[Senate Hearing 107-669]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



                                                        S. Hrg. 107-669

                   ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S 
                        FISCAL YEAR 2003 BUDGET

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                              COMMITTEE ON
                      ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                      ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION



                               __________

                           FEBRUARY 13, 2002


                               __________


  Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works

                                -------
81-724              U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
                            WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov  Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ï¿½091800  
Fax: (202) 512ï¿½092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402ï¿½090001


               COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                             second session

                  JAMES M. JEFFORDS, Vermont, Chairman
MAX BAUCUS, Montana                  BOB SMITH, New Hampshire
HARRY REID, Nevada                   JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia
BOB GRAHAM, Florida                  JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut     CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
BARBARA BOXER, California            GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
RON WYDEN, Oregon                    MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware           LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York     ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
JON S. CORZINE, New Jersey           BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado
                 Ken Connolly, Majority Staff Director
                 Dave Conover, Minority Staff Director

                                  (ii)

  
?

                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

                           FEBRUARY 13, 2002
                           OPENING STATEMENTS

Bond, Hon. Christoper S., U.S. Senator from the State of Missouri     5
Campbell, Hon. Ben Nighthorse, U.S. Senator from the State of 
  Colorado.......................................................     4
Crapo, Hon. Michael D., U.S. Senator from the State of Idaho.....     4
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma...     3
Lieberman, Hon. Joseph I., U.S. Senator from the State of 
  Connecticut....................................................     6
Jeffords, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont..     1
Smith, Hon. Bob, U.S. Senator from the State of New Hampshire....     3
Specter, Hon. Arlen M., U.S. Senator from the State of 
  Pennsylvania...................................................    15

                                WITNESS

Whitman, Hon. Christine Todd, Administrator, Environmental 
  Protection Agency..............................................     7
    Prepared statement...........................................    19
    Responses to additional questions from:
        Senator Boxer............................................    22
        Senator Campbell.........................................    25
        Senator Clinton..........................................    26
        Senator Jeffords.........................................    29
        Senator Lieberman........................................    38
        Senator Smith............................................    44
        Senator Wyden............................................    46

                                 (iii)

  

 
       ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S FISCAL YEAR 2003 BUDGET

                              ----------                              


                     WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2002,

                                       U.S. Senate,
                 Committee on Environment and Public Works,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m. in room 
406, Senate Dirksen Building, Hon. James M. Jeffords (chairman 
of the committee) presiding.
    Present: Senators Jeffords, Campbell, Smith, Crapo, Inhofe, 
Bond, Lieberman, Clinton, and Specter.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. JEFFORDS, U.S. SENATOR FROM 
                      THE STATE OF VERMONT

    Senator Jeffords. The hearing will come to order.
    There will be interruptions today because we have votes, so 
what we will be doing is to start as best we can and have as 
many opening statements from members and hopefully even the 
opening statement from the Administratator before we have to 
break for a number of stacked votes.
    So with that, I will make my opening statement, and then we 
will move right on.
    Good morning. The purpose of today's hearing is to examine 
the proposed 2003 budget for the Environmental Protection 
Agency. We are pleased to have the former Governor of New 
Jersey and able Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
Agency, Christie Todd Whitman here today to explain to us the 
finer points of the EPA's budget request. We are excited about 
that.
    For the record, I also want to thank Administrator Whitman 
for all the work she and her staff have done recently to help 
the State of Vermont tackle some tricky budget problems. We 
appreciate that very much.
    Testifying on the budget is admittedly rather a dry 
experience, but I hope that the Administratator enjoys herself 
more today than she does in the meetings with the Office of 
Management and Budget.
    Now, to the subject before us. At a time when we should be 
striving for the gold, the EPA's budget for next year barely 
makes it through the qualifiers. The proposed budget request is 
a 3.5 percent reduction in spending from last year. However, 
when inflation is taken into account, this is more than 6 
percent, even as we are asking the Agency to take on greater 
homeland defense responsibility. And while fiscal year 2006 is 
a long way away and not subject to today's hearing, I do wonder 
how the Office of Management and Budget expects EPA to absorb 
about $1 billion in budget cuts between now and then.
    But first, let me start on a positive note. I am gratified 
that spending for the brownfields program has doubled and that 
a large increase goes directly to the States. On the air side, 
both the ozone and particulate matter programs are given 
increases. And speaking for myself and all of my colleagues in 
the Hart Building, I am pleased that the Agency will be 
spending $75 million to conduct research on better ways to 
clean up contaminated buildings.
    Most of the savings in the budget comes from the rather 
naive expectation that there will be no congressional earmarks 
in next year's budget. This is a battle I will leave the Agency 
to fight with the appropriators. However, when earmarks are 
added, I will fight to make sure that sufficient core program 
funds continue to be appropriated to reverse cuts in the clean 
water and climate programs and ensure continued progress in the 
Superfund and air programs.
    While I am pleased that the Administration has 
substantially increased its budget request for clean water 
revolving funds from its request last year and level-funded 
drinking water revolving funds, I remain concerned that the 
proposed budget does not provide adequate funding for the 
replacement and maintenance of our Nation's aging water 
infrastructure.
    Given the importance to public health and that all 
communities comply with the new arsenic standard in a timely 
manner, I am concerned that no new drinking water funds are 
being allocated for this purpose. Further, clean water 
revolving funds are cut 10 percent from last year's enacted 
level at a time when the water systems are coping with 
additional costs of security. I am sure that EPA is also aware 
that I am working with the members of this Committee on a bill 
to boost water infrastructure funding that will be introduced 
shortly.
    Another issue I would like to highlight is the reduction to 
EPA enforcement efforts. Once again, EPA is proposing a new 
State enforcement grant program. How is this program different 
from the one that was proposed and shot down by Congress last 
year? It is my understanding that no cuts in existing 
enforcement personnel are planned, but that cuts of about 100 
enforcement positions will be made through attrition and by not 
filling existing job openings. Just how many unfilled jobs 
exist in the enforcement division, and does this explain the 
continued lowering of performance goals for the inspections and 
investigations?
    I believe there is a public education component to 
virtually every major environmental statute. I was therefore 
puzzled to learn that the EPA would like to move both its 
Environmental Education Division and STAR fellowship program to 
the National Science Foundation. I look forward to hearing 
EPA's view on this subject.
    Finally, let me say that I am deeply skeptical of the 
Administration's governmentwide proposal to require each 
government agency to assume the costs of the Civil Service 
Retirement System and health care costs. As both a member of 
the Health and Finance Committees, I am troubled that mandatory 
spending will be shifted to discretionary accounts, potentially 
diverting these funds to purposes other than the funding of 
retirement and health care costs.
    Furthermore, I am concerned that in future years, this 
change in accounting rules will penalize the operating budgets 
of programs with older employees.
    Again, thank you for being here today, and we look forward 
to your testimony.
    I now turn to Senator Smith.
    Senator Smith. Jim, you go first. Go ahead.

 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR FROM 
                     THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

    Senator Inhofe. OK. I will make it very brief.
    It is my idea, Madam Administrator, to try to get out 
opening statements out so that hopefully you can get your 
opening statement out prior to our five stacked votes, so let 
me just mention two things.
    I am hoping that sometime during the course of the hearing 
today or in your opening statement you can give us some 
comments on the worst Superfund site in the United States of 
America, which is Tar Creek, which happens to be in 
northeastern Oklahoma. It is something that we have talked 
about a number of times, and I would like to see how this 
budget might be addressing this and looking for some help on 
that.
    The second one is in brownfields. As the Chairman said, we 
have I think doubled the amount of money that is going to be 
addressing these. You might recall that my amendment was one to 
include the petroleum-contaminated sites. Of the 450,000 sites, 
about 200,000 fell into this category. I am very interested, 
since the brownfields law was signed into law by the President 
with my amendment in it, what kind of help is on the way for 
these petroleum-contaminated sites.
    So with that, I will just wait for the opening statement of 
our Administrator.
    Senator Jeffords. Senator Smith?

  OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOB SMITH, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE 
                     STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

    Senator Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I will also be very brief and just ask that my statement be 
made a part of the record.
    Good morning, Administrator Whitman. It has been a year 
since you have been here, when you were confirmed, and what a 
year that has been. There have been a number of challenges, and 
it does not seem like it is getting any easier. But I want to 
thank you personally for all your efforts over the past year. I 
think you have done an outstanding job.
    I know we are here to discuss the 1903 budget. I see in 
this budget a partnership with the States that are achieving 
results through cooperation. I have a little bit of a different 
perspective on it than the Chairman just outlined, but as has 
been said, I certainly am grateful for the doubling of funds 
for brownfields. I think again pointing out that as far as 
brownfields are concerned, it is not the money from the Federal 
Government that really is the key here. That $200 million won't 
go very far. It is the law change that allows the private 
sector now to develop these, and I hope that does not get lost 
in the discussion.
    It was just 1 year ago, actually, that Senators Reid, 
Chafee and Boxer and myself introduced the bill that was 
recently signed by the President. I know you were supportive of 
the bill throughout the process. It took a little while for the 
House to finally deal with it, but we did get it done and that 
is the important thing.
    I am also pleased to see the new watershed initiative in 
the EPA's budget that is there. It is very similar to the 
community-based approach in a bill that I introduced with 
Senator Crapo in the last Congress. That created a pilot 
program that allowed local communities to experiment with 
different approaches to reach their own clean water goals.
    Also worth noting is the State Enforcement Grant Program, 
again working with the States to help them enforce 
environmental laws and regulations. Over 90 percent of 
enforcement actions are carried out by the States, and this 
budget understands that and we appreciate that.
    It also recognizes the new world that we have lived in 
since September 11. You have $124 million in new funding for 
homeland security, including enhancing emergency response, 
conducting water system vulnerability assessments, and 
conducting research on better technologies and assessments to 
clean up some of these targets of the attacks.
    On balance, I think this budget is one that sets a very 
strong pro-environmental, pro-State priority. It promotes 
partnership with the States, encourages cooperation over 
confrontation, and an Agency focus on efforts that will result 
in a cleaner, healthier environment. I look forward to hearing 
your discussion of your budget.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Jeffords. Senator Campbell?

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, U.S. SENATOR 
                   FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO

    Senator Campbell. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
    Since we have stacked votes in about six more minutes, I 
think I will, with your permission, submit my opening statement 
for the record. I had a couple of questions that we might not 
get to, but I will submit those also in writing. I am just 
happy to see Administrator Whitman here. I am happy that she 
has recovered from her skiing accident a couple of years ago 
and seems to be walking with great vigor now. I am sorry if we 
contributed to that in our Colorado slopes. Hopefully, we can 
correct that in the future.
    Administrator Whitman. Never.
    Senator Campbell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Jeffords. Senator Crapo?

 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL D. CRAPO, U.S. SENATOR FROM 
                       THE STATE OF IDAHO

    Senator Crapo. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    I will be very brief as well. In fact, in the short 
opportunity I have had to go over the budget, I have not really 
found any serious things, other than just one concern that I 
have, and I will just raise the concern, and that is that the 
clean water State revolving fund is reduced by $138 million. I 
am very concerned that we need to be increasing that fund, and 
we will be working legislatively to try to address that issue 
with you. I just wanted to highlight that concern at this 
point.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Jeffords. Senator Bond?

  OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, U.S. SENATOR 
                   FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI

    Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    It is a delight to have Administrator Whitman before us. We 
will have opportunities again to talk about this in the future 
on the funding. I have had the pleasure of knowing the 
Administrator for over 40 years, and I am sure that the last 
year seems like about 40 to her. But we appreciate this wartime 
budget. It shows the President and Administrator Whitman's 
strong commitment to the environment in the face of war 
homeland security needs. The Administration has shielded the 
EPA budget from deep cuts.
    This is the highest request for EPA operating programs 
ever. It means record funds for day-to-day activities on health 
standards, conducting inspections, enforcement monitoring of 
the environment. We know that our water supply system can be 
subject to terrorist attacks, and there is $124 million 
homeland security funding that I think is very necessary. The 
Administration would send nearly $3.5 billion to the States for 
their State environmental programs. They propose doubling the 
$200 million for brownfields cleanup.
    At the same time, our communities are facing an 
overwhelming need for clean water and drinking water funding. 
Some private estimates put these figures at $300 billion. We 
are going to hear from EPA on their GAP analysis. This is 
something we are going to have to address.
    The last Administration supported only $2 billion per year 
in revolving water funds. That just is not going to get the job 
done. Mr. Chairman, we are going to have to find a way to get 
more money, and merely authorizing it is not going to get it 
there under the current budget system. We will have to work on 
that.
    And while we are working on things, Mr. Chairman and Madam 
Administrator, if I might put in a pitch for the Fishable 
Waters Act. Everybody seems to have forgotten about fishable 
waters with all the problems we have, but this is extremely 
important for the environment. It would be a voluntary effort 
to allow local stakeholders to undertake projects to make local 
waters fishable and swimmable, i.e. achieving very important 
environmental goals.
    Finally, I am very pleased with the Administration's 
proposal to increase funding for research on the safety of 
genetically modified crops. Biotechnology is going to be the 
revolution of the 21st century that allows us to feed billions 
of people around the world more effectively, more efficiently, 
and in a more nutritious manner with less use of harsh chemical 
pesticides. The EPA's leadership is important to improve the 
environment in the United States and also show the way to clean 
up the world's environment by safe use of biotechnology 
products.
    I appreciate the chance to work with this Committee and we 
will be working with you and EPA through the Appropriations 
Committee as well.
    Senator Jeffords. Senator Lieberman?

  OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, U.S. SENATOR 
                 FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

    Senator Lieberman. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
    I have a full statement that I would like to include in the 
record. I welcome Administrator Whitman. Let me see if I can 
draw briefly from my statement.
    I must say that I am troubled by the Administration's 2003 
EPA budget proposal. Overall, it proposes providing the EPA 
with about $300 million less than the enacted level for the 
present fiscal year. That number, obviously, says a lot, but 
the decisions behind the dollars are also important. Let me 
just highlight a few.
    I share with many of my colleagues a deep concern about the 
significant reduction in clean water funds of about $525 
million, which will seriously impact our State and local 
authorities' efforts to improve water quality.
    In the area of clean air, the budget appears to dedicate 
about the same resources as last year, but the focus of the 
funding is, to me, suspect. I am troubled by the mere passing 
mention of multi-pollutant legislation in the budget 
justification document, which may be consistent with the 
Administration's position as it was changed last year, but 
nonetheless it is disappointing.
    The budget justification also gives glancing treatment to 
new source review and does not offer much in the way of hope on 
climate change either. In the budget justification, the 
continuing absence of a proposal on climate change says a lot 
in its silence.
    So I must say there is a statement in the budget 
justification which is a repetition of goals of the Agency, and 
I want to read it. It says the United States will lead other 
nations in successful multilateral efforts to reduce 
significant risk to human health and ecosystems from climate 
change--stratosphere, it goes on--pollution and other hazards 
of international concern. But with all respect, so far the 
actions of this Administration have not demonstrated any 
leadership on global warming.
    I certainly do not mean this personally with regard to 
Administrator Whitman, because you displayed real leadership on 
this question when you were Governor of New Jersey. I 
understand that we may hear soon on these three issues of 
concern--climate change, multi-pollutant legislation, and new 
source review.
    For my part, let me say I hope that the climate change 
program is a credible one that moves us toward real reductions 
in greenhouse gas emissions, with targets and time tables. I 
hope that the multi-pollutant proposal calls for significant 
cuts in sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and mercury reductions, 
and forms the foundation for meaningful discussion on 
reconciling the Administration's proposal with the Clean Power 
Act of 2001, the multi-pollutant, four-pollutant proposal 
introduced by Senators Jeffords, Collins, and myself.
    I also hope that the new source review proposal retains the 
critical health and environmental protections this program has 
afforded us over time. I am by nature an optimistic person. 
Hope spring eternal. So I look forward to these proposals. But 
for now, I must say with all respect that I think the 
Administration has not yet adequately fulfilled its 
responsibility to protect our environment, and this budget 
reflects that.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Jeffords. Thank you.
    Administrator, I appreciate your being here. We are now 
going to have five votes scheduled to begin at 9:50 a.m. The 
Committee will return roughly at 10:50 a.m., but we will 
anxiously await your comments right now. We may have to run out 
if you go too long.
    Administrator Whitman. I will go really fast.

   STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN, ADMINISTRATOR, 
                ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

