    reauthorization of Superfund taxes,'' end of quote. The
    statement was buried in staff papers, however, which may or may
    not represent the administration's policy.
        I am asking you, can you tell us whether President Bush is
    opposed to extending the Superfund tax and, if so, why?
        Ms. Whitman. The President did not include the
    reauthorization of the Superfund tax in this budget. That was
    based on two premises: one, that it had not been reauthorized
    since 1995 and the will of Congress seems to be that it not be
    reauthorized; and two, the feeling that it was time to move
    forward with what has been called for by a number of people,
    which is to take another look at Superfund to see what needs to
    be done, if anything, before reauthorization. Then to look and
    see exactly how we are funding the program to make sure that we
    have the right processes in place, that we are in fact
    targeting the right industries.
        Things have changed since the Superfund tax was first
    imposed and there are two parts to that, as you know, but
    reauthorization was not included in this budget.
        Mr. Mollohan. Right. Understand, though, I am trying to
    take the measure of his attitude with regard to reauthorizing
    this tax, and the fact that the Congress has not initiated it
    doesn't dispose of the question of what is his attitude toward
    it. Has he requested a reauthorization of the tax?
        Ms. Whitman. He has not requested a reauthorization of the
    tax.
        Mr. Mollohan. Does he intend to do so?
        Ms. Whitman. You would have to ask OMB.
        Mr. Mollohan. OMB?
        Ms. Whitman. Well, ask the White House or--all our budgets
    go through OMB to one point, but they go to the White House and
    that is a decision by the President.
        Mr. Mollohan. I understand. And you are intricately, I
    would imagine, involved in the process.
        Ms. Whitman. The feeling at this time is that since
    Congress is disinclined to reauthorize the tax. The President
    saw that as an indication that there was some concern with the
    program, which he shares, and a desire to move forward with
    Superfund reauthorization, to take a look at Superfund to see
    what needs to be done to see what we can do about liability
    concerns, and what can we do to make sure Superfund is working
    in the way it was intended to work. Then perhaps at that time
    take another look at whether or not it is appropriate to
    reauthorize a tax of any sort.
        Mr. Mollohan. Have you made any recommendation to him on
    this issue?
        Ms. Whitman. No, I have not.
        Mr. Mollohan. Do you have any recommendation for him on
    this issue?
        Ms. Whitman. At this point I do not, until we see where
    Superfund is going to go overall.
        Mr. Mollohan. Well, the President is wonderful at providing
    leadership when he wants to provide leadership, bold
    leadership, as he has evidenced with regard to the war on
    terrorism. If he has any inclination toward reauthorizing this
    Superfund tax on polluters, which would evidence his embracing
    the principle as you have here, that polluters should pay, then
    he should provide that leadership by least making a request to
    Congress.
        Ms. Whitman. Well, Congressman, I think the important
    thing, and one of the concerns that I know the President has
    had about the way the Superfund tax was imposed, is it is not
    all on polluters. It is on everyone in segments of the
    industry, and on the industry, so that even those who have the
    best of environmental records are also paying it.
        Mr. Mollohan. Calibrating that factor into a new
    authorization would be fine. But if we are unfairly taxing a
    few polluters, you must think it very unfair that the general
    public should pay through general revenues for these cleanups,
    which is what is going to be happening if we don't reauthorize
    legislation based on the principle that the polluters should
    pay.
        Ms. Whitman. First of all, the principle that the polluter
    pays is still very much a part of the overall administration's
    approach, and that is why we are seeing that 70 percent of the
    cleanups are in fact done by the polluter, those who are
    responsible.
        Mr. Mollohan. We do have this reauthorization question
    facing us, do we not?
        Ms. Whitman. We do. I wish I could say that the public
    didn't pay anyway, because even when it is a generalized tax,
    that very often is passed through to the public. The concern
    here is to ensure that the tax is going where it needs to go.
        Mr. Mollohan. I am sorry, I didn't understand what you
    said. Will you say that again, please?
        Ms. Whitman. Yes. The Superfund tax was on everybody,
    including industries that have a clean environmental record.
    The other thing is just my cynical nature in saying that I know
    that companies have a way that, when they are required to pay
    certain things, they recoup those costs and it usually comes at
    the expense of the consumer, that one way or another we pay.
        Mr. Mollohan. But you strongly embrace the principal that
    polluters must pay.
        Ms. Whitman. As does the President.
        Mr. Mollohan. I think there are probably a lot of folks who
    look forward to his leadership by requesting authorization to
    that end. Mr. Chairman, that is the end of my questioning for
    now.
        Mr. Walsh. Mr. Frelinghuysen.

                  SUPERFUND SITE CLEANUP: RESPONSIBLE PARTIES

        Mr. Frelinghuysen. It might be not be advisable for me to
    follow Mr. Mollohan on Superfund, but I think the concern many
    of us have--and certainly from New Jersey--we want to get
    things cleaned up. And the question I always ask is what
    portion of the existing sites have responsible parties that
    have been identified that can help pay for the cleanup; and
    what percentage of the national identified sites have no, shall
    we say, responsible party, which therefore places the burden on
    the taxpayers?
        And then there is this view, too--maybe this is just
    newspaper speculation--that the sites that are added in the
    future are sort of these megasites, and there are two that have
    been mentioned. I think one was a mining site somewhere.
        Ms. Whitman. Libby, Montana----
        Mr. Frelinghuysen. Are there responsible parties there, or
    are those the sites that, too, the taxpayers are going to have
    to shell out the money?
        Ms. Whitman. We are still hopeful on Libby, although the
    responsible party has entered into bankruptcy, which has been a
    pattern that we have seen emerging. It is still 70-30. Seventy
    percent of the sites are cleaned up by private parties. We at
    this point in time in our review of sites anticipate that in
    the future 70 percent of the sites will be cleaned up by the
    responsible party, and the remaining 30 percent then devolved
    back to the Agency or the taxpayer. 30 percent will be paid by
    the other revenues, whether we get our revenues from the
    General Fund of the Treasury, or as I indicated this year, some
    money we still have from the Superfund tax that will be used.
    That has been pretty consistent: about 30 percent of the sites
    are what we call ``orphan sites'' where we can't identify the
    responsible party, or that the company has gone bankrupt or
    disappeared or there is nobody there.
        That is why I have called for the pipeline review. That is
    one of the reasons we are doing that in the NACEPT process. We
    need to make sure we are identifying sites correctly, and we
    are prioritizing them in the right way so we are getting at the
    right sites first. We need to be very mindful of public health,
    and ensure that we are doing everything as sophisticated as we
    need to be to ensure that we can identify the polluter.
        We think we have done a pretty good job with 70 percent of
    them being paid for by the polluter, but clearly we would love
    to have 100 percent done by the polluters. It is just not going
    to be possible in all sites because contamination occurred so
    long ago.

                       METHYL TERTIARY BUTYL ETHER (MTBE)

        Mr. Frelinghuysen. I think a lot of what you have done is
    absolutely commendable in terms of expedited cleanups, holding
    people responsible, and certainly in areas where there is a
    density of population. Quite honestly, I am not sure how much
    population there is out in Montana and Nebraska, but for those
    of us in the Northeast we hope that the so-called garden
    varieties of cleanups still get your Agency's attention, and I
    am sure that will be the case.
        Shifting gears, could you bring the committee up to date on
    what we are doing with this MTBE? I know that I read of some
    sort of compromise in the Senate which involves ethanol, but
    the committee has focused here in the past on the whole issue
    of banning its use sooner rather than later because of the
    widespread of pollution of a variety of different water
    supplies and aquifers. And here again something sort of went
    off--it didn't leave my radar screen, but it sort of left the
    public's radar screen. Where do we stand? Where does the EPA
    stand?
        Ms. Whitman. We have been very concerned about the
    migration of MTBE into water bodies. Fortunately, if there is
    any good news with it, the health concerns do not appear to be
    as significant as people would gain from the nastiness of the
    smell and the way it impacts the water. People certainly don't
    drink water with MTBE in it. And as you knowfrom New Jersey, we
    have had a number of people that have indicated that they have felt
    health concerns, headaches and other allergic reactions, to the
    gasoline when MTBE has been added to it.
        The Senate bill on energy does include a provision for the
    banning of MTBE, and the Energy Department has endorsed that
    bill. The administration's position has been to endorse that.
    Also I believe that that bill also eliminates the 2 percent
    oxygenate requirement for gasoline. That would be something
    else that the Department of Energy has endorsed.

             NEW YORK/NEW JERSEY PORT DUMP-OFF: PEER REVIEW STATUS

        Mr. Frelinghuysen. Looking towards the port of New York and
    New Jersey, the infamous dump-off of the State, can you give me
    a brief update as to where we stand on that? I understand that
    there has been an ongoing peer review in terms of what is
    suitable for capping that 57 acres and that there has been a
    formal report in the making for some time, and I think last
    year you made mention that a draft proposal would be ready
    soon. I just wonder where we stand on the report. I understand
    that materials are being dumped, but that they are absolutely
    pristine and clear. So I am sort of looking for a higher level
    of reassurance of where we stand with this report.
        Ms. Whitman. Region 2 is the lead on that, as you know,
    Congressman, and not headquarters. There has been an exchange
    of information that took longer than anticipated, there is no
    question about that, but the feeling is that that time invested
    was worthwhile. In January, EPA and the Corps of Engineers
    hosted a meeting with the scientific, peer reviewers of that.
    The human health scientific peer review is now underway, and we
    expect to initiate the ecological review this summer. So things
    are proceeding at the site.
        Yes, you are right that material continues to be delivered,
    but that is material that has been deemed to be within the
    standards that are set for site and pose no threat to human
    health. The proposal for it was sent to the peer review panel
    in January of this year, so we are moving forward.
        Mr. Frelinghuysen. Mr. Chairman, I would like to amend my
    compliments. I am sure region 3 deserves some recognition, but
    I should have been referring to region 2 in my earlier remarks
    this morning. So if anyone felt insulted----
        Ms. Whitman. Region 3 carried the burden for the anthrax.
        Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Walsh. Thank you. I complimented region 3 earlier.
        Mr. Price.

                             CLEAR SKIES INITIATIVE

        Mr. Price. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Governor, let me turn
    to clean air and the way the various clean air initiatives
    underway might intersect. A recent study in the Masthead, a
    medical research publication, linked ozone air pollution to
    actually causing asthma in children. A separate study published
    in the Journal of the American Medical Association links
    particulate pollution to causing emphysema and chronic
    bronchitis in adults. Another study recently published in the
    American Medical Association Journal concludes that long-term
    exposure to fine particles of air pollution, coal-fired power
    plants, factories, and diesel trucks is linked to an increased
    risk of dying from lung cancer.
        Now, these studies underscore the proposition that air
    pollution directly affects the health of Americans, and despite
    the progress we have already made, we need to continue to press
    ahead. Can you update us on the status of the implementation of
    the 1997 ozone and fine particulate matter standards?
        Ms. Whitman. We are continuing to move forward with those
    regulations. As you know, we went ahead with the diesel fuel
    and the lower sulfur content in gasoline and in fuel and the
    impacts, and we are continuing to move forward with those other
    regulations.
        Mr. Price. It is sometimes confusing when you try to keep
    track of the regulatory activity and the judicial activity
    related to these regulations. In addition to these 1997 ozone
    and fine particulate matter standards, there are currently
    pending lawsuits challenging the current New Source Review
    enforcement policies. We are still in the midst of implementing
    the new ozone transport regulations. And the administration has
    now proposed a new initiative to reduce emissions of ozone,
    sulfur dioxide and mercury.
        I wonder if there is anything you can tell us here today,
    but perhaps more expansively for the record, to help us
    understand whether and how all these pieces fit together. Would
    progress in one of these pending policy areas contribute to the
    resolution of conflict regarding other policies? For example,
    would the implementation of the 8-hour ozone standard require
    the kind of upgrades to older coal-fired power plants that are
    the objectives of the New Source Review enforcement policies?
    Alternatively, would the administration's Clean Air Initiative
    require some of the same kinds of pollution controls as the New
    Source Review enforcement actions-or the 8-hour standard for
    ozone? How far would the Clean Air Initiative go in reducing
    levels of ozone relative to the pending 8-hour standards?
        The bottom line for how we proceed, it seems to me, is to
    ensure that we do not lose ground, that we do not stall our
    progress in reducing air pollution that clearly affects the
    health of Americans. Is the administration's intention, for
    example, to move any increased flexibility on the New Source
    Review requirements in tandem with legislative action on the
    clear air initiative or progress on the 8-hour standard? You
    get my drift?
        Ms. Whitman. I do.
        Mr. Price. There is an intersection here that I think is
    poorly understood, and as I said, it is a bit much to ask you
    orally to pick your way through all of this, but could you say
    what you can say now and perhaps supply for the recordsome
    sense of how and why we can expect that the net outcome of these
    different actions is going to be continued progress in cleaning up our
    air?
        Ms. Whitman. Well, Congressman, you have touched on the
    nexus of all of the concerns that we have, which is under the
    Clean Air Act we have a number of individual requirements that
    are scheduled to come into effect. Some are in enforcement now.
    Others are regulations that are coming into place at different
    times, setting different standards for the various emissions
    from companies, and from power plants in particular. That is
    cumbersome, it is confusing, and it can be very expensive. That
    is why the President proposed the Clear Skies Initiative, which
    would ensure it sets mandatory targets now, with reductions now
    on all three Pollutants: on SO2, nitrogen oxide,
    sulfur dioxide and mercury. Those would be mandatory caps.
    Based on the analysis that we have done, the targets they
    would, in fact, get us faster reductions in those three major
    pollutants at less expense than under the current Clear Air
    Act.
        Having said that, nothing implies a rollback of the Clean
    Air Act. We do believe that we have a very real possibility of
    reducing the paperwork burden on some of these regulations when
    and if Clear Skies is, in fact, enacted by the Congress. It
    depends on where the levels are set, but as the President
    proposed, we would certainly say that New Source Review, as it
    applies to utilities, not to the other sectors but to
    utilities, would be redundant because we would be getting
    better reductions under Clear Skies than we would get under New
    Source Review.
        We see a 70 percent reduction in these three pollutants,
    under what the President is calling for. By 2010, you would
    have a 25-million-ton reduction in SO2, greater than
    you would get under the current Clean Air Act; a 10-million-ton
    greater reduction in NOX than you would get under
    the Clean Air Act; and a 20-ton better reduction of mercury
    under the Clear Skies proposal than under the Clean Air Act.
        Those are real numbers. A part of what we would need to do,
    when we get the final numbers is identify which of the
    regulations become redundant. It is not that you are in any way
    weakening the Clean Air Act or our commitment to achieving
    cleaner air. It is, in fact, endeavoring to do it faster at
    less expense to the consumer, because ultimately they pay
    whenever it costs a utility.
        We are very hopeful that this program will allow us to
    capture these emissions reductions in a very efficient way and
    in a way that is even better than what we can expect to get
    under the Clean Air Act. We plan to move forward with a
    reassessment of all of the other regulations that we have in
    place that are geared to achieving standards, and lowering
    amounts of particulates that can be emitted or emissions that
    can be emitted into the atmosphere. This could do it faster.

