[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