    Administrator Whitman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    I will have a longer statement for the record, if that is 
all right with you.
    Senator Jeffords. Yes, please.
    Administrator Whitman. I do appreciate this opportunity to 
appear once again before this particular Committee to discuss 
the President's budget for the Environmental Protection Agency 
for the next fiscal year.
    I believe that the President's budget does provide the 
Agency with the funds that it needs to efficiently and 
effectively carry out our mandate to protect public health and 
the environment.
    As you know, the requested total for fiscal year 2003 is 
$7.7 billion, which represents more than a $200 million 
increase over last year's request. Overall, our proposed budget 
reflects the goals that President Bush and I share for leaving 
America's water cleaner, its air purer, and its land better 
protected than when we took office.
    I should also point out that EPA's proposed budget is part 
of the Administration's record overall request of $44.1 billion 
for environment and natural resources. It is the highest such 
request ever, and represents a $1.1 billion increase over 
enacted levels for the current fiscal year.
    If I may, Mr. Chairman, I would like to discuss just some 
of the highlights of our proposals, and as I said, I will be 
submitting a longer statement for the record. I know there are, 
of course, specific questions once the votes are finished. We 
will be prepared for those.
    First of all, almost half of our budget is for direct 
grants to State, local and tribal governments. This reflects 
our experience that many innovative, creative and effective 
environmental achievements are being made by States, county, 
local and tribal governments. As I have traveled around the 
country during the past year, whether it was seeing the 
citizens working in Kentucky PRIDE or the members of the Paiute 
tribe in Nevada, and countless other communities across 
America, we have seen extraordinary progress being made at the 
local level by local citizens.
    EPA is building strong partnerships for environmental 
progress 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 
brownfields reclamation, providing $200 million, as has been 
mentioned earlier--funding that will lead to thousands of acres 
of better-protected land in the years ahead. I remember 
traveling to Winchester, New Hampshire last year with Senator 
Smith to see a great, wonderful brownfields project there. The 
success that we are seeing across the country can only be 
enhanced by the additional dollars in the new program that is 
now in place.
    Third, this budget provides important funding for a new 
watershed initiative. We are requesting $21 million for a 
program that will allow us to build effective public/private 
partnerships to restore and protect 20 of America's most 
precious watersheds. This initiative will show the real results 
that partnerships can achieve, how much partners can bring 
together in a unified program, including a non-point source 
grant program that we are proposing to fund at $238.5 million. 
As a result, this budget will help improve water quality for 
drinking, boating, swimming and fishing in those 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 discoveries in the Human 
Genome Project, and funding to increase our knowledge base 
about air quality challenges so we can help save lives and 
prevent illnesses such as asthma among America's children.
    In addition, the combined funding we are proposing for the 
drinking water and clean water State Revolving 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. The $124 million in new 
funding that we are requesting will support such important 
efforts as protecting the Nation's drinking water 
infrastructure by funding vulnerability assessments at the 
Nation's water utilities; securing additional personnel and 
equipment 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 and 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 our 30-year mission to meet the challenges of the 
21st century, and it brings us that much closer to realizing 
our goals of cleaner air, purer water, and better protected 
land so that we can all enjoy the kind of environment that we 
want for ourselves and for future generations.
    Thank you very much.
    Senator Jeffords. Well, thank you for an excellent 
statement.
    We will now recess until approximately 10:50; that may be 
optimistic, the way things go around here.
    [Recess.]
    Senator Jeffords. Nice to be back with you again.
    As I said in my statement, I am concerned that the proposed 
budget does not provide adequate funding for the replacement 
and maintenance of our Nation's aging water infrastructure. In 
light of the proposed cuts in the water program funding, how 
does EPA's budget request address the backlog of water 
infrastructure needs?
    Administrator Whitman. Well, Senator, as I mentioned in my 
testimony, the Agency is requesting $1.2 billion in fiscal year 
2003 for the clean water. When you combine that with the safe 
drinking water, that is a combined total that is greater than 
has been asked for before. But there is a recognition that 
these issues, as we discussed last year--the dollars 
potentially go way beyond anything that any one Agency or 
really branch of government is going to be able to deal with on 
its own. We really look forward to having a much more detailed 
discussion with the Hill on how we should go forward on this.
    The Revolving Loan Fund will revolve at over $2 billion, 
even if no more money goes in. And the numbers that you were 
talking about 5 years out or the way OMB does the budget, there 
is money for that obviously now.
    That is robust. That is good. And we do believe that the 
Revolving Loan Program, it now is well over $2 billion. It 
revolves at over $2 billion and will continue to do so as far 
out into the future as we can see. It is still going to need 
much more than that, and I look forward to working with you, 
and I know your interest here is longstanding.
    Senator Jeffords. Thank you, and I look forward to working 
with you.
    And of course we have also the problems of terrorism, which 
lead to additional costs in those areas. And also, we are going 
to have to really spend some time working together. Thank you.
    As I understand it, the Administration plans to announce 
its climate policy--a three-pollutant proposal--and changes to 
the new source review regulations sometime tomorrow. Could you 
tell us what will be included in that announcement, and how it 
will impact the Agency's budget and allocation of resources?
    Administrator Whitman. Well, Senator, I can't give you the 
particulars. Obviously, that has got to be up to the President.
    Senator Jeffords. I will try.
    Administrator Whitman. I know. It was a nice try, and I 
appreciate that.
    [Laughter.]
    Administrator Whitman. Certainly, once the president has 
made an announcement, I will be happy to come back and discuss 
with you the particulars and how we achieve them. But I suspect 
that the Congress is going to have a great deal to say about 
this whole process as we go forward on these initiatives.
    Senator Jeffords. Yes.
    In 1991, in a document called America's Climate Change 
Strategy, President Bush described the sulfur dioxide cap in 
the 1990 amendments as ``a powerful conservation stimulus, 
which should sharply reduce carbon dioxide emissions from this 
sector,'' end of quote.
    Obviously, that has not happened and emissions are way up. 
What are we going to do to get a real reduction in the near 
term?
    Administrator Whitman. We are continuing with our 
enforcement efforts under the current Clean Air Act. There is 
no plan at this point to reduce any of those efforts. We have, 
as you know, the NOx SIP Call, the 126 Rule, BART, MACT--all 
those regulatory processes are in place and going forward. And 
it is our anticipation that they will continue to move forward 
and we will continue to focus on the enforcement in those areas 
while also trying to work in a more intelligent, perhaps 
innovative and collegial way with utilities and business to try 
to stop some of the problems before they start.
    Senator Jeffords. The Hart cleanup--I hate to get back to 
that. Staffers in the 12 Senate offices that were treated with 
chlorine dioxide liquid and foam have complained of nausea, 
dizziness and shortness of breath. Some scientists have 
speculated that the chlorine dioxide residue is reacting with 
office furnishings and radiated mail. How is EPA monitoring the 
situation and what are the plans?
    Administrator Whitman. Senator, we are doing regular 
monitoring up there on the Hill. We are continuing to sample 
and we have been working with the Sergeant-at-Arms to ensure 
that the protocol that we are using is one with which the 
Senators and the Architect of the Capitol are comfortable.
    We have not gotten any hits on any of the samples that we 
have done on high levels of chlorine dioxide or any of the 
byproducts of chlorine dioxide. We are focusing and working 
with CDC and the labs that have been brought in to look at the 
potential that it is the mail, the irradiation of the mail that 
may be causing this problem, and we will continue to monitor 
that building for as long as we need to. But so far, we have 
not seen any indication that it is because of the chlorine 
dioxide.
    Senator Jeffords. Thank you. We will followup on that.
    Administrator Whitman. We will continue to have a presence 
there. We will continue to do what we need to do on air 
sampling and followup for as long as you want us there and as 
long as we need to do it. But as I say, we have done numerous 
samplings. The latest results, February 6, and again we still 
have not gotten any hits that would indicate that there is any 
residue from either the chlorine dioxide spray itself or the 
fumigation itself or any of the byproducts from chlorine 
dioxide.
    Whatever issues are appearing, the focus at this point 
seems to be on the irradiation of the mail, and that is where 
the scientists are all looking right now, to see what that 
could possibly be.
    Senator Jeffords. Thank you.
    EPA's proposed budget includes the costs of additional 
retirement and health benefits. Do you think it is wise to 
shift these costs from the centralized mandatory spending 
accounts to the discretionary accounts?
    Administrator Whitman. Senator, those costs have always 
been in the President's budget but they have been allocated in 
a different way. This is really more of a bookkeeping change to 
enable us to identify them clearly and to show the full costs 
of the overall EPA budget. They are, in fact, numbers that 
always have been in the President's budget. As you know, the 
Administration feels the proposed legislation is an 
administrative tool so that Federal agencies readily can 
account for the costs of these benefits.
    Senator Jeffords. What happens if the legislation relative 
to does not get enacted? Will EPA have to return a chunk of its 
budget to the Office of Management?
    Administrator Whitman. No, I don't believe that we would 
have to. I have my cheat sheet here. Yes, it would be funded. 
The Federal Government has been paying them right along. That's 
what I was saying initially, that the government has been 
paying them right along so that money was always there in the 
budget. This proposal is just a way of accounting for the costs 
so you see them differently, but the money has been there right 
along. Now, it has been incorporated into each Agency's budget.
    This is just a shift in responsibility from a central 
management account in OPM to each Agency, so that each Agency 
accounts for those dollars. We assume that responsibility.
    Senator Jeffords. EPA's proposed budget includes the cost 
of additional retirement and health benefits. Do you think it 
is wise to shift these costs from the central--that has been 
answered? OK. All right.
    What is EPA doing to help communities comply with the new 
arsenic standard?
    Administrator Whitman. As I indicated when we went forward 
with the standard, that we were going to identify $20 million 
in the Agency's budget to help communities deal with this 
issue. We are doing that. We are also working with the 
Department of Agriculture on some rural funds that are 
available.
    But more than that, we are looking at technology 
initiatives. We putting some money--as you know, there is some 
money in the budget for a heightened focus on technology, and 
part of that research, at least initially, the new program is 
going to be specifically directed at low-cost initiatives to 
remove arsenic from the water.
    So we are looking to work with those small-and mid-size 
companies in a variety of different ways, beyond just providing 
dollars, but also to provide help with the research and the 
technical assistance to enable them to meet the standards, but 
not have to price themselves out of business or price people 
out of water.
    Senator Jeffords. Why does EPA continue to lower its 
performance goals for inspections and investigations? Is it 
related to reductions in funding?
    Administrator Whitman. Actually, if you look at the record 
last year, we did have a record year as far as what we were 
able to accomplish and what we were able to bring in in fines 
and penalties from those who were responsible parties, people 
who were responsible for doing it. We have in fact been able to 
see an increase with the staff that we have. We have been doing 
a good job and 90 percent of the enforcement does take place at 
the State level. What we want we are proposing to do with this 
budget is not to cut anyone from our enforcement staff and not 
to shift any positions there, but to give the States some more 
help to be able to do the job that they are already doing 
better and continue with a high level of enforcement.
    Senator Jeffords. Now, the Superfund. Once again, EPA has 
lowered the targeted number of final Superfund cleanups. While 
I understand that some sites are more complex than others, this 
cannot possibly explain the over 100 percent drop in the 
targeted cleanups since fiscal year 2000. Why does EPA keep 
lowering its cleanup goals?
    Administrator Whitman. I share your concern about cleanup 
goals, and there are a number of reasons for the drop. One in 
particular stands out, which is kind of the history that we are 
dealing with here. There was a decision made back a few years 
to concentrate funds on those Superfund sites that were closest 
to completion. And so, that is where the money was spent. There 
is where the effort went, and those sites that were very nearly 
finished were completed, but very little money was provided for 
other sites that were coming onto the list--the ones that still 
had significant work remaining.
    And so that is what we are facing now--is dealing with 
those sites that have quite a lot of work. We had about three 
to 4 years of sort of a burst of high construction completions, 
but in doing that we created a greater backlog.
    We are now in the process of what we are calling a pipeline 
review of the Superfund projects to make sure that we are 
listing the right ones, that we are prioritizing them the right 
way and addressing them the right way, and that we can ensure 
that we do continue to focus on those sites that pose the 
greatest public health risk, and that we deal with those first.
    Senator Jeffords. Senator Clinton?
    Senator Clinton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I apologize, Governor Whitman, for being late. We have had 
quite a morning of votes and running around like headless 
chickens, and I apologize for keeping you waiting.
    I also am pleased that we had an opportunity to speak 
yesterday regarding the concerns that we have about air quality 
at the World Trade Center site and the surrounding area and 
indoors. And I thank you very much for the letter that you sent 
me late last evening which refers to the hearing that Senator 
Lieberman and I held on Monday. I want to thank the Chairman 
and the Committee and the Committee staff for its assistance in 
holding that hearing to hear from experts and those having 
first-hand experience with air quality problems and the related 
health impacts arising out of the disaster on September 11.
    I think it was a very substantive and informative hearing 
and I thank EPA for testifying. I want to thank everyone 
associated with the Agency, and particularly Region Two for 
everything that you have done to respond to the September 11th 
attacks in New York, and for your offer of assistance that is 
contained in your letter and that we briefly discussed 
yesterday.
    At the hearing, I laid out a five-point plan that responds 
to the concerns we have been hearing about for quite some weeks 
now, to address the air quality and public health concerns. The 
plan includes passing S. 1621, which is legislation to 
establish a permanent health monitoring system at disaster 
sites.
    I would also include in that Senator Voinovich's deep 
concerns about the health impacts on his first-responders. We 
heard the firefighters and FEMA first-responders who came and 
testified before us, and it was extremely moving and quite 
disturbing. He told me yesterday that they are continuing to 
have serious health problems.
    So we need a system that has a permanent health monitoring 
surveillance and response apparatus, however we decide to 
design it, that would followup not only on those directly 
associated with the sites, but even people who came in response 
to calls for help, like Senator Voinovich's people from Ohio 
did.
    Second, I think we should provide funding for the immediate 
establishment of a long-term comprehensive health registry, 
referral and monitoring system to Ground Zero workers. They are 
clearly the ones most at risk. Some people have suffered 
indirectly. More sensitive people have reported respiratory 
problems, allergic reactions, the onset of asthma.
    But our chief medical officer of the New York Fire 
Department testified that 25 percent of the entire firefighter 
force, which has now been screened, reports respiratory 
problems. We have no idea what the long-term impact will be. 
The police testified that they had not had that kind of 
monitoring and screening. So we need a system and I hope we can 
look to do that.
    Third, to establish a World Trade Center Indoor Air 
Program. That has turned out to be one of our biggest problems. 
I really believe that EPA's authority, direction and expertise 
with respect to monitoring outdoor air was very helpful. There 
are some remaining issues that we have to deal with, but the 
indoor air is what people are now focusing on.
    So fourth, I think we should develop a World Trade Center 
site clear initiative which deals with the remaining outdoor 
air problems, principally from the diesel emissions, from the 
idling of trucks, from the barge traffic. We have all these 
trucks, Mr. Chairman, lined up carrying away the waste and 
debris. They are on all the time. And we know that the 
particulate emissions are some things we should be concerned 
about, particularly with respect to children or vulnerable 
people.
    And finally, I think we should work to incorporate the 
lessons we have learned, and we all have learned lessons, into 
the homeland security plans that Governor Ridge is responsible 
for developing.
    In respect to those points, Governor, I appreciate greatly 
that in the letter that you sent to me yesterday you committed 
to working with local, State and Federal partners to establish 
a task force on indoor air in lower Manhattan, and I thank you 
so much for that.
    I look forward to working with you. I have a commitment 
from the Office of Emergency Management in the city to 
coordinate the city's response because there was some confusion 
about who really should be responsible within the city. I think 
we have got an opportunity to really translate this commitment 
into the kind of action that will reassure the public.
    I think it is imperative that the task force conduct door-
to-door inspections and indoor sampling within no less than a 
10-block radius of Ground Zero, and that it should operate a 
centralized location where the public can get information on 
whether their building has been tested or inspected, the 
results of those tests and clear guidance on cleanup 
requirements, resources available to pay for cleanups, and 
certified cleanup companies in the area.
    We heard, really, from two ends of the spectrum. There were 
those who did not feel that their landlords or the city had 
made their landlords do anything, really, to meet the most 
minimal standards. Then we had a witness who said she would do 
whatever she was told to do, but she got conflicting 
information and didn't know what she was supposed to do.
    So somewhere in between there we know we have got to strike 
a balance, but I think starting with an inspection system of 
some kind in a centralized location will help to get the ball 
rolling.
    As a first step, I would like to work with you to set up a 
meeting as soon as possible between EPA and the city to make 
sure that the task force is publicly under way and people know 
that we have all responded.
    I thank you for your quick response to the concerns that 
were raised at the hearing on Monday and I look forward to 
working with you. I would be interested in any response or 
additional amplification that you might provide on this.
    Administrator Whitman. Certainly, Senator.
    First of all, I want to thank you for the suggestions, the 
time you have taken on this issue, the attention that you have 
given it. We share a real concern about what has happened up 
there and what will happen in the future. We have, and I 
believe that both the testimony that you heard on Monday and 
what we have seen in looking at and in dealing with this issue, 
we have been able to identify some areas where there are 
weaknesses. There are either overlaps or gaps in who is 
responsible for which.
    When you are dealing with public health, when you are 
dealing with a crisis, it doesn't do any good to the public you 
serve to say, somebody else's job. You need to get the issue 
dealt with.
    And that is why I believe the idea, as you had mentioned, 
of an indoor air task force is an important one because that is 
one of the areas where jurisdiction is not clear. It is an area 
just in general on indoor air that has been the subject of 
discussion for 10 years in Congress. I mean, it's not a simple 
task, but it is one that we have to deal with, particularly in 
light of the kind of challenge that we face now since September 
11.
    As you also know, in the letter I indicated that I, because 
it is another area where I feel it is very important to ensure 
the public get all the information, and I have asked the 
President's science advisor to put together a task force that 
will, at least for the Federal agencies, identify what kind of 
research is being done, what kind of information is being asked 
for, so we can coordinate that, and be able to communicate with 
the public in a coherent way, so that they have the 
information, they have the data they need to be able to make 
their own decisions.
    Sometimes the web site that we have put up that has the 
information from all the data that we have received sometimes 
puts up some raw data that people don't have a context within 
which to judge that, but it is there. It is important that it 
be there.
    I know that there are times when scientists are very 
discomfited by that because they like to be certain, and 
unfortunately they are not always certain about the 
implications of findings, but I believe it is important that we 
provide as much information as possible.
    So I look forward to working with you and your office, and 
all of New York, to ensure that we cover this to the greatest 
extent possible, and that we come up with some answers, and 
that as we go through a lesson-learned process, which we are 
going through internally at the Agency, both on the September 
11 and on the anthrax issues, that we are able to communicate 
those lessons learned to the public.
    Senator Clinton. Thank you very much, Governor. I have some 
additional questions which I would be happy to submit in 
writing, and get responses from the Agency in that way.
    Senator Jeffords. Thank you very much. Those were very 
helpful questions.
    Senator Specter is here. I was aware of his coming in, and 
you are on. Do you want 30 seconds?
    [Laughter.]

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ARLEN SPECTER, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE 
                     STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