                       OZONE AND FINE PARTICULATE MATTER

        Mr. Price. Would that same reasoning apply to the 1997
    ozone and fine particulate matter standards, that we are going
    to either meet these goals or do better?
        Ms. Whitman. This would certainly have an impact on
    particulate matter, and, again, what we are doing now is going
    back through and taking another look to make sure that we are
    comfortable that anything that we would recommend being
    alleviated, let us say, does not do so with any harm to the
    atmosphere. We are going to be looking at every one of the
    regulations that apply to clean air. Once we have the Clear
    Skies Act passed, once we have standards and we know what the
    standards are, then we will be able to look at all those other
    regulatory programs that are designed to capture these
    particular emissions and see whether or not we need to continue
    along the same regulatory path that we are on today.
        Mr. Price. To the extent that analysis is available before
    these hearings----
        Ms. Whitman. Certainly.
        Mr. Price. [continuing]. Go to press, I would appreciate
    any further elaboration of those assurances that you might be
    able to furnish for the record.
        Ms. Whitman. Is there Anything else you wish to add?
        Mr. Price. Thank you.
        Ms. Whitman. We would be happy to do that.
        Mr. Price. Thank you.
        [The information follows:]

                  [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Walsh. Mr. Cramer.

                               NEW SOURCE REVIEW

        Mr. Cramer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Administrator Whitman, welcome back before the
    subcommittee. I regret that I had to leave the room and perhaps
    missed the line of questioning that some of my colleagues might
    have taken you into that I want to take you into as well, but I
    want to talk to you about the New Source Review. Back in 1999,
    TVA, Tennessee Valley Authority, was sued by EPA--it wasn't
    just TVA, it was TVA and eight other major utility companies--
    for failing to comply--or for being in violation of the Clean
    Air Act.
        The issue I want to get your comment about is the routine
    maintenance issue versus substantial modification of plants.
    That seems to be the two different phrases that would be in
    contention here regarding TVA. TVA is in the middle of spending
    $2.5 billion to clean up emissions, and we think they are doing
    a very good job, and yet they are caught in what seems to be a
    Catch-22, that any modifications that they make, even with
    emission controls, could be cited by EPA as something in
    violation of the Clean Air Act. Would you respond to that, if
    you can?
        Ms. Whitman. Congressman, I can't respond in any detail on
    the particulars of the TVA case. Oral arguments for that case
    have been set for the third week in May. We believe it is a
    very strong case. Justice has looked at all of those cases that
    were brought under New Source Review, and said they were
    brought appropriately, so we are continuing to prosecute them.
    However, the issue of the routine maintenance repair--and what
    is the third R? Replacement. I forgot it. Routine maintenance
    repair and replacement is one of the issues that has been
    brought up time and again as being of concern under the New
    Source Review.
        It is important to emphasize that there are two different
    parts of New Source Review reform. In 1996, the previous
    administration proposed some rules that would streamline some
    aspects of New Source Review and were subject to public
    hearings. That proposal was subject to public hearings and
    comment and the full regulatory process.
        The routine maintenance repair and replacement provision is
    one aspect of another set of concerns that has been raised
    about New Source Review, but that has not been subject to the
    full regulatory process. It has not, in fact, been even
    submitted as yet in a proposed regulatory reform. Were the
    proposal to go forward in that fashion, it would be subject to
    the full-blown process, which can take up to 3 years.
        Mr. Cramer. When will the administration release its report
    on New Source Review, or were you discussing that already?
        Ms. Whitman. No, we haven't discussed that already, but
    that is still a subject of discussion. We were tasked by the
    Energy Policy Committee to do a 90-day review of policy on New
    Source Review. It is an enormously complicated issue and one
    that requires a great deal of time and attention. We are still
    in the process of finalizing that and finalizing the
    recommendations that we would make relative to New Source
    Review reform. The Clear Skies proposal that we worked on for
    the President, is the best form of New Source Review reform
    that we could possibly implement. For utilities, the Clear
    Skies proposal, as outlined by the President, would make New
    Source Review as it applies to utilities redundant.

                    DRINKING WATER VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT

        Mr. Cramer. I want to switch now to the drinking water
    vulnerability assessments. In the fiscal year 2002 supplemental
    bill, there was $90 million appropriated for EPA. I am
    interested in rural areas and in their opportunities to
    participate in vulnerability assessments. Those rural areas or
    small communities have urged EPA to reserve a minimum of 15
    percent of the funds for drinking water vulnerability
    assessments for small communities. What progress or what
    comment can you give me on that?
        Ms. Whitman. Congressman, what we have determined is the
    most important responsibility we have in this area is to make
    the most systems as secure, the safest, the fastest we can.
    That does not mean that we are not putting aside a specified
    percentage of the monies for the small water systems. But, the
    focus has been on the larger ones in order to ensure the safety
    of the greatest number of people.
        However, we are working very actively with the smaller
    water systems, and will be providing technical assistance on
    vulnerability assessments. We vastly moved up the time frame
    for vulnerability assessments training. We are providing
    technical assistance, and we are also working with them to help
    identify dollars that would be available to enable them to move
    up their vulnerability assessments.
        Mr. Cramer. Well, I don't always like mandatory figures,
    but I want you to be sensitive to the smaller communities as
    well, and it sounds like you are. And I want to encourage you
    to continue to do that.
        Ms. Whitman. We certainly will. We are very concerned about
    that, but we are trying to prioritize where the greatest
    threats are and where we need to focus the resources first.
        Mr. Cramer. Sure.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you.
        Mr. Walsh. Congresswoman Northup.

                              EPA GRANT MANAGEMENT

        Mrs. Northup. Yes. I would like to follow up with some
    questions I have asked in the past about EPA grant management
    and in particular what is being done to get control of the
    grants that EPA has administered that--certainly I have a copy
    of the GAO report. It seems to me like this falls into sort of
    two categories, but they impact each other. One is the fact
    that grant recipients often don't complete the work that they
    say they will do. There is very inadequate oversight on whether
    or not the money is spent as it is supposed to be spent for
    allowable expenses. Instead it is used for meals that overrun
    the costs that they are allowed for and so forth. But I think
    probably the failure to complete the work and receive a new
    grant while work is still unfinished is, in that category, the
    more troublesome.
        And let me just say this is an issue that I asked the
    previous Administrator about in great detail and got
    information that it seems to me like recent GAO reports have
    not substantiated. So I realize that you have inherited quite a
    mess here.
        The other side of the area that bothers me is the use of
    this grant money for purposes that go beyond what should be
    allowable, particularly political purposes, and if someone who
    is in a district, who has huge numbers of ads and political
    activity by groups that come into my district without a
    recognizable face--truly they fly into town withnot one person
    there at the press conference that lives in my district to host press
    conferences and put out their political misinformation--it concerns me
    that they are being funded in part by EPA grants.
        I think it is sort of hilarious that in one of the articles
    I have here, one of the recipients is quoted as saying, EPA
    grants are very, very discrete projects. You have to identify
    ahead of time what you are planning to do, meaning you can't do
    anything like political activities. Of course, in light of the
    GAO report, it is clear that no one has any idea what these
    groups do with the money anyway, and number two, we all know
    that cross-subsidies are possible.
        And I just sort of wondered if you could give me any idea
    what you are doing, what other areas GAO might look at to give
    us a clearer picture of just what the extent of the problem is,
    and, you know, a request we might make, if you think that that
    would be helpful.
        Ms. Whitman. Well, Congresswoman, I heard you and other
    Members of Congress on the Hill loud and clear as well as
    having our own concerns about some of the oversight. One of the
    most effective ways, in addressing the issue is to move toward
    a competitive process for nonprofit grants. We expect, in fact,
    to have a process in place by October of this year that will
    move us to a competitive process for nonprofit grants. That
    combined with an increased emphasis on oversight, by requiring
    that those recipients do report regularly to the Agency, and
    that we have some way of ascertaining the accuracy of those
    reports is also at a priority for us. We are moving forward to
    ensure that all of the taxpayers' grant money that goes in
    grants is, in fact, spent for the very complicated, very
    important areas of review for which they have been selected.
        Mrs. Northup. You know, I actually think the nonprofit
    community can provide great educational benefits, and I notice
    that some of the press has sort of ridiculed some of the
    studies that have been done, everything from what chemicals are
    applied to golf courses and so forth.
        I have to tell you I don't object to EPA funding reviews of
    all sorts of environmental activities that Americans take place
    on. I think we deserve to know whether even walking across a
    golf course is harmful to our health. So I have in no way an
    objection to EPA providing as broad-based a network as they can
    of looks at the environmental impacts on our lives and to
    provide educational efforts to bring that to our attention. It
    is the misuse of money that I object to.
        I would like to just make one suggestion along those lines.
    It is my understanding, as I looked at some of this in great
    detail, that some of the groups, even if they have a review,
    they then subcontract out to other nonprofits to do portions of
    their work, and at that point many of these nonprofits have
    more than one--is it called an EIS number or something like
    that? So that when I ask for--I can't think of what that--some
    identifier, a number that is, an identifier--that all of
    those--that an organization has to be consistent with what the
    identifying number is that they use, and that all
    subcontractors have to be identified by their number, so that
    an organization that receives multiple subcontracts, enough
    that they would be over whatever the level is for an audit,
    that if their aggregate total grants are over that, that they
    would receive an audit.
        It is the lack of consistency in using the same identifying
    number and the packet that subcontracts--one organization could
    actually contract and receive many subcontracts that would add
    up to over that amount, but they would never appear on any sort
    of printout of who might have a contract under EPA guidelines.
        Ms. Whitman. We are looking at this whole area very, very
    seriously. We are working on developing an order that will
    replace the current guidelines with an actual order, that will
    address a number of these issues.
        Mrs. Northup. Okay. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Walsh. We have just one more questioner this morning,
    Mr. Goode, and then I think we will take a break, which will
    put us around noon, and then we will reconvene around 1:30. And
    I would like to see if we can get the other Members who weren't
    able to join us this morning, and we will go until as long as
    there are questions or until 4:30, whichever comes first.
        Mr. Goode.

                   ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS: ECONOMIC EFFECT

        Mr. Goode. Mr. Chairman, this is maybe more of a comment
    than a question.
        I know you get a lot of persons wanting more regulation,
    and I want to give you a few specifics from my district.
    Lunenburg County unemployment, around 14 percent. There was a
    company there this year employed 75 persons, had been in
    business for decades. The EEQ, because they burned something--
    and I don't even know what it was they burnt--said they were
    going to have to come down and do an investigation and do a lot
    of testing. Well, the company said, hey, you know, we have been
    here. We are employing 75 persons, but we can't put up with all
    of this stuff, we are closing our doors. So they went out of
    business on January 1. We lost 75 jobs. The unemployment is
    already 14 percent. It is a tobacco-growing area, and you know
    what a horrible attack the last administration did on tobacco.
    I want to thank you for being much more balanced than your
    predecessor.
        Another situation, specific, Henry County 3 years ago, they
    wanted the copper to come out of the water that the persons on
    the Henry County PSA--the copper level to be lower than the
    natural copper level in the Smith River.
        We negotiated with EEQ and EPA on that and got some relief,
    but we had outsiders come in. I don't know if they got any of
    the grants Mrs. Northup was talking about, but they were down
    there beating the drum for this copper level, and that was
    great for them, because they weren't going to have to pay the
    water bills that the people in Henry County were going to have
    to pay, jacking them up about $20 per month to meet the
    standard. And the copper wasn't dangerous to the health of
    humans. It was some weed over in the Smith River that they were
    concerned about.
        I will go on down to Martinsville and Henry County again.
    The unemployment now there is between 13 and 15 percent.
    Martinsville is the city, and Henry County is the county. Henry
    County has about 55,000 in Martinsville city. Both are losing
    people. It has about 17,000. I will give you a few of the job
    layoffs we have had there. VF Knitwear, 3,000 people going
    completely out of business. They are going to Mexico. Tultex,
    home-grown, primarily local money there, they went out of
    business, several thousand people, 2 years ago. They didn't go
    to Mexico. Furniture is fast going to Mexico and China. We get
    a lot of Trade Act assistance in Martinsville and Henry County.
    I am thankful for that.
        Let me tell you some of the reasons they are leaving
    ourarea. Henry County on a per capita basis had more manufacturing than
    any other jurisdiction in Virginia, and now it is all going to China
    and all going to Mexico. One of the factors is they don't have to--they
    say they don't have an EPA over in Mexico, and they don't have one in
    China, and they don't have all of the labor demands. They can go over
    there and pay them a lot less labor.
        The point is we are losing a lot of manufacturing jobs, and
    environmental regulations, I want clear air, I want clean
    water, but I want the people to have some money so they can get
    some food and get the basic necessities of life. And the
    unemployment is going up, and a factor in it is overregulation
    in this country. They are all going to China and Mexico, and I
    want to know if they have an EPA in China and Mexico.
        Ms. Whitman. Well, I know that China has begun to take a
    very hard look at what is happening with its environment. It
    has actually changed its mix of energy, and we are looking very
    closely. We have two entities, NADBank and VEC, that fund
    environmental projects along the border. The President has been
    working very closely with President Fox, and I have with my
    counterpart in Mexico, to address issues of air quality and
    water quality as they impact the border.
        That is not to say they have the same kind of regulation as
    we do in place, but they actually have recently agreed to
    establish something like our Toxic Release Inventory for the
    first time. They are starting to take steps to ensure that they
    are getting a better understanding of what, in fact, is being
    put into the atmosphere and looking for ways to reduce that
    burden to protect their populations as well.
        It is really a question of helping with technical
    assistance and ensuring that they have the wherewithal to do
    the job. But the sensitivity to the importance of environmental
    protection has risen greatly in Mexico.
        Mr. Goode. But not quite to the same extent in China.
        Ms. Whitman. Not the way we have it here.
        Mr. Goode. If I were a manufacturer looking to start up a
    business, I would say that it would be much easier for me to
    comply with the rules and regulations in Mexico and much easier
    for me to comply with the rules and regulations in China than
    it would be in the United States. That is a true statement,
    isn't it?
        Ms. Whitman. It is probably a true statement, but as trade
    promotion authority is discussed, and as other trade measures
    are discussed, giving the President the ability to deal with
    these issues, those are some of the issues that are coming to
    the forefront. So in the Chilean Round, and in all of the
    current trade negotiations that are under way, there is a
    recognition of environmental impacts and the uneven playing
    field and the need to provide some relief so that U.S.
    companies and businesses are not adversely impacted by
    environmental regulations. We are still maintaining standards
    that are important to public health.
        Mr. Goode. All right. Thank you for the opportunity.
        Mr. Walsh. I believe that concludes this morning's round.
    Thank you very much for your testimony, and we will reconvene
    at 1:30. The committee is in recess until 1:30.
        [Recess.]
        Mr. Walsh. This subcommittee will come to order. Here we
    are for the second round and why don't we go to Mr.
    Knollenberg, who was not able to be here this morning, and then
    I will be going to Mr. Frelinghuysen, and then come back to
    myself.
        Joe, go ahead.

                EGU/NOX: MICHICAN GROWTH ASSUMPTIONS

        Mr. Knollenberg. Mr. Chairman, thank you and welcome,
    Administrator. Nice to have you here. I have a couple of
    questions for you, and maybe you can help us get on the road
    with respect to the progress, or maybe the lack of progress we
    have had on a little matter called the EGU, which I know you
    are familiar with. It has to do with the NOX budget,
    and I have got some frustration myself about the lack of
    response the EPA has given the State of Michigan concerning the
    growth assumptions on the EGU. Last year, and you have got the
    letters from the congressional delegation, from Governor Engler
    and others, as to putting some emphasis and focus on this, and
    I think the resolve that we have seen from the EPA hasn't given
    us any kind of clear directive as to when to expect the
    ultimate decision by EPA as to how you are going to rule.
        The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality and the
    Michigan Public Service Commission have made a strong case that
    the methodology used by the agency kind of underestimates the
    actual rates of growth that have been observed over the last 5
    years in Michigan. The courts have also raised that issue, and
    I don't have to read the report or the explanation that they
    provided on last May 15, but one of the things they make very
    clear in their statement is that the EPA claims it made a
    reasonable choice and it may be right, but simply to state such
    a claim does not make it so.
        There must be, as they go on to say, an actual reason
    articulated by the agency at some point in the rule making
    process. They state there is none here. As a result, we have no
    choice but to remand the EPA's EGU growth factor determinations
    so that the agency may fulfill its obligations to engage in
    reasoned decision-making on how to set those growth factors. In
    a letter sent--a variety of letters went back and forth, but
    one dated on the October 30, I guess it was, of last year from
    Mr. Jeffrey Holmstead, I believe. Is he in the room too?
        Ms. Whitman. No, he is not. He will be back.
        Mr. Knollenberg. There was a statement to indicate that a
    view would come forward and that the decision that EPA was
    making could be determined to be supported with a more robust
    explanation.Well, I don't know what that means, but I do know
    that we are still waiting for an explanation. And in the second to last
    paragraph in that letter of October 30, it indicates that in November
    of last year there would be a resolve in some explanation coming
    forward. Now, I understand nothing has come forward. Is that true? We
    have received nothing that I know of.
        Ms. Whitman. That is correct, and in fact, we are
    anticipating having that ready by March, the end of this month.
        Mr. Knollenberg. Did I hear that Mr. Holmstead just came in
    the room?
        Ms. Whitman. Yes. He can come right up here and describe
    the difference between a robust and just a plain old answer.
        Mr. Holmstead. Thank you for including me.
        Mr. Knollenberg. I really would like to know what a more
    robust explanation is, and if you just entered the room and
    didn't hear some of the preliminary, we are looking for a
    response relative to this NOX issue that we have
    been scrappling with you for some months now, and you indicate
    in that letter of October 30 that there would be something
    forthcoming in November of 2001. Now, the administrator tells
    me now that is going to be in March of 2002. This is March of
    2002; so when is that explanation going to come forward so we
    can establish some rulemaking here on this issue?
        Mr. Holmstead. What we are still planning to do this month
    is a response to the remand from the court that would require
    us to either simply further explain or propose to change the
    growth factors that we used in setting up the budgets for the
    NOX-SIP call. That is what we plan to do by the end
    of this month under the schedule that we have, I think, given
    to you and to others.
        The real issue, as I think you know, is some concern that
    in setting up these budgets, the Agency underestimated growth
    in different specific states, and that is an issue that we have
    spent a fair amount of time looking at. You know Russ Harding I
    am sure. I have spent some time talking with him about it. One
    of the things we want to make sure that everyone understands is
    that for purposes of setting up the budgets for individual
    States, we have looked at the growth factor for heat input.
    What the State is concerned about is not the growth factor for
    heat input but the growth factor for electricity demand, which
    are different things.
        So what we are trying to do is work through with them the
    difference between the heat input, which only deals with
    electricity generated by fossil fuel plants and electricity
    demand which can be satisfied in a number of other ways. I know
    one of the issues that has come up is a concern that growth in
    the State already was higher in the first couple of years than
    we predicted it would be over about 7 years.
        As I understand it, that has to do with at least in part
    with the fact that a nuclear plant actually went down for
    maintenance for a couple of years, and as a result, the fossil
    fired plants needed to make up that difference and you had a
    significant growth in heat input. Since that nuclear plant has
    come back.
        Mr. Knollenberg. Which nuclear plant are you talking about?
        Mr. Holmstead. I don't recall the name, but I know it is
    located in Michigan. There was a plant that was down----
        Mr. Knollenberg. It was not a big one.
        Mr. Holmstead. It provided, I think, 10 percent of the
    electricity in the State.
        Mr. Knollenberg. We will get to the bottom of that but go
    ahead.
        Mr. Holmstead. Since that plant is back up now, the heat
    rate has actually decreased over the last 2 years, as opposed
    to increased. We are trying to smooth out that bump if there is
    no reason to believe that the plant will be down again anytime
    soon. What we are trying to do is look at a broader historical
    pattern to make sure that we are getting it right.
        Mr. Knollenberg. What we are frustrated with is the fact
    that we have received nothing, and the promise has been made
    that it would be forthcoming, and it simply hasn't come, and
    the frustration runs right through the entire Michigan
    congressional delegation. The Governor has repeatedly weighed
    in on this, and he is still weighing in, I am sure. So we would
    like to see some action in the time frame you have just
    indicated, sometime in March, so we have some idea about what
    to anticipate here. I think it was the Cook Nuclear Plant, by
    the way, that you were referring to.
        Mr. Holmstead. That sounds right.
        Mr. Knollenberg. But that has been our concern. We feel
    that there is a flaw in the formula, if you will, that you are
    using here, but we need to debate that and talk it through and
    resolve it so that we have something we can go home with. And I
    appreciate your response to that, and I look forward to that
    answer as soon as you can provide it.
        Just touching on one other thing, and Mr. Chairman, how
    much time do I have left there? I am not sure where I am going
    to go unless I have the time----
        Mr. Walsh. 3 minutes.

                         GRANTS MANAGEMENT: NONPROFITS

        Mr. Knollenberg. 3 minutes okay. I will make this comment,
    and I understand it was covered this morning with respect to
    the $2 billion in EPA grants to nonprofits and where some of
    that money went, and I presume you have gone through all that,
    so I am not going to fertilize that again, but I think there
    are some questions we should raise there, quite honestly, and I
    hope that according to the information I have gotten, you are
    looking into resolving or making a change to the kinds of
    grants that are made to these nonprofits.
        Ms. Whitman. We are going to go to a competitive structure
    for grants for nonprofits. At the same time, we are going to
    enhance our oversight and requirements for grant recipients so
    that we make sure we have regular reporting. We are staying on
    top of them, and we do reach that nexus. Where there is a
    possibility to audit, we will do it.

        COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS (CSOS)/SANITARY SEWER OVERFLOWS (SSOS)
                                   PRIORITIES

        Mr. Knollenberg. I may not have enough time to get through
    this one, but it is on the CSOs and the SSOs and the role of
    the Federal Government in addressing the problem of combined
    sewer systems. I think it has been said in my home State of
    Michigan that the needs are estimated to be 5.1 billion. We are
    trying to cut some of those costs down by doing some things
    that are sort of high tech, such as putting in a liner in some
    of these older systems, which greatly reduces the cost and it
    certainly doesn't decrease the efficiency, it improves the
    efficiency.
        So some of those things are being done, but even so, and I
    think last year you said that one of your priorities wasthe
    wastewater infrastructure, and I would hope that that is still the
    case, and if there is any brief comment you can make on that as to what
    are your priorities, and when are you setting those out to be
    accomplished relative to the CSOs and the SSOs.
        Ms. Whitman. Well, the CSOs and SSOs continue to be a huge
    challenge that we all face. As I indicated last year, this is
    an area where I believe we need to have a very strong and
    engaged relationship with the Congress to try to figure out
    answers as we go forward, because it really impacts on all of
    the water challenges we face from drinking water to the
    combined sewer overflow to the sanitary sewers. We are
    developing a regulation to better clarify SSO requirements. We
    are moving forward with that.
        There are about 200 municipalities in the State of Michigan
    that have experienced SSO overflows in the last 5 years. We are
    working very closely with the State to address those issues.
    The technology to which you refer is the kind of thing that we
    are looking at to see the impacts. The Chairman talked about
    this a little bit earlier today, we are looking at anything
    that will help States and communities to reduce costs and yet
    meet the challenge that is posed. We are looking forward to
    continuing to work with everybody on this issue, but it also
    goes to the bigger issue that we face in water. It is not just
    the sewers and the sanitary sewer and combined sewer overflow,
    but it is also in the drinking water and clean water.
        All of those things are interrelated. I don't think we can
    honestly separate out any of them for the long term. We need to
    decide on how we can move forward, and what kind of a program
    we need to put in place to look at all of them, although we
    have specific regulations we are developing to clarify on SSO.

              COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW CONTROL AND PARTNERSHIP ACT

        Mr. Knollenberg. A closing comment on this subject, and I
    know my time is probably running shy, the Congress has spoken
    on this issue. As you know, they passed the Combined Sewer
    Overflow Control and Partnership Act, and it was one of Jim
    Barcia's, he was the author of that in the 106th Congress. So
    that is, I think, a Michigan perspective maybe, but it also has
    been embraced and endorsed by a number of members all over the
    country, so it is a huge issue, and I am glad to hear you say
    it is still a priority. It is a huge priority, and I guess it
    has to remain that way. We can talk later if we have time, Mr.
    Chairman, about some of the funding that might be arranged to
    accomplish that success----
        Ms. Whitman. Congressman, if I could, one of the things
    that I have been saying repeatedly is, I believe water is going
    to be our major environmental challenge of the 21st century.
    This is so in particular because the costs that we are looking
    at are so enormous, and so the challenges we face are huge.
        We are talking about now not just point source pollution.
    We have picked the low hanging fruit, as it were. We have done
    the easy things. Most of those pipes that directly discharge
    into bodies of water have been dealt with, or at least they are
    pretty easily identifiable. Now we are talking about watershed
    base management, and that is going to take a whole different
    approach. It is going to take education of the public so that
    they understand that actions far away from a body of water can
    impact on that body of water, and just the very basic
    information on how do we deal with the sewers and overflow
    problems that we have and the infrastructure dollar
    requirements that are going to be required.
        Mr. Walsh. That is exactly why Congress's prerogatives
    should be respected by the administration.
        Mr. Frelinghuysen.

                                  ENFORCEMENT

        Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Governor, could
    you talk a few minutes about the whole issue of enforcement?
    There have been a lot of charges and countercharges going back
    and forth here in terms of what the EPA is doing to enforce
    existing laws. Could you clarify what exactly what we are
    doing, you are doing to uphold the laws?
        Ms. Whitman. Certainly. I would be happy to. We continue to
    vigorously enforce the laws. And, in fact, last year was really
    one of the outstanding years. We saw an increase in the number
    of dollars spent by responsible parties in cleanup, in
    penalties that they face, and the number of cleanups that were
    undertaken. Also where those responsible parties didn't come
    forward in working with us, there was an increase in jail time
    served. We continue to maintain a very vigorous enforcement
    program. We are projecting that we are going to continue that
    kind of enforcement effort.
        We certainly don't intend to back away from our
    responsibilities there, and so we think that we are going to
    continue to see the kind of message get out that needs to get
    out. We are willing to work with you if you are going to work
    with us but if you are not, we are going to make sure that you
    then are held responsible for your actions.
        Mr. Frelinghuysen. Those who suggest that somebody's trying
    to weaken the rules, that is not in anybody's game plan?
        Ms. Whitman. No, it is not. Some people have said that we
    are projecting a lower amount of inspections, and a lower
    amount of enforcement actions. We always have projections that
    are lower than the actual numbers. We always do better than we
    anticipate. As far as inspections and enforcement are
    concerned, and where our focus is, on the actual enforcement.
        I believe that the important thing for us always to
    remember is you can play a numbers game a lot of different
    ways. The important thing is are we making improvements to the
    environment. Are we actually seeing sites cleaned up? Are we
    going after, as we had the discussion this morning, on polluter
    pays? Are we going after that? And last year's numbers, as I
    said, really were record-setting as far as the amount of
    cleanups that were undertaken, the number of enforcement
    actions that were taken, and the amount of money that those
    responsible parties were forced to spend to clean up their
    activities. That is a good indicator of where we are going.