    Senator Specter. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    If I had that much time, I don't know what I would do with 
it.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Specter. I am pleased to see you here, Governor, 
and commend you for the job you are doing. The business of 
administering the environmental laws in the United States is a 
very, very tough job.
    What I want to talk to you about this morning--there are a 
couple of parochial, but very, very important interests for 
Pennsylvania. There is a landfill known as Marjal near 
Scranton, Pennsylvania which has been a source of community 
agitation for many, many years. The issue boils down to whether 
the problems are going to be excavated or whether there is 
going to be a halfway job with a cover on top.
    I know you have many, many projects you have to concern 
yourself about, but have you had an opportunity to get involved 
in any of the specifics of this Marjal matter?
    Administrator Whitman. Well, Senator, as you know, the 
cleanup of the property surrounding the site has been 
completed. The Region Three office has selected a permanent 
remedy, but that was put on hold pending a review by the 
Ombudsman. That report, as I understand, was due to be given to 
the Region in December of 2001. I can't go into too much more 
detail because, as you may know, it is subject to litigation. 
But the surrounding properties have been cleaned up. 
Stabilization is complete. The implementation of the remedy 
chosen, though, is on hold until such time--we put it on hold 
initially to allow the Ombudsman to complete his review of the 
remedy. It is my understanding he has not yet completed that 
review.
    Senator Specter. Well, who is undertaking the review at 
this time, Governor?
    Administrator Whitman. The Ombudsman. There was a report 
due to the Region by December of last year, 2001, and that has 
not yet been submitted to them.
    Senator Specter. When do you expect that to be submitted?
    Administrator Whitman. I don't know, sir. That is up to the 
Ombudsman. I don't control his timing on anything or the issues 
that he undertakes to review.
    Senator Specter. Well, what has been represented to me is 
that there has been a covering. There is very bad lead 
contamination. They have proceeded in a way which is least 
costly and inadequate. I would very much appreciate it if you 
would take a look at that. Are you saying that you don't have 
the authority to do so when it's in the hands of the Ombudsman?
    Administrator Whitman. I don't. The Ombudsman is, contrary 
to, I know, some concerns that have been raised, is in fact 
independent and has made a request. He has raised some concerns 
about this issue--and tell me when I am going too far as far 
litigation is concerned, because I am not sure about that. He 
has raised concerns about the remedy chosen by Region Three. 
The region obviously thinks, given all their work that they 
have done, that this is an appropriate cleanup of this site and 
that there is not a future health issue here for the people who 
live on the site.
    The Ombudsman has a different feeling about it. We put 
implementation of the final solution on hold pending his 
review, and he has not yet completed it. But I can't direct him 
to complete it. I have no ability to have him write a report. 
Unfortunately, there has been no report written.
    Senator Specter. If he delays indefinitely, is there no 
remedy?
    Administrator Whitman. Well, the Region can go ahead with 
the selected permanent remedy. It is one that I think that you 
have a problem with because of the allegations that the 
Ombudsman has raised concerning the remedy. So it is only fair, 
would make sense, that he complete that study.
    Senator Specter. Well, it is fine for him to complete it if 
it is done within a reasonable time.
    Administrator Whitman. I would agree with you.
    Senator Specter. But if it is not, it seems to me there has 
to be some remedy.
    Administrator Whitman. I would agree.
    Senator Specter. Doesn't the Administrator have the 
authority, if the Administrator is dissatisfied with the 
conclusions, the Administrator can make an independent 
determination that something more has to be done?
    Administrator Whitman. I am recused from any of the 
decisionmaking in this site because of the litigation and 
because of the issues that have been brought up personally. 
What I would suggest is that we get back to you--I get others 
on the staff to get back to you who can talk about it.
    Senator Specter. OK. The recusal I understand, but when the 
head of the Administration is recused, understandably, then the 
Administrator's duties devolve upon the next in the chain of 
command.
    Administrator Whitman. Certainly, and as I say, this is one 
of the--well, I am in an awkward position. I can't say a lot 
more about trying to move this process forward. It is safe to 
say that I agree with you that in fairness to the people, in 
fairness to the Region, and in recognition of the seriousness 
of the issues being raised, there should be timely completion 
of reviews and there should be timely submission of documents.
    Senator Specter. Well . . .
    Administrator Whitman. I am allowed to say one other thing, 
which I was sort of dancing around, but frankly that is why I 
have recommended a movement of the Ombudsman's office to the 
Office of Inspector General. Once an issue is raised with the 
Inspector General, not only is the inspector general, who is 
entirely independent, required to look into it, whereas the 
Ombudsman has the choice whether or not to look into an issue. 
They also have to write reports, and they are required to 
submit reports in a timely fashion. That, I think, is very 
important in these issues.
    Senator Specter. Well, as you know, Governor, there is a 
lot of concern about--I have a personal concern about the 
decision to remove the Ombudsman to the Inspector General. I 
plan to take it up with you, and you mentioned that. You have 
an Ombudsman who has been very, very--how to put it?--he is had 
his own point of view. He has been very independent. He has 
said some things which have riled a lot of people. But it is 
exactly that kind of independence which has to be recognized 
and respected. That is the purpose.
    The suggestion has been made that the Ombudsman has been 
shifted to the Inspector Generals because the Ombudsman is too 
independent and too effective. And if you stifle independence--
look here, I know you very well. You want to find out what the 
right thing to do is. That is what Congressman Sherwood and 
Senator Santorum and I want to do. You have only had an 
investment in this issue for a year, Governor. We have had an 
investment in it for more than a decade. And the people up 
there are grossly dissatisfied and with cause.
    I am going to diary it ahead to March 1 and see if we don't 
have a report by that time. So keep your incoming lines open 
for calls, Governor.
    Administrator Whitman. Certainly--always for you, Senator. 
Lines are always open.
    Senator Specter. OK. Let me ask you about another problem 
in the same vicinity called Tranguch, which involves a 50,000 
gallon gasoline spill affecting approximately 250 families in 
the greater Hazleton area. And the residents are experiencing 
illnesses and are requesting for everyone in the area to be 
permanently located, or at least those directly over the plume, 
with documented contamination. What is possible to do here, 
Governor?
    Administrator Whitman. As you know, the cleanup has--
basically the cleanup has been completed and gone very well. 
The groundwater collection, soil vapor extraction and the 
groundwater collection and treatment systems are completed and 
operational. The first round of post-project sampling is going 
to take place in March of this year. The EPA is going to 
continue to work with the State to monitor the homes in the 
infected area to ensure that they are not getting levels above 
what we anticipated, what we think is safe for people.
    The results of the last round of residential air sampling 
showed that 95 percent of the homes had benzene levels below 
the site's action levels. The homes that continued exhibit 
elevated levels of hazardous materials or hazardous air that 
could pose a threat to public health are being evaluated 
further, and we will take whatever further action is needed to 
ensure that people are safe. But there will be a formal post-
residential, post-project residential sampling in March, next 
month.
    Senator Specter. Do you expect the evaluations to be 
finished in March?
    Administrator Whitman. We are going to take the sampling in 
March and we should get those results back pretty quickly, yes.
    Senator Specter. Well, when you say 95 percent, leaving 
only a 5 percent problem area, that is at variance with what 
the people in the community say. But we are going to have to 
take those one at a time--evaluate which 5 percent are regarded 
as having problems and seeing what they have to say.
    Administrator Whitman. And we have to figure out how it is 
getting there, too. If there are vapors that are escaping into 
the homes, we need to figure out what the route of that 
exposure is. So we will continue to work on that.
    Senator Specter. Thank you very much for you attention to 
these matters and all the other matters.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Jeffords. Thank you for coming. Appreciate it.
    I have still got 10 minutes. First of all, I want to let 
you know I support your efforts to move the Ombudsman's office. 
I think that is a good idea.
    Now, I would like to go back to what some might consider it 
a controversial issue, but the 4-P proposal versus yours. I 
must reiterate my hope and firm belief that any 4-P proposal 
put forth must be able to show that it improves air quality. I 
also hope that it holds the electricity-producing sector 
responsible for achieving real reductions in carbon dioxide. 
Anything that falls short of these goals would be a 
disappointment to me and environmentalists across the Nation.
    Has EPA provided to the President some proof that his 
proposal will improve air quality over and beyond what is on 
the books already?
    Administrator Whitman. Senator, as I have said repeatedly, 
we want to ensure with any proposal that goes forward that it 
results in clean air, and cleaner air than we currently see 
today. I believe that anything that the President proposes 
will, in fact, show a real gain in air quality. There is going 
to be a lot of discussion around it, I know, but when the 
President has made his decision and announces it to the public, 
I know that you will see that there will be environmental 
benefits to what is being proposed.
    Having said that, yes, we have obviously been working 
closely running numbers, looking at what we can accomplish, 
what makes sense to try to achieve. The other thing that we 
should not lose in this discussion, and I am always concerned 
that it does not get the kind of recognition that it should, is 
the amount of carbon reduction that we see through our 
voluntary programs.
    When you consider that fully, more than 50 percent of the 
greenhouse gas emissions that we are going to see over the next 
50 years are going to come from products that are purchased 
today, we need to ensure that we are giving consumers the right 
kind of information so that they can make intelligent decisions 
and help reduce the amount of carbon.
    Energy STAR has been extraordinarily efficient and 
effective in reducing carbon. Last year alone, it reduced the 
equivalent--had the equivalent impact of the removal of 10 
million cars from the road. It reduced carbon dioxide by 10 
billion pounds. It is having a real impact. We need to remember 
that we do get ancillary benefits from these other programs, 
and continue to recognize and support those, as we are doing 
this year at the Agency.
    Senator Jeffords. I appreciate your answer. I want to work 
closely with you on these matters, and expect that we will be 
forthright in providing information.
    I just want to add I support Mrs. Clinton's efforts to 
address the air quality questions at Ground Zero, and I hope 
the Agency takes those matters seriously. I know I don't need 
to say that.
    I thank you for your testimony. We will leave the record 
open for followup questions, as we always do, and we will 
appreciate your prompt response to those questions.
    Administrator Whitman. Thank you, Senator, very much.
    Senator Jeffords. And with that, have lunch.
    [Whereupon at 11:54 a.m., the committee was adjourned, to 
reconvene at the call of the Chair.]
    [Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]

     Statement of Hon. Christine Todd Whitman, Administrator, U.S. 
                    Environmental Protection Agency

    Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am pleased to be here 
to discuss President Bush's budget request for the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA). The President's budget provides the necessary 
funds for the Agency to carry out our mission efficiently and 
effectively to protect human health and safeguard the environment. The 
fiscal year 2003 request is $7.7 billion, which includes more than a 
100 percent increase in funding for Brownfields, and significant 
increases for watershed protection.
    I would like to begin, Mr. Chairman, by emphasizing that the 
President's budget request for EPA reflects the Agency's strong 
commitment to leaving America's air cleaner, its water purer, and its 
land better protected than it was when we took office. It promotes that 
goal in a manner consistent with our commitment to fiscal 
responsibility; by further strengthening our partnerships with State, 
local and tribal governments; by funding innovative new programs, and 
by strengthening existing programs that work.
    I'd like to touch on a few of the highlights. nearly half of EPA's 
budget request provides funding for State and tribal programs, 
including almost $3.5 billion in assistance to States, tribes and other 
partners. The President and I both believe that much of the innovative, 
creative, and effective environmental progress being made comes from 
State, county and local governments and our budget request supports 
that.
    As I have traveled around the country during the past year, I've 
seen some really exciting programs in action. From the people of 
Kentucky PRIDE to the members of the Paiute Tribe in Nevada, and in 
countless other communities across America, the EPA is building strong 
partnerships for environmental progress and the results speak for 
themselves. In this budget, we will build on those results to achieve 
even greater environmental progress.

Homeland Security
    Since September 11, we have seen the traditional mission of our 
Agency safeguarding the environment and protecting the public health 
take on new meaning. We now play a critical role in preparing for and 
responding to terrorist incidents because of our unique expertise and 
experience in emergency preparedness and response to hazardous material 
releases. Our new role of supervising the decontamination of anthrax 
infected buildings has shown us that better information and new 
technologies are needed. To continue to do our part to ensure that the 
Nation is prepared to respond to terrorist incidents, we are investing 
an additional $124 million for homeland security.
    Included in this figure is $75 million for research in technologies 
for decontaminating buildings affected by bioterrorists attacks. We 
will provide guidance, technical expertise and support to Federal, 
State and local governments in building contamination prevention, 
treatment and cleanup capabilities. Combined with resources provided in 
the Emergency Supplemental Appropriation Act of 2002, this represents a 
2-year total of $300 million in new resources. Also included in this 
figure is $20 million to address threats to the nation's drinking water 
supply.
    We, at EPA, play a significant role in working with State 
governments and local utilities to protect drinking water supplies. We 
have already begun working with States and local utilities to assess 
this vulnerability. The additional $20 million being requested in 
fiscal year 2003 will augment $88 million appropriated as part of the 
Emergency Supplemental Appropriation Act of 2002. Together, these funds 
will ensure that utilities have developed a comprehensive assessment of 
these vulnerabilities and emergency operations plans using the most 
current methods and technologies.

Brownfields
    Our fiscal year 2003 budget more than doubles the funds available 
for brownfields reclamation by providing $200 million. This money will 
allow States, tribes, and local governments to build on the work 
they've already done in turning thousands of neighborhood eyesores into 
community assets. Despite that progress, thousands of brownfields still 
mar America's landscape. That is going to change. Thanks to President 
Bush's commitment to brownfields, this money will help us get at some 
of the most difficult brownfields challenges that remain. Those 
reclaimed brownfields will provide their communities with new jobs, new 
places to play, and a new sense of optimism for the future.

Watershed Projects
    By providing $21 million for a new watershed initiative, our budget 
will target up to 20 watersheds around the country for improvement 
funding that will lead to millions of gallons of purer water in the 
years ahead. This initiative will allow us to build on existing public-
private partnerships to restore and protect up to 20 of America's most 
threatened watersheds. When I visited Boston last year and saw first-
hand the excellent work done by the Charles River Initiative, I knew we 
could use that effort as a model for other communities. I've heard a 
watershed defined as ``communities connected by water.'' Well, with 
this initiative, we are connecting EPA with local watershed protection 
through the flow of Federal dollars. As a result, we will help improve 
water quality for drinking, boating, swimming, and fishing.

National Environmental Technology Competition
    Of course, underlying everything we do is our commitment to 
partnership. One of the most exciting new partnerships this budget 
seeks to buildupon is our proposed National Environmental Technology 
Competition. Over the past 30 years, advances in technology have helped 
us address some of our most pressing environmental challenges. I 
believe technology can play an even greater role as we seek to achieve 
the next generation of environmental progress.
    That is why we are proposing $10 million for our National 
Environmental Technology Competition. This program will use competition 
to foster technological innovation through public-private partnerships. 
It will promote the development of new, cost-effective environmental 
technologies that will help clean the air, water, and land. For 
example, in fiscal year 2003, EPA will solicit proposals related to 
arsenic removal in drinking water. This work will help further EPA's 
commitment to help fund, through research and development, cost-
effective methods of arsenic removal for small systems.

Cleaner Air
    Under the Clean Air Act, we continue work to make the air cleaner 
and healthier to breathe by setting standards for ambient air quality, 
toxic air pollutant emissions, new pollution sources, and mobile 
sources. In fiscal year 2003, we will assist States, tribes and local 
governments in devising additional stationary and mobile source 
strategies to reduce ozone and particulate matter, and other 
pollutants. A key component to achieving the Clean Air Goal for all 
citizens is the request for over $232 million for air grants to States 
and tribes. In addition, EPA will continue to buildupon its voluntary 
government/industry partnership efforts to achieve pollution reductions 
and energy savings. For example, as we continue our Energy Star 
Labeling and Building Program efforts, our goal is to reduce the 
emissions of greenhouse gases by more than 40 million metric tons 
annually, by 2010, while saving consumers and businesses an estimated 
$14 billion in net energy bill savings when using energy-efficient 
products.

Purer Water
    Over the past three decades, our nation has made significant 
progress in water pollution prevention and cleanup. While we have 
substantially cleaned up many of our most polluted waterways, and 
provided safer drinking water for millions of U.S. residents, 
significant challenges remain. This budget request addresses the 
challenge to provide clean and safe water in every American community.

    Protection from Drinking Water Contaminants. The fiscal year 2003 
request supports our coordinated efforts with the States and tribes to 
implement new health-based standards to control for microbial 
contaminants, disinfectants and their byproducts, and other 
contaminants.

    Drinking Water State Revolving Fund. The Drinking Water State 
Revolving Fund (DWSRF) request of $850 million will provide substantial 
funding to States and tribes to upgrade and modernize their drinking 
water systems. At this funding level, EPA will eventually meet its goal 
of providing an average of $500 million annually in assistance.

    BEACHES Grants. This budget includes $10 million to support our 
implementation of the ``Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal 
Health Act of 2000.'' The money will be provided in the form of grants 
to States to develop local monitoring and notification programs for 
coastal recreation waters.

    New Watershed Investments. Our $21 million Targeted Watershed 
Program is designed to support the need for additional funding for 
priority watershed restoration efforts. This request supports a range 
of water quality restoration tools to assist local communities in 
restoring their waterways. This Program would provide direct grants to 
watershed stakeholders to implement comprehensive restoration actions.

    Helping States Address Run-off and Restore Polluted Waters. The 
President's fiscal year 2003 budget provides significant resources to 
States to build on successes we have achieved in protecting the 
nation's waters, by providing States and tribes with grants to address 
polluted run-off, protect valuable wetlands, and restore polluted 
waterways.

    Clean Water State Revolving Fund. Our budget request includes 
$1.212 billion for States and tribes for the Clean Water State 
Revolving Fund (CWSRF). States receive capitalization grants, which 
enable them to provide low interest loans to communities to construct 
wastewater treatment infrastructure and fund other projects to enhance 
water quality. This investment allows our Agency to meet the goal for 
the CWSRF to provide $2 billion average in annual financial assistance 
over the long-term.

    Protecting Human Health along the U.S.-Mexico Border. This budget 
includes $75 million for water and wastewater projects along the U.S.-
Mexico Border. These resources help our Agency to address the serious 
environmental and human health problems associated with untreated and 
industrial and municipal sewage on the U.S.-Mexico border.

Strong Science
    The fiscal year 2003 budget supports our efforts to further 
strengthen the role of science in decisionmaking by using scientific 
information and analysis to help direct policy and establish 
priorities. EPA will achieve maximum environmental and health 
protections through our request of $627 million for the Office of 
Research and Development to address both current and future 
environmental challenges. This Administration is committed to the 
incorporation of science into regulatory decisions by having scientists 
participate early and often in the regulatory development process. The 
budget request supports a balanced research and development program 
that addresses Administration and Agency priorities, as well as meets 
the challenges of the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Safe Drinking Water Act 
(SDWA), the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act 
(FIFRA), the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), and other 
environmental statutes.

Environmental Information
    In fiscal year 2003, we will further our commitment to providing 
assistance to States and tribes to develop and implement the National 
Environmental Information Exchange Network. The goal of this program is 
to advance collaborative efforts to integrate environmental data 
between and among EPA, States and the Agency's other partners. The 
ability to easily exchange up-to-date, accurate information is critical 
to meet today's increasingly complex environmental challenges. The 
grant program has several components, each of which is aimed at 
building on the growing success of States and tribes in finding smarter 
alternatives to the current approaches for exchanging environmental 
data. The grants being offered include grants to enable States and 
tribes to re-engineer their environmental reporting; grants to 
demonstrate progress in developing a joint EPA/State National 
Environmental Information Exchange Network, and grants that challenge 
State or multi-state or tribal efforts to integrate environmental 
information.
    As EPA works with States and tribes to develop the National 
Environmental Information Exchange Network, we will also continue to 
build and institutionalize a Central Data Exchange (CDX) which will be 
EPA's focal point for securely receiving, translating, and forwarding 
data to EPA's data systems. In fiscal year 2003, the CDX will service 
45 States and an assemblage of 25,000 facilities, companies, and 
laboratories. By widely implementing an electronic reporting 
infrastructure, this infrastructure will reduce reliance on less 
efficient paper-based processes, thereby improving data quality, 
reducing reporting burden, and simplifying the reporting process.

Enforcement Grant Programs
    Most of our nation's environmental laws envision a strong role for 
State governments in implementing and managing environmental programs. 
The fiscal year 2003 request includes $15 million in a new grant 
program to continue to support State agencies implementing authorized, 
delegated, or approved environmental enforcement programs. These funds 
will continue to afford States a greater role in the enforcement of 
environmental laws and regulations.
    This budget request will allow our Agency to continue to support 
the regulated community's compliance with environmental requirements 
through voluntary compliance incentives and assistance programs. We 
will provide information and technical assistance to the regulated 
community through the compliance assistance program to increase its 
understanding of all statutory or regulatory environmental 
requirements. The program will also continue to develop strategies and 
compliance assistance tools that will support initiatives targeted 
toward improving compliance in specific industrial and commercial 
sectors or with certain regulatory requirements.

Safe Food
    The fiscal year 2003 request includes $142.3 million to help meet 
the multiple challenges of the implementation of the Food Quality 
Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996 so that all Americans will continue to 
enjoy one of the safest, most abundant, and most affordable food 
supplies in the world. FQPA provides for the expedited registration of 
reduced risk pesticides to introduce alternatives to the older versions 
on the market. EPA implements its various authorities in a manner to 
ensure that farmers are able to transition with a minimal disruption in 
production to safer substitutes and alternative farming practices. 
Expanded support for tolerance reassessments will reduce the potential 
risks to public health from older pesticides. Reassessing existing 
tolerances promotes food safety, especially for infants and children, 
while ensuring that pesticides meet the most current health and safety 
standards. This budget request also supports FQPA-related science 
through scientific assessments of cumulative risk, including funds for 
validation of testing components of the Endocrine Disruptor Screening 
Program.

Summary
    Taken together, the President's proposed EPA budget for fiscal year 
2003 fully supports the work of our Agency. It will enable us to 
transform the Agency's 30-year mission to meet the challenges of the 
21st century. It brings us that much closer to realizing our goals of 
cleaner air for all Americans to breathe, purer water for all Americans 
to drink, swim and fish in, as well as safeguarding public health.
    This concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to answer 
any questions that you may have.
                                 ______
                                 
 Responses of Hon. Christine Todd Whitman to Additional Questions from 
                             Senator Boxer

    Question 1. Restoration of Contaminated Sites--The pace of clean-
ups of contaminated sites has been declining. In Fiscal Year 2000, 87 
NPL clean-ups were completed; In Fiscal Year 2001, 47 clean-ups were 
completed (In last year's budget proposal, the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) estimated that 75 clean-ups would be completed 
in 2001.) In 2002, 40 clean-ups are projected to be completed. In 2003, 
40 clean-ups are also projected.
    Please explain why the pace of cleanup is slowing so dramatically? 
Why was there such a large discrepancy between estimated and actual 
cleanups?
    Response. Entering into fiscal year 2001, the Superfund program had 
already anticipated a reduction in achieving site construction 
completions. This was a result of a variety of factors, including the 
legacy of past decisions on priorities for funding; the size and number 
of construction projects (operable units) for the remaining NPL sites 
still eligible for construction completion; and the need to balance a 
number of competing environmental priorities within the Superfund 
Program. In preceding years, the Agency had placed a priority onsites 
that were nearly complete, creating a backlog of sites with significant 
years of work remaining. This remaining universe of eligible sites 
includes area-wide groundwater sites, mining sites, sediment sites, and 
Federal facility sites.
    Moving sites to completion remains an Agency priority. The Agency 
is launching a Superfund Pipeline Management Review to identify areas 
in the Superfund cleanup process that can be managed in a way to 
maximize the amount of resources available for cleanup construction and 
whether there may be alternative cleanup options available other than 
listing a site on the Superfund National Priority List (NPL).

    Question 1(a). I understand that EPA has asserted that sites 
underway are more complex. Please provide a detailed explanation of 
what constitutes a more complex site. In addition, please explain how 
EPA is determining that it is the complexity of each site that is 
causing the slow down in clean-ups and how this assumption is being 
verified and documented.
    Response. The remaining universe of NPL sites that are not 
construction complete are more complex than sites that have already 
achieved construction completion. Many factors are included in 
complexity, which affects the duration and cost of cleanups. Examples 
of some such factors include. contaminant characteristics, presence of 
multiple contaminants, area and volume of contamination, multi-media 
contamination, ecological issues, groundwater issues, remedial 
technology(ies) necessary, site location, proximity to populations, 
Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) cooperation, presence of multiple 
PRPs, and other stakeholder interests (States, Tribes, communities, 
natural resource trustees). While we have not attempted to assess all 
the characteristics that describe complexity on a site-specific basis, 
we have a few surrogate measures that demonstrate how the current 
universe of non-construction complete NPL sites differs from NPL sites 
that are construction complete.
    Type of facility. 21 percent of the remaining non-construction 
completed universe of final NPL sites (675) are Federal facilities. 
Simply the nature of contamination at these sites and their vastness 
defines these sites as complex. Only 4 percent of construction 
completed sites are Federal facilities.
    Mega-sites. Mega-sites, as defined by Resources for the Future, are 
non-Federal facility sites with total cleanup costs estimated at $50 
million or more. Of the 124 mega-sites that EPA has identified, 75 
percent are not construction complete.
    Number of operable units per site. In order to address the multiple 
aspects of site cleanup, EPA may divide sites into smaller scale units, 
called operable units.
    There are an average of 4.2 operable units per final, non-
construction complete, non-Federal facility mega NPL site, which 1.5 
times greater than the number of operable units at comparable 
construction complete NPL sites.
    There are an average of 1.9 operable units per final, non-
construction complete, non-Federal facility, non-mega NPL site, which 
is 1.3 times greater than the number of operable units at comparable 
construction complete NPL sites.
    There are an average of 9.5 operable units per final, non-
construction complete, Federal facility NPL site, which 2.1 times 
greater than the number of operable units at comparable construction 
complete NPL sites.

    Question 2. Superfund Tax--The Federal Superfund tax account is 
nearly exhausted due to the expiration of the Superfund tax. General 
revenues will soon fully replace the tax as a source of funding. The 
Superfund tax was paid by polluting industries throughout the country. 
They have experienced a tax holiday for more than 5 years.
    Does EPA support the reauthorization of the Superfund tax or do you 
support shifting the full burden of the federally funded portion of the 
Superfund program to the general taxpayer?
    Response. A number of years have passed since the Superfund taxes 
expired. Although the Superfund taxes expired, the annual 
appropriations for the program have remained relatively steady. It is 
important to note, that the expiration of the taxes has not affected 
the appropriated funding for the Superfund program. EPA is confident 
that Congress and the Administration will continue to work together to 
provide appropriate funding for the Superfund program. Although the 
President's Fiscal Year 2003 budget does not propose enacting Superfund 
taxes at this time, the issue may be revisited for the fiscal year 2004 
budget. Specific details on the President's request for Superfund in 
fiscal year 2004 will be developed within the executive branch over the 
course of the next several months, and submitted to Congress in 
February 2003.

    Question 3. Federal enforcement is a critical backstop to State 
enforcement programs. EPA proposed to cut enforcement personnel in the 
Fiscal Year 2002 budget, and this proposal was rejected. In the 
conference language to the VA/HUD appropriations bill, EPA was directed 
to ``restore Federal enforcement positions in accordance with the 
fiscal 2001 Operating Plan.''

    Question 3(a). Please confirm that the Federal enforcement 
positions were restored in accordance with the direction in the VA/HUD 
conference report. Please also indicate the number of Federal 
enforcement positions that you have included or will include in the 
Fiscal 2003 Operating Plan. If there are fewer positions proposed for 
Fiscal Year 2003 for key Federal programs, such as civil enforcement, 
compliance monitoring and incentives, please indicate the number of 
vacancies that have not been filled and the number of positions 
eliminated in Fiscal Year 2003 compared to 2001 levels.
    Answer 3(a). EPA restored workyears to the enforcement program 
consistent with funding provided by Congress in the fiscal year 2002 
appropriations. Congress appropriated an increase of $15 million to the 
Fiscal Year 2002 President's Request for enforcement, which provided 
funding for about 145 workyears. Due to the catastrophic events on ``9/
11'', it was necessary to provide the Office of Enforcement and 
Compliance Assurance (OECA) with additional workyears to support our 
homeland security efforts. Therefore, the Agency restored 115 workyears 
to the enforcement programs and 30 workyears were provided for homeland 
security.
    While vacancies fluctuate at any given time, OECA is managing its 
on-board levels very close to its authorized workyear ceiling. Below, 
please find a table which outlines the changes from the Fiscal Year 
2001 operating plan to the fiscal year 2003 Request.