               HOMELAND SECURITY: RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY FUNDING

        Mr. Frelinghuysen. Changing the subject, sort of going to
    the issue of homeland security, the President's budget requests
    an additional $75 million to conduct research on better
    technologies and assessments to cleanup buildings contaminated
    by biological and chemical agents. I would assume some of that
    money is for other related purposes.
        Ms. Whitman. Yes.
        Mr. Frelinghuysen. Could you talk a little bit about that,
    and is there a linkage between what you are doing and the
    efforts of other Federal agencies?
        Ms. Whitman. We work very closely with our Federal partners
    on these initiatives and particularly in the area of
    inspections and in research, we are working very hard
    inresearch. The activities that would be paid for included under that
    $75 million are to develop better methods for rapidly detecting
    contaminants so that we are able to respond more quickly, and
    technologies for better decontamination procedures. We are working very
    closely with the CDC and with ATSDR. We are working with the Department
    of Defense very closely on identifying contaminants. We are looking at
    new technologies.
        Particularly since the anthrax incident, we have, I think,
    about 35 different technologies that have been proposed to us
    as being able to decontaminate anthrax very quickly. We are
    trying to move them forward in an expeditious way, but we have
    got to make sure they actually do what they say they are going
    to do.
        So we are trying to ensure that we have a variety of
    options available and we continue to ensure that we coordinate
    with Homeland Security. In addition, we will work very closely
    with the others who are involved in the same kinds of
    activities. The Department of Defense and we have set up--we
    actually have a task force with them.
        Mr. Frelinghuysen. It comes down sort of to a very basic
    level. The first responders on the scene often are local
    folks--EMT, police and fire--and they would be involved in
    seeing the people are brought to emergency rooms. I just want
    to get a greater feeling that you are involved in link to
    emergency rooms, CDC, departments of health--all the necessary
    agencies are talking to one another which sort of brings up the
    whole issue of whether information systems do talk to one
    another and how well safeguarded they are.
        Ms. Whitman. That is a different issue and we are working
    on that one as well, again under the auspices of Homeland
    Security. We are working to develop, for instance, for water
    systems and chemical companies, secure networked sites for each
    industry where they can share security information and not have
    to worry about other people coming in. We have done a lot of
    revision and a lot of analysis of our own EPA Internet site,
    including reviewing the information that we already have up to
    see what we have and how we can protect what needs to be
    protected, and yet ensure that the local responders have
    everything they need to be able to respond appropriately to
    terrorist actions. We are working very closely with State
    governments, with local governments, and in fact, as far as
    water security is concerned, we have been in touch with local
    police forces across the country to help them be aware of
    vulnerabilities at water systems.

                            COMPUTER SYSTEM ATTACKS

        Mr. Frelinghuysen. Have you had people attack your system?
    Have you had attacks on your overall computer system and----
        Ms. Whitman. Not that I know of.
        Mr. Frelinghuysen. And have you actually used, like, some
    departments--DOE came in to see us and they often employ people
    whose direct work is to see if they can undermine the sanctity
    and security of systems. I assume that this is the sort of
    thing that you are looking at as well.
        Ms. Whitman. We haven't had, that I know of, an
    unauthorized intrusion into the Agency's network since we have
    been working on the security system. That is certainly
    something we take into consideration, and when we work with
    others to enhance the security of our system, we put it to the
    test as well.
        Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Walsh. Thank you, Rodney. Mr. Fattah.

                      CHILDREN'S HEALTH: LEAD-BASED PAINT

        Mr. Fattah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Governor, it is good
    to see you again. In the mid Atlantic region, in Pennsylvania
    specifically, you have done a number of grants related to the
    eradication of lead-based paint, and I was wondering how
    involved the EPA is in this issue nationwide, how big a problem
    do we still have of children growing up and living in housing
    in which there is lead-based paint and I am just trying to get
    a sense of the scope of the problem versus the level of your
    response and whether HHS is involved also or is this a purely
    EPA issue?
        Ms. Whitman. Oh, no. It is a much bigger issue. I believe
    it is a million children who still suffer from----
        Mr. Johnson. Yes.
        Ms. Whitman. Yes. A million children still suffer from lead
    poisoning. One million is a number that we feel is totally
    unacceptable, because it is a preventable problem. We just
    announced a joint settlement with Housing and Urban Development
    with one of their contractors that will--they will go back----
        Mr. Fattah. A very large sum.
        Ms. Whitman. Yes. That is 320,000 units, I believe, that
    are going to be remediated to get the lead out. We need to
    expand that. We are looking very actively at other ways in
    partnerships in which we can enter. We work closely with the
    Department of Health and Human Services, and this is a major
    issue. In fact, I just met with one of our scientific advisory
    committees and asked them to focus on lead as a challenge. It
    is something that I believe we should be able to eliminate as a
    threat to our children.
        Mr. Fattah. Governor, you know that we have known a lot
    about this for a very long time.
        Ms. Whitman. Yes.
        Mr. Fattah. It will be helpful to me if you could provide
    the committee with some information about the scope of the
    problem, not just the number of children. I heard you say a
    million, but the number of what we perceive to be housing
    units, and if that is the case, are there other facilities in
    which children are in schools, other places where there still
    may be lead contamination, and if anyone could give a sense of
    what it would cost to once and for all resolve this problem,
    because as we know, it interferes with the educational levels
    attainment of these children, and the President has said he
    does not want to leave any children behind, and it is
    impossible not to leave children behind if they are going to be
    contaminated by lead-based paint.
        And so I know of your interest in this. It will be helpful
    for me to get a sense of--since it is something we could
    actually concur if we were determined to do so, if we could get
    a sense of what it would take to do it.
        Ms. Whitman. We could certainly do that for the record, but
    Steve could add to the conversation right now, Steve Johnson,
    who is the Assistant Administrator for the Office of
    Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances.
        Mr. Fattah. Thank you.
        Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Governor. The issue of lead-based
    paint is a serious issue facing the United States and as
    Governor Whitman said that we do still estimate close to a
    million children with blood lead levels over an acceptable
    level, the good news is that some recent survey work done by
    CDC actually shows that the numbers of children are coming
    down. So that is very good news.
        As far as the number of houses, there are pre-1978
    homeswhere typically lead-based paint was used, and our estimates are
    that there are about 15 million housing units across the United States.
    Each year there is a variety of things that are done to those homes,
    renovation, remodeling, and those activities lead us to much greater
    numbers by several orders of magnitude.
        So we are looking at not only the total number of housing
    units, but also we have got some fairly good estimates working
    with HUD on the number of renovations and remodeling that go
    on, and that is clearly an issue that we are trying to work our
    way through.
        Mr. Fattah. In terms of abatement, is there an estimate of
    what it would take to clear the contamination in these----
        Mr. Johnson. I don't have that figure off the top of my
    head. I would be happy to provide that for the record.
        Mr. Fattah. If the EPA could provide that for the record.
        Ms. Whitman. We would be happy to provide that for the
    record.
        [The information follows:]

                               Lead-Based Problem

        The primary federal clean up role is with HUD. The USGS has
    determined that 96.4% of all lead paint used in this country
    was used before 1960, so that is the focus of some recent HUD
    estimates. In February 2000 HUD estimated that it would cost
    $20.7 billion to identify and abate all lead hazards in the 2.3
    million pre-1960 housing units occupied by low income families
    not covered by HUD's Lead Paint Regulation. We would consider
    these units to be the most high risk housing units.
    Alternatively, HUD estimated that it would cost $2.3 billion to
    conduct more limited lead hazard reduction or interim control
    activities in the same 2.3 million high risk pre-1960 housing
    units. Note that because these interim control activities do
    not remove all lead paint, they require periodic inspection and
    maintenance to ensure that no new lead hazards emerge. To clear
    up all lead hazards in every housing unit they estimated it
    would cost $166 billion.
        EPA's role in addressing the lead-based problem include
    clean up standards based on the overall risk of exposure,
    creating a national/state/tribal regulatory framework for
    certification and training of lead-based paint abatement
    professionals, and outreach to people who might be at risk of
    exposure to lead-based paint.

                          WATERSHED GRANTS INITIATIVE

        Mr. Fattah. This is not one of those problems that we
    haven't figured out how to deal with, it is a problem where we
    haven't generated in terms of the resources to actually do
    something about, because we know how to solve this problem. It
    is not rocket science. So I would appreciate that, if you could
    provide it.
        Can I ask one other quick question about watershed issues.
    I note that your budget request requests $21 million for
    assessment purposes. In our region there has been a lot of
    assessment already. I was wondering for areas in which
    assessment is no longer a need, would those dollars be
    available for other purposes?
        Ms. Whitman. The $21 million to which you refer is to
    identify 20 watersheds throughout the Nation that are
    threatened watersheds, and to provide some dollars to the
    States and the local entities to do planning for mitigation. It
    is separate and is on top of the Section 319 money and other
    moneys that go for nonpoint source pollution that the States
    use currently for watershed management. So for those areas that
    perhaps might not be one of the 20, there are still other
    dollars available to move them from the planning process into
    implementation. What we are trying to do is start to see how we
    leverage the other dollars that we have out there in watershed
    management, and if we cannot also develop some models for
    others to look at for ways to address watershed degradation
    problems.
        This approach is based on the Charles River in Boston. They
    have a very successful public private partnership with some
    NGOs the city, the State and the Federal Government that has
    resulted in a very dramatic cleanup of the Charles River. So we
    are looking forward to being able to provide that kind of
    example for people, and hopefully we believe to show them ways
    to, in a cost-effective manner, remediate some of these water
    issues. The other funds continue to be there, such as the 319
    funds, the State revolving loan funds, and all of those could
    be used for the projects to which you refer.
        Mr. Fattah. Thank you very much, Governor. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.

                              MANAGEMENT SCORECARD

        Mr. Walsh. Thank you. I will begin the next round. We will
    get back to order. I would like to touch on another subject,
    and that is the EPA's management score card. For those on the
    Committee and in the audience who may not know what this is,
    the Office of Management and Budget has determined to score
    every Federal entity in five broad management categories. It is
    noted in your budget submission--which, I should note, are
    illustrated in a stoplight mode, red supposedly being bad,
    green being good--were as follows: Budget and performance
    integration, yellow; e-government yellow; human capital, red;
    competitive scoring, red; and financial performance, red.
        I should mention the EPA's scores were, in fact, pretty
    good compared with most other agencies' score cards.
        On the other side, this whole idea strikes me as terribly
    subjective, and in fact, not particularly helpful in resolving
    real and specific problems. I think there are some agencies
    that scored fairly well that may not be considered well managed
    at least in the Congress. Recognizing that you have to be
    judicious in how you respond, do you believe that the OMB
    exercise is helpful in resolving actual and known problems at
    the agency?
        Ms. Whitman. I do believe it helps focus us, yes.
    Obviously, we would argue we would want to be an all green. As
    you pointed out, two yellows is not bad, considering where some
    of the other departments and agencies are, but we still have
    challenges in the areas that they have outlined. We do still
    have ways to go in some of those areas, but we feel we are
    further along in some and we will just argue it with them. As
    far as an exercise that helps focus on the priorities of the
    administration relative to what Congress wants to see and the
    ability of agencies to report back as well as assure people
    that we are spending their money wisely, it does help.
        Mr. Walsh. I assume this is the management function of OMB
    as opposed to the budget function of OMB?
        Ms. Whitman. Right. This is the management function.
        Mr. Walsh. Who makes this determination, at what level? Do
    you know?
        Ms. Whitman. Signed off at the highest levels.
        Mr. Walsh. Signed off, but do they make this analysis?
        Ms. Whitman. I suspect it gets done further down the line.
    Who did you have conversations with? Because I know we did
    argue that our side was a little better on a couple ofthings
    than we had before.
        Mr. Walsh. If you would identify yourself for the record,
    please.
        Mr. Ryan. Mr. Chairman I am Michael Ryan, Deputy Chief
    Financial Officer. We spoke with a variety of people at the
    staff up and down at OMB and----
        Mr. Walsh. People who all had extensive management
    experience?
        Mr. Ryan. They are in the Office of Management and Budget.
        Mr. Walsh. Had any of them ever managed anything?
        Mr. Ryan. I am sure that is true. But we spoke to a variety
    of them, and they arrived at a consensus that was worked up to
    the highest levels and signed off.
        Mr. Walsh. Do you agree with the administrator that that
    analysis was objective and helpful?
        Mr. Ryan. Mr. Chairman, I always agree with the
    administrator. And this is no exception.
        Mr. Walsh. And I suspect that the director of Management
    and Budget also agrees with the staff, and vice versa, on these
    recommendations.
        Mr. Ryan. Not to be facetious, it was objective--there was
    a debate among us. Some of us think, of course, we should score
    even better, but I think they were objective. They set out
    criteria, and they did by their best and we actually have been
    making progress ever since it came out. It has focused, as the
    administrator said, our attention on these issues, and you can
    believe that we are spending a lot of time worrying about these
    five issues.
        Mr. Walsh. So they did give you an opportunity to address
    the proposed score card and effect changes before it was
    published in your budget documents?
        Mr. Ryan. Yes, sir, ample.
        Mr. Walsh. This is a question of the Inspector General, if
    she would care to comment on the score card. If you would,
    please, feel free to comment on whether or not you were given
    an opportunity to comment and effect changes within the score
    card. You don't need to come forward if you just identify
    yourself.
        Ms. Whitman. Nikki Tinsley, Inspector General.
        Ms. Tinsley. We did have discussion with the OMB on the e-
    government score. On the others, we did not have a discussion.
        Mr. Walsh. Would this score card be a potential problem
    wherein certain OMB-identified concerns are assigned a higher
    priority than they otherwise should or would be by EPA?
        Ms. Tinsley. Ask me that question again.
        Mr. Walsh. Would you be concerned that their priorities are
    different than EPA's?
        Ms. Tinsley. The priorities that are identified in the
    score card are very consistent with the management challenges
    that we have identified over the last several years for EPA.
    They are also consistent with management challenges that other
    inspectors general across government have identified as
    important to their agency. In many instances, these challenges,
    if they are addressed by the agency will provide a good
    framework for the agency to better manage its operations and to
    better inform the public about the results of operations, so--
    --
        Mr. Walsh. Do you see this as sort of a venture into your
    role? Is OMB usurping your role as Inspector General in terms
    of the management responsibilities of the agency?
        Ms. Tinsley. No. I think all levels of government, no
    matter which part you are in, have a responsibility to make the
    government operate efficiently and effectively----
        Mr. Walsh. And that is not your responsibility?
        Ms. Tinsley. Ours is an oversight responsibility to report
    how that is working, but it is management's responsibility to
    make sure that programs work and that there is good financial
    information and good performance information.
        Mr. Walsh. Thank you. Any other comments on the score card?
        Ms. Whitman. No. I would say this is the one that the
    President feels very strongly about. The ultimate report card
    did come up and was signed off on at the highest levels. It
    represents his commitment to ensuring that we work as
    efficiently and effectively as we can. Again, we did have an
    opportunity to push back a little bit to point out where we had
    made progress during the time that they had started this
    process to when they came out with the report card and
    vigorously defend ourselves where we thought we had been
    unjustly relegated to red. We have made a lot of progress
    since, but it certainly has been helpful in focusing the agency
    on these challenges.