                                    Fiscal Years 2001-2003 Workyear Crosswalk
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Changes  Congressional   Changes
                                                            FY 2001    in FY   Restoration &    in FY    FY 2003
                         Program                            Budget     2002    Agency Cut in    2003     Request
                                                                      Request   2002 Budget    Request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance Monitoring....................................     528.5     -93.0        +29.0       -26.7     437.8
Civil Enforcement........................................   1,012.2     -92.0        +34.2       -49.3     905.1
Criminal Enforcement.....................................   300.1 -      +1.9         -3.2       294.4
                                                                4.4
Homeland Security........................................                            +30.0                  30.0
Superfund Enforcement....................................   1,030.6     -63.5        +52.4               1,019.5
Compliance Assistance....................................     213.4      +6.9         -6.9       -11.9     201.5
Compliance Incentives....................................      97.3      -6.4         -0.2        -5.9      84.8
Capacity Building, NEPA, Environ. Justice................     205.0     -11.2         -0.1        -1.7      92.0
Enforcement Training                                           25.0      -6.2         -0.5        -1.3      17.0
Data Management..........................................     124.2                                        124.2
Brownfields..............................................       0.5                               +4.5       5.0
Total....................................................   3,536.8    -269.8       +139.8       -95.5   3,311.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Question 3(b). EPA's Fiscal Year 2003 budget proposes that $15 
million be directed to a State enforcement grant program. What is the 
authority for this program? If Federal enforcement positions are not 
maintained at Fiscal Year 2001 levels in your proposed budget, would 
the funding proposed for this new State grant program be sufficient to 
cover the cost of maintaining these positions? Does EPA view State 
activities and capacity building as a substitute for Federal 
enforcement? How will EPA measure the accomplishments of State 
enforcement programs?
    Answer 3(b). While we believe we have existing authority, we are 
proposing an expansion of that authority to accommodate the multimedia 
context in which the grants will be administered. Accordingly, 
authorizing language in the appropriations bill that funds the program 
would facilitate the administration of the grants.
    EPA and the States have different, but complementary roles when it 
comes to enforcement of our Nation's environmental laws. States have 
primary responsibility for implementing and enforcing most 
environmental programs through delegated authority from the EPA. The 
EPA's Federal role is to implement and enforce programs that cannot be 
delegated to States, to handle more complex cases involving multiple 
States or corporations with multiple facilities, to deal with issues 
that require expertise or resources that only EPA can provide, and to 
enforce when States are unable or unwilling to. Given the interplay 
between the State and Federal programs, we believe the State and tribal 
enforcement grant program will enhance both State and EPA efforts to 
increase compliance with environmental laws.
    States will be approved for grant funding only if their grant 
proposal includes specific plans to measure and report on their 
performance in achieving results. For example, for environmental risks 
or noncompliance patterns they are addressing with the grant funds, 
States will need to define performance measures for determining whether 
they are having an impact (e.g., pollution reductions, improved 
environmental practices at facilities or within an industry, increased 
compliance rates). EPA will establish required reporting intervals for 
States to provide performance information which can be reviewed on a 
regular basis by EPA.

    Question 4. Hazardous Waste Regulations--EPA's budget proposal 
includes discussion of a plan to exclude lower risk wastes from 
hazardous waste regulation. Does EPA also plan to review higher risk 
wastes and regulate them as hazardous if they are not currently part of 
the hazardous waste system?
    Response. The Agency is taking a balanced approach to ensure that 
high-risk wastes are appropriately regulated under RCRA, and that low-
risk wastes are not over-regulated. We agree that there is a continuing 
need to evaluate whether wastes should be brought into the hazardous 
waste system, or otherwise addressed to control potential risks. In 
recent years the Agency has completed a number of evaluations of 
industrial wastes to determine if any of these should be added to the 
list of hazardous wastes. These include recent evaluations of wastes 
from the paint manufacturing, inorganic chemicals, and chlorinated 
aliphatics production industries. We are also continuing investigations 
into other wastes of potential concern (e.g., wastes from the dye and 
pigment production industries), and we are examining certain wastes 
that are already regulated as hazardous to clarify the scope of the 
regulations (e.g., spent petroleum catalysts). As discussed in the EPA 
budget, we are also examining a limited number of specific waste 
streams for potential exemptions under RCRA, to the extent they do not 
pose a risk to public health or the environment. This effort is an 
outgrowth of a previous rulemaking and public comment. Subsequently, we 
were directed in the fiscal year 2002 appropriation to expeditiously 
address these requests for exemptions.
    In summary, we intend to continue to improve management of wastes 
by both effectively addressing wastes that present risks of concern 
while also ensuring that other waste streams are not inappropriately 
over-regulated.
                                 ______
                                 
 Responses of Hon. Christine Todd Whitman to Additional Questions from 
                            Senator Campbell

    Question 1. Global Climate Change--I have supported the use of 
market based mechanisms in Federal regulation. Market based approaches 
lead to efficient allocation of resources, resulting in greater all 
around benefits. The acid rain program is a strong example of what 
market based approaches can do. I understand that the Administration is 
preparing to release new guidelines for emissions reductions as indexed 
to economic output. Could you briefly discuss how such an approach 
could work?
    Response. The President's climate change policy sets a goal of an 
18 percent reduction in greenhouse gas intensity the ratio of emissions 
to economic activity in the U.S. over the next 10 years. In practical 
terms, this means that fewer tons of greenhouse gases will be emitted 
for every million dollars of gross domestic product. The Administration 
predicts that current trends of technology improvement and current 
climate programs will cause greenhouse gas intensity to fall by 14 
percent from 2002 2012. The President's goal calls for an additional 4 
percent reduction in greenhouse gas intensity for the period.
    Administration estimates are that this 4 percent reduction in 
greenhouse gas intensity translates into roughly a 100 million metric 
ton reduction in greenhouse gases by 2012. To achieve this goal, the 
President proposes investments in the development of new, lower 
emitting, technologies and tax incentives for the adoption of such 
technologies. In addition to the focus on emissions, the President's 
plan supports improvement in carbon sequestration through agricultural 
activities. Further, the President has challenged American business and 
industry to form partnerships with the Administration to achieve these 
goals.

    Question 2. How have the priorities changed in response to the 
recent economic slowdown and September 11 attacks?
    Response. EPA played a critical role in responding to the September 
11, 2001, attacks at the World Trade Center in New York City and the 
Pentagon. At the World Trade Center, the Agency aided in debris removal 
from Ground Zero, combined efforts with Occupational Health and Safety 
Administration and the New York City Department of Health to monitor 
worker exposure to contaminated dust and particulate matter, and 
coordinated with the New York City Department of Environmental 
Protection to sample drinking water and ambient air quality. Similar 
monitoring efforts were conducted at the Pentagon crash site. At the 
Senate Hart Office Building in Washington, DC, EPA worked with the 
Sergeant at Arms, who served as the lead, during the Anthrax 
decontamination process, which was successfully completed in January 
2002.
    While the Agency continues its mission of protecting public health 
and the environment, we also recognize that homeland security efforts 
do not end with the conclusion of cleanup efforts in New York and 
Washington, DC. Protecting the nation's water supply, securing and 
protecting EPA's facilities and employees, improving the Agency's 
ability to respond to any major terrorist incident, supporting and 
coordinating with other law enforcement agencies, and initiating 
research activities to achieve a higher level of preparedness will 
continue to be important priorities as EPA works to improve the 
nations's homeland security.

    Question 3. Endangered Species--You mention that in the new budget, 
the EPA will strengthen the role of science in decisionmaking to direct 
policy and priorities. We've seen, in the last few months, faulty and 
misdirected science having disastrous effects in both the Canadian Lynx 
studies and Oregon's Klamath Basin. How is the EPA prepared to prevent 
such future problems by ensuring balanced and unbiased scientific 
research?
    Response. I do agree with you about the importance of science in 
decisionmaking to direct policy and priorities. EPA's Peer Review 
Policy helps ensure that the best available scientific information is 
used in EPA decisions in a balanced and unbiased way. This policy 
requires that major scientific and technical work products used in 
Agency decisions receive critical review by qualified individuals (or 
organizations) who are independent from, but have equivalent expertise 
to, those who performed the work. While our peer review policy does not 
apply to science developed or used by other Federal agencies, as in the 
two cases cited in your question, since 1994 it has applied not only to 
all science conducted by EPA's program and regional offices, but also 
to science done by others but used by EPA.
    This year we are taking additional steps to support our continued 
use of the best available science in decisionmaking. First, we have 
enhanced the participation of our Office of Research and Development 
(ORD) in the Agency's decisionmaking process, including creating 
additional ORD positions that are dedicated to coordinating scientific 
input into regulatory policies. Second, EPA is currently drafting its 
new guidelines to implement the Office of Management and Budget's 
information quality guidance. These new guidelines will outline the 
quality requirements for all information disseminated by EPA, and for 
influential information--including scientific research findings--the 
guidelines will set high standards for objectivity, utility, and 
integrity. This will include meeting stringent criteria for 
transparency and reproducibility of findings.
    Rigorous peer review of our science, and early and continued 
involvement of our scientists in decisionmaking, will allow EPA to 
continue to be confident that the science used in our decisions is 
balanced, unbiased, and appropriately applied to the issue at hand. 
Doing so not only results in better decisions, but enhanced service to 
the American public through more effective accomplishment of our 
mission to protect human health and safeguard the natural environment.
                                 ______
                                 
 Responses of Hon Christine Todd Whitman to Additional Questions from 
                            Senator Clinton
    Question 1. As you know, indoor air quality is one of the largest 
outstanding environmental issues around Ground Zero. I was pleased that 
in the letter that you sent to me on February 12, 2002, you committed 
to working with local, State, and Federal partners to establish a Task 
Force on Indoor Air in Lower Manhattan, and I look forward to working 
with you in this regard.
    I believe that it is imperative that this Task Force conducts door-
to-door inspections and indoor sampling within no less than a 10 block 
radius of Ground Zero. The Task Force should also operate a centralized 
location where the public can get information on whether their building 
has been tested/inspected, the results of those tests, and clear 
guidance on cleanup requirements, resources available to pay for 
cleanups, and certified cleanup companies in the area.
    Please provide more detailed information on the Task Force, 
including. (1) the proposed make-up of the Task Force, (2) the Task 
Force's proposed mission, (3) a proposed schedule for completion of 
necessary indoor air activities, and (4) a proposed budget for the Task 
Force.
    Response. 1. EPA established the Task Force in mid-February. The 
list of taskforce members is attached.
    2. The Task Force's mission is to assure that people are not being 
exposed to pollutants related to the World Trade Center collapse at 
levels that might pose long term health risks. On May 8, 2002, EPA and 
its Federal, State and city partners announced a comprehensive plan to 
ensure that apartments impacted by the collapse of the world trade 
center have been properly cleaned. The attached fact sheet provides 
more details. EPA, New York City, the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency (FEMA), and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration 
(OSHA) are taking a collaborative approach that will include:
      Cleanup of residential units on request, using certified 
contractors;
      Followup testing for asbestos in the indoor air for 
requesting households;
      Availability of HEPA (High Efficiency Particulate Air) 
filter vacuums;
      Establishment of a hotline to provide information and 
take cleanup and testing requests;
      Distribution of health and cleanup information; and 
Professional cleanup of remaining unoccupied, uncleaned buildings.
    3. At this time, there is no established end date for these 
activities.
    4. Under the plan, FEMA will provide a grant to New York City that 
will pay for the professional cleaning and testing. EPA will continue 
to work with the City and FEMA to identify future projects and funding 
needs.

    Question 2a. According to EPA's budget summary document, it appears 
that FEMA has provided the necessary resources for EPA to conduct the 
outdoor air sampling that it has been and continues to do in New York 
City. Is that correct?
    Response. Yes. FEMA has transferred over $95 million to EPA for 
response activities at the World Trade Center Site.

    Question 2b. What resources has EPA used for the anthrax cleanups 
at private sites, the Postal Service, other government agency sites, 
and the U.S. Capitol complex? How much of that funding came out of your 
Superfund program and how much came out of the 1902 Supplemental?
    Response. EPA has expended over $25 million for Capitol Hill 
response out of its Superfund removal program. The Fiscal Year 2002 
Defense Appropriations Act, which included the Supplemental for 
Counter-terrorism reimbursed EPA for $12.5 million of that. The 
Administration is requesting the remaining $12.5 million in the latest 
Supplemental request.
    In general, the USPS, other government agencies and privately owned 
facilities, such as the America Media, Inc. site in Florida, are 
funding their own cleanups. EPA is providing technical assistance from 
our On-Scene Coordinators, our Environmental Response Team, and other 
personnel. EPA estimates that it has spent approximately $2 million for 
anthrax cleanup and technical assistance at sites other than the 
Capitol Hill Complex.