                            LAKE COOLING TECHNOLOGY

        Mr. Walsh. I don't know whether I have asked you about
    this. It is another technology that I have come across. I am
    not sure whether I asked about it last year, and you may or may
    not have someone who is familiar with to comment on it, but I
    would appreciate if you could give me some sort of response in
    writing, if you can't do it verbally, and that is, this issue
    of lake cooling.
        Cornell University recently employed it, and the Finger
    Lakes are very deep lakes holding lots of cold water, and the
    technology draws water from the hypolimnion, which is the
    bottom of the lake, and it is drawn up and it is run through a
    system of pipes, and they use it to chill air and then they put
    it back into the lake, and I guess the issue is the temperature
    as it reenters the lake and how it affects the ecosystems. Is
    there anyone at EPA that has looked at this technology? I am
    sure someone has, but they may not be here.
        Ms. Whitman. Jeff?
        Mr. Holmstead. No.
        Ms. Whitman. No one has looked at that particular
    technology, although we certainly have looked at and are
    concerned about the impact of activities along lake fronts and
    rivers, on the temperature of the river and the impact upon the
    ecosystems. We can certainly have someone sit down with your
    staff and find out a little bit more about this----
        Mr. Walsh. I think if it proves out in Ithaca, for Cornell,
    and I believe there are one or two Canadian cities that are
    looking at this technology, it really has dramatic application
    in the Great Lakes area where you can get to deep water within
    a mile or two offshore; and I know Rochester, New York has
    looked at it and believe it or not, my hometown, which is
    probably 40 miles from the lake, could conceivably utilize that
    technology too.
        But it would be interesting to see what EPA's take was on
    the technology in the event that it became a broadly-used
    energy source or energy derivative.
        Ms. Whitman. Certainly. We will get someone to get the
    information on it and then get in touch with Cornell.
        [The information follow:]

                            Lake Cooling Technology

        EPA has conducted a review to evaluate the potential
    effects of this project on Cayuga Lake. A letter dated October
    5, 1999 (sent as a mass mailing) describing the results of the
    Agency's review is attached. Briefly, one concern that EPA has
    relates to the system's expected discharge of phosphorus, since
    Cayuga Lake is listed as an impaired water body for nutrient
    enrichment. The system would withdraw deep cold water from the
    Lake for cooling purposes and would discharge to the shallow
    southern portion of the Lake. This discharge, at its maximum
    permitted flow, will result in a 3 to 7 percent increase in
    total phosphorus loading per month to the top layer of the lake
    during those months when the lake is stratified. This is a
    transfer of phosphorus to the lake. However, there is concern
    regarding the potential for algal blooms due to this phosphorus
    transfer. The evaluation concluded that EPA does not believe
    the plant will result in significant or discernible increased
    algal growth.

                  [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Walsh. Thank you.
        Mr. Mollohan.

             CLEAR SKIES INITIATIVE: EMISSIONS STANDARDS TECHNOLOGY

        Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Governor, there have
    been a couple of questions asked about the Clear Skies
    Initiative, and I must say, I am not completely unhappy with
    the idea of coming forward with a scheme that defines the
    standard, but doesn't set the technology by which that standard
    must be achieved, which I understand this leans toward. And the
    President, through this initiative, would encourage utility
    sources to find the most innovative ways to achieve reduced
    emissions, as the plan will outline, without dictating what
    kind of technology is to be used to achieve the emission
    standards.
        However attractive that approach might be in my area, this
    budget for the Department of Energy reduces the spending on
    Fossil Energy Research and Development by 16 percent and
    reduces the Fossil Energy Coal Program by 7 percent. Those
    accounts are where the critical research involving Department
    of Energy and utilities is performed to create the systems to
    come forward with the innovative technology in order to achieve
    compliance with any standard. It just prompts me to ask why
    would we put a plan in place that requires utilities to reduce
    emissions through innovative technology and at the same time
    dramatically cut the very programs that are helping, in
    partnership with private industry, to create innovative
    technology.
        Ms. Whitman. Well, Congressman, obviously I can't speak to
    the specifics of the DOE budget. I will say that under the
    Clear Skies Initiative, our budget, what the President has
    proposed when he talked about our commitment to greenhouse gas
    reduction of intensity by 18 percent, and the energy report,
    there is a great emphasis on different ways of spurring
    technology through tax credits and other initiatives. With
    Clear Skies, we are looking at mandatory caps on emissions
    recognizing that there already are about five regulatory
    programs that are either in effect now or coming into effect,
    everything from the NOX-SIP call to the BART Rule,
    to the MACT Standard, and others. All of which will require
    that utilities make changes and find ways to reduce these
    emissions. The premise of the Clear Skies is that by setting
    those standards all at once at one time, they know exactly what
    they are going to have to get to on everything, and they can
    begin work now. In fact, there is a lot of research they have
    already done, and it becomes in the long term in their
    financial interest to increase some of the spending that they
    do on research and development. It does not become the
    responsibility of the government to have to supplement or
    support the research and development they are doing, so I
    presume that is part of the reason.
        Mr. Mollohan. On that point, I would invite you to look at
    that connectivity between what you are doing here on the
    enforcement side, on the standards setting side, and what DOE
    is doing on the research side. I do think they are very, very
    complementary, and I know you are extremely sensitive to that,
    but I encourage you to look more carefully at what they are
    doing on the research side.
        Ms. Whitman. And we are doing quite a bit on research as
    well.
        Mr. Mollohan. Yes. And there have been hundreds of millions
    of dollars spent on this, and there is some very exciting stuff
    on the horizon that could be very complementary to this
    philosophical approach to emission standards. I encourage you
    to look at that.
        Ms. Whitman. Certainly.

        NATIONAL ENERGY POLICY: NEW SOURCE REVIEW AND ENFORCEMENT ACTION

        Mr. Mollohan. The President's national energy policy was
    released May 17, 2001, and he directed the EPA and the Justice
    Department to review the impact on utilities and refineries of
    the Clean Air Act's New Source Review requirements and the
    recent enforcement actions taken. Where are you in this
    process?
        Ms. Whitman. We are close to completion of the 90-day
    review that we were asked to do of New Source Review. As I
    indicated earlier, we are doing a very comprehensive review. It
    is a very contentious and complicated issue and we are very
    close to completion of that initial review. Then there are two
    different parts of New Source Review reform that have been
    proposed. One is based on a set of regulations proposed by the
    previous administration that actually went out in regulation
    for comment where they solicited comment.
        We have had comment and input since 1996. The other set is
    a number of recommendations that were made that go beyond what
    was proposed in 1996 and would vastly streamline New Source
    Review. However, those have not gone out in a proposed
    rulemaking, they haven't been subject to public comment. We
    would have to do that. That is about a 3-year process, and that
    is one of the reasons why we would be so anxious to get the
    Clear Skies proposal through. With the numbers that the
    President laid out under Clear Skies, we would get better
    reductions faster and less expensively than we will get under
    the current Clean Air Act, and therefore it would make it
    redundant.

                  CLEAR SKIES INITIATIVE VS. NEW SOURCE REVIEW

        Mr. Mollohan. What is the relationship between Clear Skies
    Initiative and the New Source Review?
        Ms. Whitman. There actually isn't any. They are totally
    separate. The Clear Skies proposal has been outlined by the
    President, and at the end of the day, what is going to be
    important where that ends up. If it were to be enacted, given
    the President's numbers, then New Source Review, as it applies
    to utilities, would be redundant, and we would no longer need
    to have it because we would be getting less emissions under the
    Clear Skies than we would get under the New Source Review.
        It all depends on where the legislation ultimately ends up.
    But they are totally separate. The review that we are doing of
    New Source Review and the potential for a proposal on the 1996
    rules, are separate and we haven't taken any action on those
    yet. There has been nothing finalized.
        Mr. Mollohan. Do you plan on releasing your review of the
    New Source Review?
        Ms. Whitman. The review of the review? At some point, yes.
    When we finally get through the process.
        Mr. Mollohan. Do you have any idea when that might be?
        Ms. Whitman. I keep saying soon, and soon becomes longer
    and longer, but in Washington, I am finding that is sort of the
    way it happens.
        Mr. Mollohan. It is a complicated issue.
        Ms. Whitman. It is. We are working amongst departments too,
    as it impacts a lot more than just EPA.

                          ENFORCEMENT: FTE REDUCTIONS

        Mr. Mollohan. Staffing, I think we have touched on that a
    little bit, but again, if I might circle back around because I
    want to understand how your recommendations for FTE reductions
    are going to impact enforcement and theState's role and
    capability of performing enforcement. There is some angst out there in
    the country on this. You made a similar request last year: It wasn't
    approved. Your proposed cut for 2003 is about half of last year's
    proposal, but it is still a reduction of 95 FTEs, which I consider to
    be significant. What can you tell us about the justification for
    cutting staffing at your enforcement office?
        Ms. Whitman. Congressmen, we won't be cutting actual
    bodies. We, in fact, anticipate hiring 100 new people starting
    now. We are in an active effort to recruit.
        Mr. Mollohan. Is that because you have a lot of current
    vacancies?
        Ms. Whitman. Yes. That is part of it. At the end of the
    year, we average a turnback of about 120 what I call funded
    vacancies, that the program carries. It is just the nature of
    the program----
        Mr. Mollohan. Are you talking about in the enforcement
    area?
        Ms. Whitman. In the enforcement area. About one fifth of
    our personnel is in the Office of Enforcement and Compliance
    Assurance. The cuts that are being referred to are really in
    that number of funded vacancies. We don't anticipate any
    layoffs of current staff or any reassignment of current staff.
    Basically our proposal would lower the ceiling up to which we
    could go, but a number of positions within the ceiling are not
    filled.
        Mr. Mollohan. So you are proposing having 17,648 FTEs. You
    are saying enforcement represents about----
        Ms. Whitman. Our Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
    Office represents one fifth.
        Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. One fifth of that number and of
    that one fifth, you are proposing eliminating 95 FTEs, for
    which there are vacancies existing at the present time?
        Ms. Whitman. Yes. I believe the reduction can be achieved
    through normal attrition, without the reassignment of existing
    enforcement staff, and without a hiring freeze.
        Mr. Mollohan. I guess I have to ask why we have vacancies
    in the enforcement area at this time?
        Ms. Whitman. Well, Congress gave us money for fiscal year
    2002 to hire up and we are hiring up, but not to the full
    amount that it was anticipated as far as the number of bodies.
    That had to do with the expense of staff costing us more now.
    They are getting more sophisticated, benefits and things.
    Salaries are more expensive; so we don't get as many for the
    same amount that we had before.
        But again, what I go back to is the performance, and the
    performance has been very good. We have been able to see a very
    vigorous enforcement program that has been very successful over
    the last year. We anticipate having the same number of people
    to do the job. What we also have proposed, as you indicated, is
    $15 million to States. States do 90 percent of the compliance
    and inspections now. That is where we believe we can leverage
    the enforcement that we have.
        So by giving the States the $15 million that we are talking
    about here, particularly now when so many of them are facing
    tight budget times, we can help ensure that they continue to
    the job that they are already doing and which they do very well
    and help us with that. They are on the ground. They know where
    the bad actors are. They know where to look. We need to help
    and enhance that effort while we continue to focus on the
    things that are the responsibility of the agency.

                       ENFORCEMENT GRANT PROGRAM PROPOSAL

        Mr. Mollohan. I can tell you there is some real concern out
    there, at least in my State. $15 million spread among all
    States is not going to be adequate. It is a competitive grant
    program, isn't it?
        Ms. Whitman. Yes, the majority of the program will be
    competitive.
        Mr. Mollohan. There are going to be a lot of States that
    don't participate in that $15 million at all, I have got to
    believe. Do you have any estimate of how many States will be
    participating in this program.
        Ms. Whitman. Not that I know of.
        We don't have an estimate, do we?
        No.

                         TARGETED WATERSHED INITIATIVE

        Mr. Mollohan. Well, I just want to renew my earlier concern
    expressed about that. I know last year the Congress did not
    approve it.
        Let me touch on watersheds a moment, Governor. You have
    testified a bit and some questions have been asked about your
    New Initiative to fund the $21 million to deal with watershed
    health throughout the United States. Could you elaborate on how
    is this program going to work in practical terms? I have a
    chart here that indicates that its proposed implementation
    schedule is to start in the spring of 2002. At that time you
    will be announcing the Initiative, sending letters to
    governors, etc.
        Ms. Whitman. What we are doing is reaching out to governors
    to help us put the plan together as the best way to meet their
    needs. We are working in a very aggressive partnership mode
    with the States. We anticipate putting a letter out to the
    States, asking them for their ideas and input as to how best to
    frame the program so that we can actually target the watershed
    areas that we want to reach. As I indicated before, this is an
    effort to leverage the moneys that we are already spending
    through different programs on watersheds and start to provide
    States with some examples to follow.
        Mr. Mollohan. I think this is an exciting initiative if it
    plays out the way I imagine it could, for our area certainly.
    Is there an inland watershed focus to this? I know we have a
    lot of coastal programs and estuary programs.
        Ms. Whitman. It certainly isn't relegated to inland waters
    exclusively, but they would certainly be considered as part of
    it. Really, when you talk about watersheds, you start inland
    and work out. Now, we have to work with the States to see how
    we deal with the coastal plains and the coastal areas and
    estuaries versus the full watershed. If you look at some of
    them they encompass a number of States. The exciting thing here
    is the ability to maximize the money we are already spending,
    the research that we have done, and to see impact that goes far
    beyond one particular area stream or watershed.
        Mr. Mollohan. I have a couple other questions to follow up,
    but I know my time is up right now. Thank you, Governor.
        Mr. Walsh. Mr. Knollenberg.
        Mr. Knollenberg. One quick question, Governor, with
    reference to Mr.--the gentleman from West Virginia, Alan, which
    watersheds are you targeting?
        Ms. Whitman. We haven't drawn----
        Mr. Knollenberg. You are going to get to that, to the
    prioritizing----
        Ms. Whitman. Yes. We haven't pre-identified them.

                   COOK NUCLEAR PLANT: FOSSIL FUEL GENERATION

        Mr. Knollenberg. I want to go back to this question to Mr.
    Holmstead referenced in the last conversation I had. It has to
    do with the Cook Nuclear Plant. The reason we think that--and
    you might want to come forward and respond to this.
        Ms. Whitman. So we can give you another robust answer.
        Mr. Knollenberg. I need a robust answer, more robust than
    the last one.
        Let me just explain. This Cook nuclear plant that you
    referenced, I didn't bring it up, but you did, the Michigan
    view on this is contrary, as you probably know, to what you
    just stated. You stated that because the Cook Nuclear Plant
    came back online, that the higher levels in 1998 and 1999
    reflect increased fossil generation. That is what you are
    saying.
        Mr. Holmstead. No. I don't think I explained myself very
    well.
        Mr. Knollenberg. To make up for Cook being off-line, that
    is what you said.
        Mr. Holmstead. What I tried to say, and I may not have
    explained myself very well, is that when the nuclear plant went
    off-line, we saw an increase in the use of fossil fuels in
    Michigan, not surprisingly. If you take that increase out over
    a 7-year period, you would predict a very significant increase
    in the use of fossil fuel.
        Mr. Knollenberg. Let me interrupt you, because here is the
    difference. Cook is a part of the AEP system. It is dispatched
    by AEP, and the vast majority of its generation doesn't even go
    into Michigan. It goes out of the State because it is a part of
    a broader group. I can understand where you might make that
    assumption that it would stay within the State, but this says,
    no, that it was outside the State. It would only make a small
    difference in terms of the actual fossil fuel generation.
        Mr. Holmstead. No, but I believe the plant is located in
    the State of Michigan.
        Mr. Knollenberg. It is, yes.
        Mr. Holmstead. And the way the program works is that----
        Mr. Knollenberg. Which program?
        Mr. Holmstead. The NOX SIP Call or the section
    126 rule, either one. The allowances are allocated on a State-
    by-State basis.
        Now, I don't know----
        Mr. Knollenberg. The basis of the generation of the power
    within that State.
        Mr. Holmstead. Regardless of where it----
        Mr. Knollenberg. That doesn't make any difference?
        Mr. Holmstead. I mean, I don't know enough about the AEP
    system to know where all the plants are located.
        Mr. Knollenberg. It is conceivable that most of the power
    generation could be in Michigan, which would produce a flawed
    assumption on the part of these growth assumptions that you are
    making. I am just stating that that is one of the things we
    have difficulty with, because we are being told that it is for
    this reason.
        Very honestly, I think if you analyze it or look at it
    carefully you will find that it is a little different than what
    you might presume, because that power generation didn't go into
    the State of Michigan. It went outside, and the difference in
    percentage of growth factor is anywhere between 13 and 31
    percent. EPA says 13 percent. We are saying 31 percent. I think
    something----
        Mr. Holmstead. No. And I agree absolutely. I sense from
    your questions that you are not entirely satisfied with the
    situation.
        Mr. Knollenberg. I am not.
        Mr. Holmstead. And----
        Mr. Knollenberg. In fact, let me just say this. In your
    letter, your response or your action, your coming up on the
    Hill by the end of March, we expect to have an answer.
        Mr. Holmstead. What I can commit to with the support of
    Governor Whitman is that I will make sure that we get to the
    bottom of all of these issues and that we come up to talk with
    you.

              COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS (CSO): FARMINGTON DISTRICT

        Mr. Knollenberg. I think we should. I would appreciate
    that.
        Governor, getting back to the item I brought up the last
    time around, concerning a city in my district, where I
    mentioned the high technology, the liner that is being used to
    reduce costs greatly. It is called the cured-in-place method of
    pipe repair. I have been told that it can double the life of
    the current pipe at only one-third of the cost of replacing the
    pipe. I have no idea about projecting the longevity of any of
    these things, but apparently it has been accepted certainly in
    some countries. I don't know how much it has been accepted
    here, but we have one of those in my district, so we are kind
    of anxious to see how it works out. I have been assured this
    method is going to work out very well.
        You know as well as I do that the cost that is being
    estimated for these CSOs and SSOs is just horrendous. There is
    no way we can do it, and we can't expect by mandates to make
    the cities and the towns do it.
        But what I am wondering is--will the EPA provide
    flexibility of some kind so that States can at least deal with
    the problem for less costs?
        In my own county again, there is a program.
        Where they are expecting the cost to be something like $180
    million. They are working on an alternative which may or may
    not have EPA's acceptance that would cost around $20 million,
    as opposed to $180 million. They are talking about using
    existing CSO infrastructure for SSO discharges instead of the
    retention basin that would cost $180 million, the city claims
    they can do this forsomething like 10 cents on the dollar and
    still bring about a completion.
        The point is, though, does it meet with EPA specs? I don't
    know. Does it meet with the specs of the various States? But it
    is something that is being looked at seriously, because people,
    certainly in Michigan and around the country, know that they
    can't come up with these monies. The mandates are too
    excessive, too high.
        So I guess, what do you need from Congress, if anything, to
    help you in working with cost-effective alternatives on these
    various problems around the country. That is worth talking
    about, I think.
        Ms. Whitman. Oh, absolutely, and we do have some ability to
    provide flexibility in meeting standards. It may be, though, as
    we get into the discussion on these particular water issues
    that we might need to come back to Congress.
        First of all, we should be talking with Congress as we go
    through this, because it is going to require more than just one
    entity of government or the private sector to meet these
    challenges. I don't know that we won't perhaps require some
    more flexibility from Congress in order to be able to maximize
    the technology that is out there, but I can't say at this
    point.
        There are a lot of exciting technologies throughout, and
    actually what you are referring to on that sleeve in the pipes
    is something I have heard of being used in Newark. They
    apparently are using that for infrastructure, which is very old
    and costs just an enormous amount of money in a community that
    can hardly afford it.
        That is the sense of the issue that we face: these costs
    are just enormous. They cannot be borne by any one entity
    alone, whether it is a municipal government, State government,
    Federal Government or the private utility. So we need to be as
    flexible as we can and understand that, whatever the technology
    is, we have to make sure it works.
        It is not up to us. I would like to get EPA out of the
    business of designating a single type of technology. What we
    should do is say, here are the standards that have to be met,
    and then we do have a responsibility to judge each of the new
    technologies that come forward to make sure they do what they
    say they are going to do. Then we can say, yes, this is
    something you can use or, no, it is not going to do the job
    they claim it is going to do.
        But, beyond that, we should not mandate you have to use
    this technology, you have to use that one. That to me does not
    make sense, and we recognize that not all wisdom rests with us.
        Mr. Knollenberg. I am glad to hear you say that, because I
    do think it calls for a greater cooperative effort to
    collaborate and then cooperate in a way that we can architect
    some alternatives that are just as effective and costs far, far
    less. So, thank you.
        Mr. Walsh. Mr. Fattah.

                             ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

        Mr. Fattah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Governor, let me ask you about some environmental justice
    issues related to, you know, toxic waste cleanup, Brownfields.
    Your department has--you verified that a disproportionate share
    of these sites in many instances are in communities that are
    heavily populated by African Americans, Latinos, Native
    Americans; and I noted you have been making some efforts in
    this regard. I want to give you a chance to expound on what is
    being done and what--to what degree that we can be helpful, you
    could utilize the--in responding more to these issues.
        Ms. Whitman. Well, environmental justice is of great
    concern to us. As you know, there were a number of outstanding
    title VII issues that we faced. We have been able to reduce
    that backlog by about 90 percent. As we look at projects, we
    have to take into consideration, and we do take into
    consideration, the environmental justice impact of individual
    projects. We had a bit of a discussion this morning about
    Brownfields, and----
        Mr. Fattah. I don't want you to be repetitive.
        Ms. Whitman. No, no, no. From your point of view, what I
    think is very important in the Brownfields legislation that you
    all gave the country is not so much the dollars, although the
    President is requesting a doubling of the Brownfields program
    to $200 million, but what is most important is the liability
    protection. That to me is going to provide the greatest
    stimulus for the redevelopment of these sites, and what we are
    doing now is working with the States and working with the
    communities to help them identify Brownfields sites, to help.
        I entered into a memorandum of understanding with Habitat
    for Humanity to identify Brownfields sites that were
    appropriate for low and moderate income, subsidized housing. We
    have entered into an agreement with the U.S. Soccer Foundation
    for those Brownfields sites that could provide soccer fields
    and recreational outlets. There are a number of different uses,
    and not only will the reclamation of a Brownfields site help
    reduce environmental pollution, it will also help increase the
    health of the community, economically, environmentally and
    physically.
        One thing that we have seen from Brownfields is, for every
    dollar that the Federal Government invests in a Brownfields
    site, we leverage $2.50. For every acre of Brownfields that is
    redeveloped, we save four acres of green space.
        We are looking forward to and are excited by the
    opportunity and the challenge of the new program, but, as I
    said, it is not going to be just what the Federal Government
    spends that is going to make the difference. It is also going
    to be this liability protection, which really is going to free
    the private sector to become more actively involved in doing
    Brownfields reclamation. While Brownfields do occur all across
    the country and not just in urban areas, the preponderance of
    them are in urban and low-income areas. So we are looking
    forward to seeing some very good projects take place.

                               STATE PERFORMANCE

        Mr. Fattah. Thank you, Governor.
        Let me ask you, the report card that the Chairman referred
    to, does OMB have a score? Do they get reported on?
        Ms. Whitman. I don't know if they report on themselves.
        Yes, they do. Okay. They do. Fair enough.
        Mr. Fattah. But speaking of report cards, since 50 percent
    of the dollars driven to EPA, you drive to States--and I would
    assume there will be some political sensitivity, but I am just
    talking as a general matter. I assume there are some States
    that are more aggressive, moreefficient, more effective than
    other States, and I would like to know how is it that you go about, I
    assume through some process of carrot and stick, to encourage those
    that need encouragement, and is there anything in your budget request
    that is related or sensitive to those kinds of issues?
        Ms. Whitman. Actually, all our programs in which we work
    with the States reflect the individual State's commitment and
    the sophistication that they have in the environmental area.
    Most of our programs are competitive. There are some where we
    do realize that we need to put more emphasis. We mentioned a
    little earlier on the enforcement side of it, there are some
    States that do a very good job and some States that don't do a
    very good job. For those that aren't as geared up to do
    enforcement, we anticipate maintaining our presence there.
        The dollars that we are talking about giving to the States
    is more to enhance those that, for instance, may have a very
    good water program but they don't have much in the way of air
    inspections. If we could give them some money, they could bring
    themselves up to that level, the same level in air as they are
    in water. We are very sensitive to the fact that there is an
    enormous difference, and where there are problems we work with
    both carrot and stick with the States to try to get them into
    compliance and to ensure that they are putting appropriate
    attention to the environmental needs.