    Question 2c. In your February 12, letter to me, you mentioned that 
you were already working with the City and ATSDR on indoor air quality 
in Lower Manhattan by providing resources to analyze indoor air and 
dust samples from 30 buildings in Lower Manhattan. What was the source 
of these resources?
    Response. FEMA provided funding for the original sampling and will 
fund additional project components that are eligible under its 
programs.

    Question 2d. Why in your February 12 letter to me did you suggest 
that the resources for the new Indoor Air Task Force should come from 
the CDBG money appropriated for New York last year? As I'm sure your 
are aware, the use of that money is at the discretion of Governor 
Pataki. In addition, the demands on the CDBG money for economic 
redevelopment and revitalization in lower Manhattan unfortunately 
already far exceed these resources.
    Response. While I am sure the demands on these CDBG resources is 
great, as you know, eligible activities of CDBG funds include the 
provision of services related to public health. This could potentially 
include addressing the indoor environmental needs of residents and 
building owners in Lower Manhattan.

    Question 3. EPA's budget summary States that you will be using 
funds from the 1902 Supplemental to develop ``Additional information 
needed to determine the risks to human health from short-term exposures 
to acutely toxic chemicals.''
    Please explain this effort further. What chemicals will EPA be 
looking at? Will this effort in any way be targeted to addressing the 
short-term exposures experienced at the World Trade Center?
    Response. EPA's National Advisory Committee for Acute Exposures for 
Hazardous Substances (NAC/AEGL Committee) is working with experts of 
the Environmental & Occupational Health Sciences Institute (EOHSI) to 
develop a list of chemicals of concern in the World Trade Center 
disaster and to assess the ability to develop acute exposure values for 
emergency planning scenarios. These experts will provide the NAC/AEGL 
Committee with the results of their analyses of the World Trade Center 
disaster and meet with the committee to discuss the short-term 
exposures of concern from the viewpoint of both vulnerable areas just 
following the event and also re-entry considerations. Included in the 
substances of concern are glass fibers, PM2.5 and greater 
micron diameter particles, benzene and toluene emissions from jet fuel 
combustion, phthalates and polyaromatic hydrocarbons (chrysenes, 
anthracenes, pyrenes) from building materials and some brominated flame 
retardants.

    Question 4. EPA's budget summary document also mentioned that EPA 
will be using money from the 1902 Supplemental to ``provide 
environmental updates on environmental data to the Agency's website 
regarding cleanup efforts at the World Trade Center.'' Please explain 
this effort in further detail.
    Response. In the aftermath of the World Trade Center (WTC) 
disaster, EPA assumed responsibility for developing and maintaining a 
multi-agency data base to house both the results of ambient air 
monitoring conducted in New York City and its surrounding environments 
to determine the environmental impacts of the 9/11 event. In addition, 
EPA has been posting the results of its own WTC sampling and monitoring 
activities on the Agency website (found at www.epa.gov) since September 
25, 2001. While some monitoring organizations have ceased their 
operations, EPA, the New York State Department of Environmental 
Conservation, and the New York City Department of Environmental 
Protection continue to monitor in the vicinity of the WTC. EPA will 
continue to accept new data updates into the data base and update its 
public website postings as long as monitoring activities are advancing. 
In addition, EPA plans to make the data base publicly available later 
this year and will be renewing the public version of the system as new 
data becomes available.

    Question 5. With respect to Homeland Security in the 
Administration's Fiscal Year 2003 proposal for EPA, the lion's share of 
the funding would go to conducting research on ``better technologies 
and assessments to clean up buildings contaminated by biological and 
chemical agents.'' Please explain this effort in further detail. What 
will this include in addition to anthrax?
    Response. The President's 2003 budget allocated $75,000,000 to the 
Environmental Protection Agency for research on building security and 
decontamination. EPA developed a 2-year plan for development, testing, 
and communication of enhanced methods for detection, containment, 
decontamination, and disposal of clean-up equipment after intentional 
introduction of biological or chemical contaminants into large 
buildings. This plan includes consideration of biological and chemical 
warfare agents as well as toxic bulk industrial chemicals, and the plan 
addresses both indoor releases of contaminants and proximal outdoor 
releases.
    As part of this effort, the Agency will test and verify existing 
devices to detect contaminants, develop new devices or methods of 
detection, equip vans with detection instrumentation for rapid 
response, and design a detection network. Research will also be 
conducted to develop and test methods for preventing the spread of 
contaminants, and to protect building occupants, emergency responders, 
and decontamination crews. In addition, EPA researchers will look at 
methods for decontaminating indoor surfaces and methods for disposing 
of contaminated clean-up materials. The Agency also plans to provide 
guidance on improved detection, containment, and decontamination 
methods for facility managers, emergency responders, decontamination 
crews, and those sampling and analyzing materials in the environment.

    Question 6. How will EPA work to incorporate its experience in New 
York into its Homeland Security Initiative?
    Response. EPA has developed a lessons learned document that has 
been distributed within the Agency. The lessons identified in this 
document, along with other assessments, will help EPA to develop its 
Agency-wide Homeland Security Strategy. EPA's strategy will be 
incorporated into the National Strategy.

    Question 7a. It is my understanding that EPA's Inspector General 
has already recommended that contaminant asbestos be regulated under 
the Clean Air Act and that EPA's Office of Air and Radiation has agreed 
with this recommendation. Can you please tell the committee what 
actions are already under way or that the Agency intends to take in 
this regard?
    Answer 7a. The Inspector General recommended that EPA consider the 
need for regulation of contaminant asbestos under the Clean Air Act 
through National Emissions Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants 
(NESHAP).
    Contaminant asbestos emissions are potentially associated with a 
wide variety of mineral mining and processing operations. Because of 
the potential for asbestos exposure resulting from emissions and other 
pathways associated with inappropriate material handling and disposal, 
we agree that the need for regulation of contaminant asbestos sources 
under the NESHAP program should be considered. However, there are 
significant issues which must be addressed when considering NESHAP 
development for contaminant asbestos sources.
    We have developed an Action Plan for determining the need for 
NESHAP for a broad range of contaminant asbestos emissions sources. The 
objective of the Action Plan is to identify the steps and associated 
activities necessary to gather the information needed to decide whether 
regulations for sources of contaminant asbestos are warranted.

    Question 7b. I also understand that EPA's Office of Pollution 
Prevention and Toxic Substances has committed to forming a ``Blue 
Ribbon Panel'' on policy issues ``associated with the use and 
management of asbestos and other durable fibers'' by mid-2002. Please 
tell the committee if this is proceeding on schedule? How will the 
asbestos issues resulting from the September 11 attacks be addressed by 
the Panel?
    Response. Blue Ribbon Panel--EPA is establishing a panel of 
informed stakeholders (which includes industry, school officials, EPA, 
health and risk assessors, and the public) to provide independent 
advice and council on policy issues associated with asbestos. The panel 
will consider how the Agency should best focus its resources to address 
asbestos products still in use and asbestos products found in homes, 
commercial buildings, and schools. The first panel meeting will be in 
late Summer 2002.
    The panel is expected to address asbestos issues resulting from the 
September 11 attacks. For example, the Panel will address air emissions 
standards for asbestos, discuss the use of asbestos-containing building 
materials, and work to develop a consumer education campaign.

    Question 8. Once again, funding for the Long Island Sound has been 
severely cut from this year's enacted level. Why?
    Response. The reduction from $2.5 million to $477 thousand reflects 
the elimination of the fiscal year 2002 earmark of $2.003 million. Our 
fiscal year 2003 request is equal to our request for fiscal year 2002.

    Question 9. The National Estuary Program is already woefully under-
funded, and could provide significant benefits for important estuary 
resources around the country, such as the Peconic Estuary on Long 
Island. Why is there a significant cut in funding proposed by the 
Administration for the National Estuary Program?
    Response. As with Long Island Sound funding, the reduction in total 
levels for the National Estuary Program reflects elimination of a $5.5 
million earmark appropriated in fiscal year 2002.
                                 ______
                                 
 Responses of Hon. Christine Todd Whitman to Additional Questions from 
                            Senator Jeffords

    Question 1. I have been told that, nationally, our superfund site 
needs are three times greater that the money available. How much money 
would be necessary in fiscal year 2003 for the program to operate at 
the optimal level?
    Response. This Administration is committed to the polluter pays 
principle. Due to the polluter pays structure of Superfund, 
approximately 70 percent of non-Federal Superfund sites are financed 
and cleaned up by private parties. Other sites are cleaned up by EPA 
with costs recovered from private parties after cleanup.
    Last year, EPA produced a near record amount in private party 
cleanup commitments and cost recovery--$1.7 billion--an increase from 
the previous year of almost $300 million. Of the $1.7 billion, EPA 
recovered $413 million in cleanup costs--a large increase from the $145 
million recovered in the previous year. The total value of these 
settlements with responsible parties exceeds $18 billion. EPA will 
continue to pursue agreements with responsible parties to conduct 
future cleanup work wherever possible.
    The President's budget request of $1.29 billion for Superfund 
reflects a strong commitment to clean up hazardous waste sites. The 
fiscal year 2003 budget includes an almost $200 million increase in 
such funding. While funding in Superfund is essentially flat as 
compared to fiscal year 2002, the Budget includes $200 million for 
Brownfields funding through other accounts. Prior to the President 
signing the Brownfields legislation in December, Brownfields funding 
was provided through the Superfund account and within the fiscal year 
2002 Superfund total. At the budget levels requested by the President 
for fiscal year 2003, EPA expects to maintain progress at Superfund 
sites, and EPA's presence at sites with ongoing work will continue. EPA 
will continue to ensure that available funds are directed to the 
highest priority sites and projects.

    Question 2. I understand that in Region 1, for example, the funding 
in the ``pipeline'' (used for remedial investigations, feasibility 
studies, and removal work) has dropped from $45 million in 2000 to $24-
$26 million this year. Can you explain this dramatic decrease in 
funding to me?
    Response. As part of the budget process, EPA allocates resources to 
each region for specific categories of work. Allocations of 
``pipeline'' resources are predominantly contractor resources. In 
fiscal year 2000, EPA allocated $29.4 million to Region 1 for pipeline 
activities. The region was able to augment this ``base'' allocation to 
nearly $45 million by using deobligated funds from closed/expired 
contracts. The pipeline allocation for Region 1 in fiscal year 2002 is 
$24.8 million. The reason for the reduction from the fiscal year 2000 
($29.4 million) is based on the implementation of a new methodology for 
allocating pipeline resources among the ten regions.

    Question 3. Is there any data documenting an increase in the 
complexity of Superfund sites?
    Response. The remaining universe of NPL sites that are not 
construction complete are more complex than sites that have already 
achieved construction completion. Many factors are included in 
complexity, which affects the duration and cost of cleanups. Examples 
of some such factors include. contaminant characteristics, presence of 
multiple contaminants, area and volume of contamination, multi-media 
contamination, ecological issues, groundwater issues, remedial 
technology(ies) necessary, site location, proximity to populations, 
Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) cooperation, presence of multiple 
PRPs, and other stakeholder interests (States, Tribes, communities, 
natural resource trustees). While we have not attempted to assess all 
the characteristics that describe complexity on a site-specific basis, 
we have a few surrogate measures that demonstrate how the current 
universe of non-construction complete NPL sites differs from NPL sites 
that are construction complete.
    Type of facility. 21 percent of the remaining non-construction 
completed universe of final NPL sites (675) are Federal facilities. 
Simply the nature of contamination at these sites and their vastness 
defines these sites as complex. Only 4 percent of construction 
completed sites are Federal facilities.
    Mega-sites. Mega-sites, as defined by Resources for the Future, are 
non-Federal facility sites with total cleanup costs estimated at $50 
million or more. Of the 124 mega-sites that EPA has identified, 75 
percent are not construction complete.
    Number of operable units per site. In order to address the multiple 
aspects of site cleanup, EPA may divide sites into smaller scale units, 
called operable units.
      There are an average of 4.2 operable units per final, 
non-construction complete, non-Federal facility mega NPL site, which 
1.5 times greater than the number of operable units at comparable 
construction complete NPL sites.
      There are an average of 1.9 operable units per final, 
non-construction complete, non-Federal facility, non-mega NPL site, 
which is 1.3 times greater than the number of operable units at 
comparable construction complete NPL sites.
      There are an average of 9.5 operable units per final, 
non-construction complete, Federal facility NPL site, which 2.1 times 
greater than the number of operable units at comparable construction 
complete NPL sites.