                                 CLIMATE CHANGE

        Mr. Fattah. Lastly, I think you referred to it as climate
    change, that general terminology, global warming. You know,
    this is the warmest winter on record, and we have some drought
    issues in both your home State of New Jersey and in
    Pennsylvania and throughout, which is probably going to lead to
    a whole range of other issues going forward. I know that you
    are the administration's point person on this issue and how we
    are going to both cooperate internationally and what we plan to
    do domestically, and you may have spoken about this already,
    but I would like to--if you want to give some remarks on it, I
    would like to hear it.
        Ms. Whitman. Certainly. The reason I say global climate
    change is because in some areas of the globe we are seeing it
    getting colder. Some of the ice packs are increasing. Other
    parts of the globe we are seeing a warmer trend. So it is not
    uniform around the world. That is why we say global climate
    change rather than warming for accuracy's sake.
        The President's proposal would reduce the level of
    greenhouse gas intensity by 18 percent over the next 10 years.
    It provides a cut point to review where we are, to see what we
    are achieving and if there is a need to have a more vigorous
    market-based approach to decide that at that time.
        There is also a great deal of emphasis put on enhanced
    research and development on the science. Because while science
    tells us there is definitely a climate change, our accounting
    science is not as definitive as to what is causing that,
    whether it is all human impact, whether it is part of a natural
    cycle exacerbated by human impact or which of the emissions are
    the most troubling to the environment.
        Black soot, for instance is rarely talked about when people
    today are talking about what impacts climate change. Yet that
    is something that those scientists feel has a very big impact
    on climate change. So the President is calling for a much more
    focused effort on scientific research, not to deny that there
    is global climate change occurring. He believes there is. He
    doesn't think we can wait until we have all the definitive
    signs. That is why he has proposed the 18 percent reduction in
    intensity with an ability, should a science review justify it,
    to stop greenhouse gas emissions entirely and then to start to
    reduce. I mean, that ultimately would be where we would like to
    go, if the science can justify that.
        What is significant about what he proposed is that there is
    baseline protection in there for those companies that choose to
    act early and, to me, that is going to be again one of those
    things that is going to encourage companies to take action.
    They will know that they will have protection against any
    future regulatory change that might demand reductions. Whatever
    they do now will count against that. We are in the process of
    developing that system so that we know that we can provide that
    baseline protection.
        The Department of Energy has been charged with enhancing
    its reporting system. They do maintain a reporting system on
    greenhouse gas emissions. We are working with them to enhance
    reporting that so we have a better baseline understanding of
    exactly what is being proposed. There is an emphasis that the
    President wants to see us put forward on involving developing
    nations. When you limit the developing nations and don't have
    them as part of the process, really, at all, you are missing a
    lot. You are talking about China, which is the second largest
    greenhouse gas emitter, or India, which is in the top 10. And
    the argument, while understandable, that we don't want to do
    anything that would hurt their ability to grow their economies,
    the premise that the only way they can grow their economies is
    by repeating all the mistakes that we made during a period like
    the industrial revolution totally ignores all the advances that
    we have seen in technology.
        What we should be looking at is, how do we provide a
    technology transfer? How do we help developing nations continue
    to grow their economies while being smart about it, using what
    we know now? How can we help them grow without having them
    continuing to hurt the environment?
        To say we should just do nothing until they have reached
    economic parity with the developed nations means that we are
    going to be in a hole so deep, as far as the environment is
    concerned, that we will never be able to remediate it. So the
    point here is to engage now with the developing countries, to
    engage with businesses and technology transfer to make sure
    that, when we call for great expenditures, we are doing it in
    the areas that are really going to make a difference. That is
    how we are proposing to move forward with this climate change
    proposal.
        Mr. Fattah. Well, let me thank you, Governor, and I wish
    you well on that.
        I guess China at this point would prefer to be on that list
    of discussions instead of on the other list that has been
    mentioned.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Walsh. Thank you.
        Mr. Frelinghuysen.

                                    DROUGHT

        Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you.
        The other side of Mr. Fattah's question has to do with
    water supply. Your budget and your emission has everything to
    do with quality water, water protection, watershed protection,
    wetlands protection. Any views as to where weare going in terms
    of the drought? I mean, I know that this largely falls on municipal and
    State, but we are looking at a major crisis. I just wondered if you had
    anything you would like to share for the good of the order.
        Ms. Whitman. Well, as you know, Congressman, the actual
    water quantity falls under the realm of the Interior Department
    rather than under the Environmental Protection Agency. Having
    said that, of course, quantity affects quality. We see the
    intrusion of saltwater up our streams, and as we deplete our
    underground aquifers, as we pollute, we affect the water
    quality. As we drawdown water, that intensifies some of the
    adverse impacts we are seeing. So we do have a very real
    concern; and, as I mentioned earlier, I sincerely believe
    water, both quantity and quality, will be the biggest challenge
    that we face.
        It is hard to affect people's behavior, to get people to
    understand that the little things they do can have an impact.
    We get a pushback all the time, and you see it as we get into
    drought mode. I saw it when I was governor when I had to
    declare a drought emergency. People do not believe that if they
    just wait and run the washing machine when it is full, that
    what they do in their home is actually going to have an impact
    on this huge problem that we have. And it does. It is going to
    take everybody to solve this problem.
        It is not just going to be the water utilities. It is not
    just going to be the States. We are looking constantly--we are
    working with agriculture to work on better ways with farmers so
    that they can use better technologies in irrigation. How do we
    recapture water from run-off? We are looking at what we can do,
    working with business and industry, to reduce the amount of
    water that they use in processing. We are doing a lot to try to
    reduce that dependence.
        But at the end of the day, when you talk about irrigation,
    that gets to be more Agriculture and Interior than it does us.
    We are actively engaged in this, because it does have a throw-
    off impact to us.
        Mr. Frelinghuysen. Public education, absolutely essential.
    I do think sort of like the success of teaching children about
    the dangers of smoking in school, if--and I know there are some
    school models out there in terms of water conservation and
    preservation. It is amazing what you can do. We may be hopeless
    as adults, but as children we are educable.
        Ms. Whitman. Yes. We just launched our Web page on the use
    of water.
        Mr. Frelinghuysen. Well, it just so happens, I have a
    question that relates to your Web page.
        Ms. Whitman. On water usage for children?

                    LEAKING UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK (LUST)

        Mr. Frelinghuysen. No. What would be a hearing without a
    little LUST? The underground storage issue, you are
    accelerating that program. You have got I think $75 million
    towards additional cleanup. Any comments in that area?
        Ms. Whitman. We believe there are about 470,000 leaking
    underground storage tanks throughout the country. It is clearly
    an issue of great concern, and that is why we have enhanced
    funding for it. We are working again on technologies, better
    technologies for cleanup. We are trying to work with the local
    communities and States to ensure that they have prioritized the
    sites and that they are working as quickly as possible to deal
    with them.

                            ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY

        Mr. Frelinghuysen. Lastly, the issue of technology, we have
    here, as I am sure through your agency, more people coming into
    our offices with new techniques. I know you have a number of
    laboratories. I am not suggesting for a moment that they be
    like Consumer Reports. But I would assume that we don't have
    the ability to act as a clearinghouse, although to some extent
    we become a clearinghouse. Do any of your labs look over some
    of these technologies, some fairly ingenious, to determine
    whether they have some worth?
        Because, you know, with all due respect, the old pump and
    treat might have been good, but, in reality, there is a lot of
    technology out there, and it seems to me that we could be--
    without endorsing a product, we could be doing things a lot
    smarter and quicker than we are.
        Ms. Whitman. Absolutely. That is a large part of what the
    labs do and what we do here in Washington. The Ann Arbor Motor
    Vehicle Lab, for instance, looks at new automotive technology
    for reductions of emissions. We are constantly focused on that.
        We have a new initiative that I am undertaking in this
    budget. It is something that I think is very important, which
    is the National Environmental Technology Competition, and it is
    designed to help recognize and reward new and innovative
    technology.
        One of the things that we have found is that so many people
    are working on these areas, and don't always know what the
    other is doing. Sometimes it is duplicative and then other
    times they are starting from scratch when they don't need to.
    So what we are trying to do is help to identify in a more
    effective manner, those low-cost solutions that exist for
    environmental programs and for environmental problems and then
    to stimulate development where the technology gaps exist. We
    are doing that by recognizing those who have new technologies.
        This is going to be a partnership with States and private
    sector representatives and ensuring that we verify and identify
    technologies that are actually working and then call attention
    to them. We are developing criteria for technology evaluation
    so that we have the highest standards available and make sure
    that whatever we identify in fact--offers a real solution to
    the problems. We are trying to get a better understanding
    between EPA and the industrial sector on a number of
    environmental concerns and aligning our future environmental
    requirements with technology performance capabilities.
        We have a lot of standards coming online. We are not always
    sure that the technology exists to meet those standards, and we
    need to be. We need to be assured that, in fact, you can meet
    those standards and in an affordable way. I hope that this
    competition will in fact help us on this.
        Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you for your testimony.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Walsh. Mrs. Northup.

        OHIO RIVER BRIDGE PROJECT: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

        Mrs. Northup. Thank you. I am sorry I am going back and
    forth. I hope I am not repeating questions that somebody else
    has asked, but I have two committees going on at the same time.
    I haven't learned to be two places at once yet.
        I want to ask you about your participation with the Federal
    Highway Administration on draft EIS statements and your
    involvement in the NEPA process, and I will just--to give you a
    general idea, I would estimate that 80 to 90 percent of the
    constituents in my district support a bridgethat has been in
    the planning process. It has been under study for over 30 years. That
    is a long time, wouldn't you say? To say it is moving forward at a
    snail's pace might be an exaggeration of how fast this is moving.
        However, we now have a draft EIS before us, but it has
    raised some questions as I have worked with the Transportation
    Department. What EPA sees its role in this is, and I guess
    what--I want to ask some general questions.
        I have to tell you that I think the EPA has acted very
    responsibly with the cabinet in Kentucky in trying to address
    this fairly, but some of the previous efforts have raised these
    questions in my mind. That is, does EPA consider land use,
    planning and zoning a local responsibility or EPA's?
        Ms. Whitman. That is very definitely a local
    responsibility.
        Mrs. Northup. So would you think it would be appropriate
    for EPA, in responding to a draft environmental impact
    statement, to be talking about sprawl and causing sprawl? I
    mean, how would they be able to do that if they don't even have
    a set definition between what is sprawl and what is planned
    growth?
        I might just for the record say the bridge we are talking
    about 35 years ago, when it was first proposed, you might say
    it would lead to growth. In 35 years, growth has far passed up
    what this bridge--where this bridge is going to go. It is now
    almost irrelevant.
        But the words sprawl and planned growth are ones that seem
    to be reoccurring in the EPA's evaluations here.
        Ms. Whitman. Well, Congresswoman, I think that, as far as
    the bridges are concerned, right now most of the issues where
    we had concerns with this project have been resolved. It is not
    up to us to make the final determination on smart growth. We
    are not the Nation's planner.
        However, I do think it is appropriate to raise the issue of
    sustainable development and smart growth, simply because when
    we continue to put additional pressure on the environment we
    end up having to deal with the consequences of that. But, at
    the end of the day, that is the final decision as to where
    development takes place or it doesn't for the large part,
    unless it is in an environmentally sensitive area, wetland or
    something, is not our basic decision. But, as I say--and I
    don't think it is inappropriate for us to raise the issues of
    concern about sprawl and growth, just so we know they are being
    considered. If that is the way people want to go, then that is
    the way the State or the local government makes its decision.
        Mrs. Northup. I think in this particular project that there
    have been a lot of conversations and there has been a lot of
    resolution about these issues. I think what my questions are is
    where is the official EPA position--and maybe I should say are
    you convinced that people in the middle levels and lower level
    manager levels are aware of what the official position is?
        You know, I think my concern is that they are expanding
    their oversight beyond what their responsibilities of their
    respective departments are and that they go beyond their areas
    of expertise and responsibility. Maybe they have long-standing
    relationships with organizations that have taken a position to
    block something, and they become as engaged with organizations,
    you know, in advocacy as just trying to regulate. And I just
    wondered if you are finding yourself in the position and what
    position you are taking on any sort of areas where this might
    be a problem.
        Ms. Whitman. Well, Congresswoman, when those kinds of
    issues or concerns are raised to us, we bring them up with the
    region. We investigate and take appropriate action if it is
    appropriate to redirect where responsibility lies. Making
    decisions, we will do it. If we think there is anything
    inappropriate going on, we will take the action required to
    address it.
        Mrs. Northup. Well, this is the last round of questions for
    me. I am going back. But, first of all, let me thank you for
    what I believe is very honest and straightforward testimony. I
    do believe that people of good will can look at the same facts
    and have a different conclusion about what they think the right
    public policy is, but just clarifying what the position of your
    cabinet is, about relying on science and technology, about
    laying down clear guidelines to us, we can at least have that
    debate based on a confidence that we have the information that
    will help us make those decisions.
        I do think that your leadership and the clarity of what--of
    how you are approaching and your Department is approaching each
    one of these challenges is very reassuring to me.
        I believe that the environment is hugely important to the
    American people and that they really don't want us to walk away
    from that. On the other hand, when they start to believe that
    there are political agendas that are mixed up with this, that
    there is unproven scientific effort, it undermines our ability
    to go forth carefully and keep the public trust with us. I am
    very reassured to hear from you today and just so thrilled,
    quite honestly, with the straightforwardness of your cabinet's
    responses.
        Ms. Whitman. Well, thank you very much. You are absolutely
    right. You can look at all the issues relative to the
    environment, and good and honest people can disagree on how
    best to solve the problems. But as long as we can agree on what
    the issues are and form some base there, I think we can come to
    conclusions that will get us to the end of the day. I look
    forward to working with you.
        Mrs. Northup. Thank you.
        Mr. Walsh. Mr. Mollohan.

                               WATERSHED PROGRAMS

        Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Regarding this $21 million initiative for watersheds, I
    think Mr. Fattah asked what would be the focus of the
    initiative, would some of it be on developing intervention
    strategies or implementation? I would like to follow up and
    have you elaborate on that. What is this money going to be
    eligible to be used for?
        Ms. Whitman. We want a variety of projects. We want urban
    and rural inland, issues like apoxia in the Gulf. The inland
    projects obviously affect the watersheds. They affect the bays
    and the oceans. We are going to have criteria we are
    considering for the program, will run the scope from the value
    of the resource, the likelihood of deliverables, of getting
    real results from the project that is proposed so they can be
    measurable.
        We want to see broad support, broad community support, as I
    mentioned. We are modeling it on the Charles River and
    Massachusetts Initiative. One of the things that we have seen
    and gleaned is that, as we have from a number of otherthings,
    is that you really need broad community support. You need local
    government support, as well as State, but you need the community
    involved as well. That will make a difference in how we choose them.
        The innovation that is behind the project is going to be
    something that is going to be of importance to us, but we are
    looking for a variety of both urban and rural programs where we
    can address the dollars.

                         MID-ATLANTIC HIGHLANDS PROJECT

        Mr. Mollohan. I will just commend you to one area, the Mid-
    Atlantic Highlands. There has already been a lot of work done
    in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands. It encompasses watersheds in
    four States--Pennsylvania, Maryland, West Virginia, and
    Virginia. A lot of that work has been done in very close
    cooperation with the EPA and its regional offices.
        Ms. Whitman. Right.
        Mr. Mollohan. And so we are actually excited because we are
    a little ahead of the curve, and hope that we can be active in
    that program.
        Governor, I join the Chairman and the committee in
    appreciating your testimony here today and look forward to
    working with you. Thank you very much for your appearance here
    today.
        Ms. Whitman. Thank you.

         NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCE (NAS) REVIEW: DIOXIN REASSESSMENT

        Mr. Walsh. Thank you.
        A couple weeks ago, I sent a letter to you requesting that
    the Agency undertake an agreement with the National Academy of
    Sciences to review the current draft regarding the dioxin
    reassessment, which I understand is now being prepared for
    interagency review. In my letter, I noted several areas that I
    thought it appropriate for NAS to look at closely. I also
    mentioned that I understand such review may delay the final
    publication of the reassessment.
        I want to state for the record that, given the importance
    and likely influence this document will have on government and
    private cleanup efforts, numerous regulatory matters around
    even on policy questions regarding the U.S. food supply, I
    believe a slight delay is not only warranted but also perhaps
    advisable. I truly believe that an NAS review is likely to
    expedite a subsequent interagency review and will have the
    added benefit of bringing to bear the expertise of
    nongovernmental scientists in this area.
        It would be ideal if you could respond right now in the
    affirmative, but I understand that may not be possible. My
    intent at this time was merely to emphasize my interest in the
    matter, and if you would like to comment, please feel free to
    do so.
        Ms. Whitman. Oh, I certainly will. We are considering a
    reassessment; we are considering sending it to the National
    Academy of Sciences. We do recognize this has been a long
    process, but you have raised a very important question, and the
    issues are of great concern. At this point I have not made a
    final decision on that, but that is certainly one of the
    options that we are looking at very seriously, on how best to
    go forward with this.

                         CLIMATE CHANGE: KYOTO PROTOCOL

        Mr. Walsh. Thank you.
        Just an editorial comment before we close, and this is the
    end of the hearing, Congressman Fattah mentioned the global
    warming issue and the Kyoto Protocol, and I would just like to
    say that I have not been to Shanghai in China, but I have been
    told by people who visited there that the air is so bad that
    people wear cloths over their mouths, that you can't see out of
    windows and buildings. So I have just heard that.
        I have not been there myself, but I have been to New Delhi
    in India about 3 years ago, and I actually lived in Nepal and
    in India in the Peace Corps a long time ago. The air is worse
    now than it was when I was there 25 years ago. In fact, between
    the coal-fired power plants and the coal-fired trains and coal
    pots that people use to heat their homes and heat their hovels
    where they live along the river, not to mention the dung fires
    and the diesel, the air is dangerous to breathe. In China, I
    have heard it has a yellowish tint. In New Delhi, it is brown.
    The air is brown.
        I think we have--and I am not crying crocodile tears here.
    I think we have a moral responsibility to those people that
    live in those countries to make sure that if their governments
    aren't prepared to go along with the international accords on
    clean air that we should force them. Granted, we consume
    probably more energy than any other country in gross terms and
    probably per capita, but we also I think do a better job than
    almost any country in terms of strenuously enforcing
    environmental codes. So we should use our--and I think we have
    it--our moral high ground to encourage strongly China and India
    to participate in any international agreement, because they are
    making their people very, very sick.
        You may give them--as you pointed out, you may give them
    the opportunity to improve their economy, but it should not be
    at the expense of their health and their environment. So for
    what it is worth.
        Ms. Whitman. Oh, we just got back from India and Thailand
    last month, and I would concur with the quality of the air
    there. We do have a memorandum of understanding with the
    government of India. We are offering them technology and
    technological help, because there is a very high incidence of
    lung disease, particularly among women and children because of
    the fuel they use indoors to both heat and to cook. It is a
    serious concern.
        As we know, we see those pollutants don't stay where they
    are. They migrate. We are seeing pollutants, in fact, of the
    salmon off our West Coast, Alaska. For those tribes that have a
    subsistence living, it is a very real concern. We are seeing
    pollutants turn up there that we banned years ago that are not
    coming from us but from other countries. So we all are in this
    together, and I think we need to understand that.
        Mr. Walsh. Thank you. The committee will have additional
    questions which will be submitted to you for a written response
    for the record. Your prompt response to these is appreciated.
        The committee will stand adjourned until tomorrow, March
    13th, at 9:30 a.m. in room H-143, where we will continue taking
    testimony on the fiscal year 2003 budget submissions of three
    more agencies under this subcommittee's jurisdiction. Thank you
    very much for your forthright testimony.
        Ms. Whitman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Walsh. The hearing is adjourned.

                  [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                   I N D E X

                                  ----------

                        Environmental Protection Agency

                                                                       Page
    Administrator Whitman's Opening Remarks..........................     5
    Air Quality: Lower Manhattan.....................................    16
    Anthrax Clean Up.................................................    19
    Arsenic and Radon Standards: Impact on Small Systems.............   211
    Availability of Information Related to Theoretical or Potential
      Accidents at Industrial Sites..................................   119
    Brownfields:
        Cleanup.....................................................17, 215
        Petroleum Set-Aside..........................................    18
        Grants to States, Tribes and Localities......................   103
        Role of State, Tribes and Localities in Budget Formulation
          Process....................................................   104
        Expectation of Communities...................................   105
        Grant Determination..........................................   106
        Moving Funds to Grant Areas..................................   107
        Grant Recipient Process......................................   108
        Timing of Grant Awards.......................................   109
        Specific Allocation for use of Remediated Sites..............   110
        Grant Issuance For Housing Construction or Development in
          Remediated Sites...........................................   111
        Basis of Grant Decision Making Process.......................   112
        Criteria for Determining Project Funding.....................   113
        Role of Other Federal Agencies in Assessing and Remediating
          Brownfields................................................   114
            Coordination with HUD....................................   216
        Suburban and Rural Communities...............................   180
        Applications from Rural Communities..........................   181
        Use of FY 2003 Funds.........................................   213
        Inventory/Assessment Stage...................................   214
        Leveraging Funds.............................................   217
        Prioritization...............................................   218
    Brownfields Program: Liability Protection........................    22
    Buildings and Facilities Detailed Information on Spending $17
      million Increase...............................................   139
    Budget Documentation: Additional Information.....................   171
    Budget Justification.............................................   245
    Chairman Walsh's Opening Remarks.................................     2
    Children's Health: Lead-Based Paint..............................    61
    Clean Air: Update on the Implementation of the 1997 8-Hour and
      Fine Particulate Standards.....................................   233
    Clean Water SFR Reduction........................................   167
    Clear Skies Initiative...........................................    44
        Emissions Standards Technology...............................    76
        Clear Skies Initiative vs. New Source Review.................    77
    Climate Change: Kyoto Protocol...................................84, 91
    Climate Change Initiative:
        Baseline.....................................................   235
        Comparison to Kyoto Protocol Nations.........................   236
        Interaction with Kyoto Protocol Nations......................   239
        Joining the Protocol.........................................   240
        Greehouse Gas Emissions......................................   237
            Growth...................................................   238
    Combined Sewer Overflow Control and Partnership Act..............    58
    Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs)/Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSOs)
      Priorities.....................................................    58
    Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs): Farmington District.............    81
    Computer System Attacks..........................................    61
    Cook Nuclear Plant: Fossil Fuel Generation.......................    80
    Deep Well Injection.............................................24, 229
    Dredging:
        Contaminated Sediment........................................   202
        28 Mile Pipeline.............................................   205
        Sediment Slurry Pipeline.....................................   206
        ``Iterative Approach'' to Site Remedies......................   208
        Potential Disposal Sites.....................................   209
    Drinking Water Gap Analysis......................................   200
    Drinking Water Vulnerability Assessment..........................    51
    Drought..........................................................    86
    EGU/NOX: Michigan Growth Assumptions..................    55
    Electric Generation Unit Growth:
        Defense of Growth Allocation Calculations....................   188
        Delay in Providing Justification for Calculations............   189
        Growth Calculations for Michigan.............................   190
        Detroit Edison's Monroe Plant Levels.........................   191
        State of Michigan New Source Growth..........................   192
        State Flexibility............................................   193
    Endocrine Disruptor Validation Costs:
        Anticipated vs. Actual from 1999 to 2001.....................   115
        Funds for FY2002 and FY2003 Request..........................   117
        Advice of Endocrine Disruptor Methods Validation Subcommittee
          (EDMVS)....................................................   118
    Enforcement......................................................    59
        FTE Reductions...............................................    78
        Enforcement Grant Program Proposal...........................    79
    Environmental Education................24, 168, 169, 170, 226, 227, 228
        Proposal to Transfer Program from EPA to NSF.................96, 98
        NSF Operating Plan for Programs..............................    97
    Environmental Justice............................................    83
    Environmental Regulations Economic Effect........................    53
    Environmental Technology.........................................    87
    EPA Grant Management.............................................    51
    Executive Order 13211: Agency Implementation and Impact
      Assessment.....................................................   128
    Grants Management: Nonprofits....................................    57
    Hazardous Waste Disposal by Academic Institution.................    31
    Homeland Security:
        Research and Technology Funding..............................    60
        Status.......................................................   158
        Drinking Water Systems.......................................   161
        Small Communities............................................   162
        Clean Up of the Hart and Longworth Buildings.................   163
        Hart Clean Up Funding........................................   164
        FY 2003 Funding..............................................   165
    Houston SIP: Update on EPA Support and Coordination..............   177
    Indoor Air Quality: Technology Research..........................14, 15
    Indoor Environment...............................................    93
        Additional Research in Security Matters......................    93
        Additional Funding for Research..............................    95
    Inspector General Goals to address Major EPA Problems............   122
    Lack of Coordination Among Water Resource-Related Agencies.......   137
    Lake Cooling Technology..........................................    66
    Lead-Based Problem...............................................    63
    Lead Poisoning...................................................    25
        Budget Commitment............................................   230
    Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST)..........................    87
    Management Scorecard.............................................64, 99
        Priorities of OMB's Identified Concerns......................   100
        Known Problems on Agency Priority List.......................   101
    IG Determination of Material Weakness............................   102
    Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE)...............................    42
    Mid-Atlantic Highlands Project...................................    90
    Mobile 6.........................................................    26
    National Academy of Science (NAS) Review: Dioxin Reassessment....    91
    National Energy Policy: New Source Review and Enforcement Action.    77
    National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System:
        Implementation of Guidelines.................................   186
        Costs to Process and Enforce Permit Application..............   187
    National Rural Water Association.................................   210
    New Source Review................................................    50
    New York/New Jersey Port Dump-Off: Peer Review Status............    43
    Non-Point Source:
        Misallocation of Federal Resources...........................   134
        Gap Analysis.................................................   135
    Availability of SRF and Other EPA Funds to Homeowners and Farmers   136
    Office of Research and Development: Funds for Homeland Security
      Needs..........................................................   243
    Ohio River Bridges Project.......................................    88
        Draft Environmental Impact Statement.........................   193
            Agency Responsibility for Draft EIS......................   198
            Timely Review............................................   194
        Land Use Planning and Zoning: ``Sprawl'' vs. ``Planned
          Growth''...................................................   195
        Agency Responsibility to Comment on Historic Preservation or
          Cultural Issues............................................   196
        Forecasting Future Traffic Developing........................   197
    Ozone and Fine Particulate Matter................................    46
    Pesticide Registration, Reregistration and Tolerance Assessments:
        Budget Request Levels........................................   141
        Registration Increase vs. Decrease...........................   142
        Impact of Budget Request on Reducing Backlog.................   143
        Progress of Negotiating New Tolerance Fee Structure..........   144
    Pesticide Tolerance Fees.........................................    36
        Collection and Spending of $44 Million.......................   184
        Increase.....................................................   185
    Proprietary Computer Model:
        Analysis of the ``Clear Skies'' Proposal...................172, 176
        Contract.....................................................   173
    Model Used for Other Policy Analysis.............................   174
    Violation of the Data Quality Law................................   175
    Questions submitted for the record...............................    93
    Ranking Member Mollohan's Opening Remarks........................     4
    Region Overriding State Authority in Implementing Environmental
      Programs.......................................................   132
    Regional Accountability of Environmental Policies................   129
    Regulatory Review:
        New EPA Process for Regulatory Review by the Office of
          Policy, Economics, and Innovation (OPEI)...................   124
        Rules Reviewed Under New Process.............................   126
        Rules Based on Sound Science and Realistic Costs and Benefits   127
    Research Triangle Park Facility..................................    31
    Resources for Water Trade Associations...........................   148
    Science and Technology: Support for Proposed Increase in
      Innovative Approaches..........................................   150
    Small System Technical Assistance................................   147
    Source Water Protection Program..................................   145
        Relationship with Homeland Security..........................   146
    State Performance................................................    84
    STAR Fellowship Program: Elimination from EPA's Budget...........   241
        Effects......................................................   242
    Stream Restoration Research: Science and Development of New
      Technology.....................................................   201
    Superfund Program................................................   149
        Expenditures for Cleanup Activities........................151, 152
        Changes Made in Program Management...........................   153
        Status of NPL Sites..........................................   154
        Superfund Trust Fund.......................................155, 156
    Superfund Reauthorization........................................    20
    Superfund Site Cleanup: Responsible Parties......................    42
    Superfund Tax....................................................    21
    Superfund Tax Reauthorization....................................    40
    Targeted Watershed Initiative....................................    79
    Title VI: Civil Rights Act.......................................    23
        Status Report in Resolving a Backlog of Complaints...........   219
        Progress of Process..........................................   220
        Permanent Guidelines.........................................   221
        Current Backlog of Cases and Time Frame......................   222
        New Cases....................................................   223
        Summary of Issues Involved in Resolved Cases.................   224
        Budget Request for the Resolution of Cases...................   225
    Total Maximum Daily Loads Status................................34, 133
    Tremont, Ohio City Landfill......................................    35
        Scheduling and Cost Management...............................   178
        Funds Proposed in FY 2003....................................   179
    Vehicle Emissions Testing........................................25, 29
        Impact of Dropping Program...................................    27
    Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Needs........................   166
    Wastewater Treatment Process: Onondaga Lake......................    38
    Watershed Grants Initiative......................................    63
    Watershed Programs...............................................    90
        Focus on Rural Communities.................................182, 183
    Workforce Restructuring Plan: Scientific Workforce...............   244