    Question 4. Is the EPA meeting its reduction goals for per capita 
municipal solid waste generation? What is the goal in fiscal year 2003?
    Response. Yes, EPA is on track to meet the 2005 per capita 
municipal solid waste generation goal and recycling goal. EPA 
challenged the Nation to attain two municipal solid waste goals by the 
year 2005; maintain per capita solid waste generation at the 1990 level 
of 4.5 pounds per day; and increase recycling to 35 percent. Now, as 
year 2000 results are compiled, most recent available data indicate 
that in 1999 Americans generated 4.62 pounds per capita per day and 
recycled 27.8 percent.
    In fiscal year 2003, the annual performance goal is to divert an 
additional 1 percent (for a cumulative total of 32 percent or 74 
million tons) of municipal solid waste from land filling and 
combustion, and maintain per capita generation of RCRA MSW at 4.5lbs 
per day. In furthering the national goals, EPA expects that year 2003 
per capita waste generation will continue near the 1999 level, and 
recycling will approach 32 percent.
    EPA partnerships with States, tribes, local governments, and 
businesses in projects such as WasteWise, Jobs Through Recycling, 
Extended Product Responsibility, and Pay-As-You-Throw financing are 
lending focus to the job creation, cost savings, and energy benefits 
which accrue from waste reduction and recycling.
    The Administration is building on past successes by establishing 
new priorities with a focused commitment to waste reduction and 
recycling. These priorities include a retail initiative to raise 
environmental awareness of consumers and business and encourage 
individuals to address environmental issues at the ``hands-on'' level 
as a gateway to better environmental stewardship. Additional efforts 
will cultivate innovative approaches to demonstrate the value of 
recycling and waste minimization as integral components of the nation's 
materials management strategy.

    Question 5. EPA's proposed budget includes the costs of additional 
retirement and health benefits. In fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 
2002, what percentage of the Agency's full-time workforce was covered 
by the CSRS retirement system and what percentage was covered by the 
FERS system?
    Response. The Administration has proposed new legislation so that 
Federal agencies would, beginning in fiscal year 2003, pay the full 
government share of future benefits under the Civil Service Retirement 
System (CSRS) and assume responsibility for the health benefits of all 
of their retirees (and their dependents/survivors). This proposal is 
simply an accounting issue that shifts responsibility for paying these 
costs from a centrally management account in OPM, to each Agency. In 
fiscal year 2001, 36 percent of the Agency's full-time workforce was 
covered by CSRS, as opposed to 64 percent who were covered by the 
Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS). We estimate that 35 percent 
of the Agency's full-time workforce will be covered by CSRS, and 65 
percent by FERS in fiscal year 2002.

    Question 6. Since September 11, EPA has been asked to take on many 
additional homeland defense activities. Last year's terrorism 
supplemental provided increased resources for EPA to carry out these 
new duties. In fiscal year 2003, the Agency plans to spend $124 million 
on homeland defense activities, but is adding almost no new employees 
overall. How many FTE are assigned to homeland defense activities? Are 
any EPA employees being reassigned from environmental protection to 
homeland defense activities?
    Response. Before September 11, 2001, EPA had 12 people working on 
Homeland Security issues. In responding to the events of September 11 
and the Anthrax incidents in Washington, New York, and Florida, EPA 
personnel were temporarily dislocated from what could be considered 
traditional activities of environmental protection. As cleanup at the 
World Trade Center and the Capitol Hill Complex have progressed, some 
affected Agency staff have resumed non-terrorist related environmental 
protection duties. The 2002 Emergency Supplemental and fiscal year 2003 
President's Budget Request incorporates new investments into EPA's 
Homeland Security activities. The Agency is requesting additional FTE 
and also proposing to redirect over 45 FTE in fiscal year 2003 toward 
Homeland Security priorities. Currently, new jobs are being announced 
on a competitive basis. Employees inside the Agency are able to compete 
for these job vacancies as well as anyone else. In the President's 
fiscal year 2003 budget, the Homeland security FTE will be 66.9, an 
almost six fold increase over fiscal year 2001.

    Question 7. Please explain the decision to eliminate the STAR 
Fellowship Program and move the environmental education division to the 
National Science Foundation?
    Response. The President's Budget proposes to strengthen math and 
science education in the United States by improving the quality of math 
and science education in grades K-12 and by attracting the most 
promising U.S. students into graduate level science and engineering by 
providing more competitive stipends. The President's K-12 math and 
science initiative and the higher graduate stipends are being funded 
through the National Science Foundation's (NSF) budget. NSF is noted 
for its expertise and success in funding competitive programs in math 
and science. The Budget increases NSF's annual stipends for fellowship 
and tranineeship programs from $21,500 to $25,000. Funding for EPA's 
STAR Fellowship Program was eliminated in fiscal year 2003 as part of 
the larger initiative to strengthen math and science programs through 
the National Science Foundation (NSF). EPA will continue funding for 
its Minority Academic Institutions (MAI) Fellowships program at $1.5 
million in fiscal year 2003.

    Question 8. In general the mandates under the Safe Drinking Water 
Act are well funded, however, parallel resources are not provided to 
Clean Water Act mandates, resulting in erosion in the base programs run 
by States under Federal clean water act mandates. What can be done to 
ensure appropriate funding exists for the core work States are doing to 
keep our waters clean?
    Response. The Clean Water Act Section 106 grants are a key 
component of assistance to States for base programs. The fiscal year 
2003 President's Budget Request recognizes the importance of these 
State grant funds by proposing $180.4 million, the largest Presidential 
request ever.

    Question 9. Vermont is very pleased with the performance 
partnership model. What can be done to expand the flexibility of that 
model and to ensure adequate levels of funding/ensure that any new 
funds are incorporated within that agreement rather than as add-on 
mandates from the Federal Government? (The financial pressures to keep 
up with the CWA/SDWA mandates does make it very difficult for States to 
provide the level of services citizens should and do expect.)
    Response. Performance Partnership Agreements have fostered a much 
improved working relationship between the States and EPA. The 
partnership has resulted in better communications, allowing States and 
EPA to take advantage of each other's unique strengths and abilities, 
leading to better environmental results cleaner and safer air, water 
and better protected land.
    One of the most important tools that complement this framework is 
the Performance Partnership Grant (PPG). Through PPGs, States can 
combine funds from up to 16 environmental program grants into a single 
grant. This provides States with the flexibility to direct Federal 
resources to address their most pressing environmental problems or 
program needs. Under PPGs, it is also easier to fund innovative or 
cross-cutting activities, such as pollution prevention, compliance 
assistance or data integration projects. Further, States also save on 
administrative costs because of reduced paperwork and streamlined 
accounting procedures.
    While the PPG is perhaps the most recognizable tool for 
facilitating funding flexibility, it is worth noting that the EPA 
recently revised its regulation governing the administration of all 
environmental program grants to State, interstate and local 
governmental agencies (Part 35 Rule, effective April 2001). This rule 
not only sets forth the provisions for interested States to pursue 
funding flexibility through PPGs, it also encourages EPA and States to 
set priorities together under all program grants so that resources can 
be directed to address State needs within each program area.
    The revised rule allows the EPA Administrator to add, delete or 
change the list of grants eligible for inclusion in PPGs. EPA wants to 
extend the funding flexibility available through PPGs as much as is 
possible within the boundaries set by Congress in authorizing the PPG 
program. To that end, EPA recently added the newly authorized 
Environmental Information Management grant program grants.
    Performance Partnership principles have fostered a new 
understanding of the importance of EPA and States working together 
toward a common goal, as well as an appreciation of the need to find 
new opportunities to help States direct precious resources where they 
are most needed. The achievement of optimal program and resource 
flexibility is, however, a work in progress, and can only be reached 
through EPA and States' continued partnership efforts.

    Question 10. One of the most successful EPA sponsored programs in 
Vermont, with impacts in upstate New York as well, is the Lake 
Champlain Basin Program. This program is a real success story where the 
EPA, working with local partners has made significant strides, in fact 
is ahead of schedule, on cleaning up Lake Champlain. This important and 
successful program is proposed to be reduced from the fiscal year 2002 
level of $2.5 million to $954,800 in fiscal year 2003. How can the 
program be maintained with such a large budget reduction?
    Response. Our requested level will permit us to continue our 
successful efforts to support implementation of the Lake Champlain 
Management Plan via funding for the Lake Champlain Basin Program. The 
reduction reflects an elimination of the $1.545 million earmark 
appropriated in fiscal year 2002; our request for fiscal year 2003 is 
equal to our request for fiscal year 2002.

    Question 11. Please provide me with a detailed budget breakdown of 
EPA's proposed spending on Tribal activities, and Tribal wastewater 
projects in particular, as compared to fiscal year 2002 enacted levels.
    Response. The President's Budget request for EPA's tribal program 
is $232 million in fiscal year 2003, an increase of $3.6 million from 
the fiscal year 2002 level (see attachment). This request consists of 
the following.
      $34.7 million for EPA's Environmental Programs and 
Management (EPM) account to support development of integrated 
environmental management programs. This represents an increase of $300 
thousand from fiscal year 2002 EPA funding.
      $116.7 million awarded to tribes from the State and 
Tribal Assistance Grant (STAG) account, excluding infrastructure 
financing. This is a $5 million increase from fiscal year 2002 EPA 
funding.
      $70.9 million under the Water Infrastructure Financing 
account. This represents a decrease of $2 million from fiscal year 2002 
EPA funding; and
      $6.7 million for the Superfund Program and $3.2 million 
for the Leaking Underground Storage Tank program which maintains the 
fiscal year 2002 EPA funding levels for these programs.
Wastewater funding
    Of the $70.9 million above under the Water Infrastructure Financing 
account, wastewater funding is a follows:
      $18.18 million is for the Clean Water Indian Set-aside 
Grant Program for tribal wastewater systems. This amount assumes that 
Congress will accept our proposal to continue the Clean Water State 
Revolving Fund (CWSRF) set-aside funding at 1.5 percent. The difference 
in the EPA CWSRF fiscal year 2002 Appropriation amount of $1.35 billion 
and the fiscal year 2003 President's Request of $1.21 billion accounts 
for the decrease of $2 million in the tribal set-aside funding.
      EPA estimates that with the fiscal year 2003 set-aside 
about 20 additional grants will be awarded with an additional 1,700 
tribal homes being served with adequate treatment systems.
    The table below lists appropriations for the CW Indian Set-Aside 
Program since its inception in 1987:

                               Clean Water Indian Set-Aside Grant Program Funding
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Fiscal Year                       Appropriation Amount                   Projects Funded
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1987..................................  $5,805,000.........................  7
1988..................................  11,520,000.........................  19
1989..................................  4,705,000..........................  5
1990..................................  4,867,600..........................  8
1991..................................  Set-aside language not yet
                                         authorized in CWSRF.
1992..................................  9,743,000..........................  14
1993..................................  9,637,500..........................  12
1994..................................  6,090,000..........................  8
1995..................................  6,175,000..........................  24
1996..................................  6,742,500..........................  25
1997..................................  6,750,000..........................  29
1998..................................  6,750,000..........................  25
1999..................................  6,750,000..........................  28
2000..................................  6,727,100..........................  31
2001..................................  20,205,500*........................  57
2002..................................  20,250,000*........................  yet to be determined
Total.................................  $132,719,200.......................  292
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Reflects an increase in the percent of funds (0.5 percent to 1.5 percent) set-aside for fiscal year 2001 and
  fiscal year 2002 only from the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (Title VI) for grants to Indian tribes and
  Alaskan Native Villages for wastewater treatment systems.

    $40 million is requested in the fiscal year 2003 President's Budget 
to address the sanitation needs (drinking water and wastewater) of 
Alaska's rural and Native Villages (an amount equal to the Agency's 
fiscal year 2002 Appropriation).
    EPA estimates that approximately 54 drinking water and wastewater 
projects will be constructed, and that additional training and 
technical assistance will be provided.
    The table below shows EPA's appropriation since 1995:



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Fiscal Year                       Appropriation Amount                   Projects Funded
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995..................................  $15,000,000........................  25
1996..................................  15,000,000.........................  35
1997..................................  15,000,000.........................  40
1998..................................  15,000,000.........................  35
1999..................................  30,000,000.........................  51
2000..................................  30,000,000.........................  51
2001..................................  35,000,000.........................  48
2002..................................  40,000,000.........................  to be determined
Total.................................  $195,000,000.......................  285
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Question 12. Please explain why the President's fiscal 2003 budget 
provides no funding for the Clean Lakes Program.
    Response. In recent years, EPA has encouraged States to use the 
section 319 Nonpoint Source Program to support the lakes and reservoir 
work which was previously funded under the section 314 Clean Lakes 
Program. Our policy is consistent with the Senate Appropriations 
Committee conference reports in fiscal year 2000 and 2001 which 
included a suggestion that lakes activities be funded under the section 
319 program and that 5 percent of section 319 funds be allocated to 
Clean Lakes activities. Our grants reporting data indicate that a 
substantial amount of lakes-related work is being supported under 
section 319. Specifically, grants reporting data for fiscal year 1999 
through fiscal year 2001 indicate that States are using at least 5 
percent of their section 319 funds annually in projects that directly 
benefit lakes and reservoirs. We also echoed the Senate's suggestion 
that ``each State use at least 5 percent of its section 319 funds for 
Clean Lakes activities'' in our supplemental fiscal year 2000 section 
319 guidance issued in Dec. 1999. The guidance emphasized that it 
applied to fiscal year 2000 319 grants and to grants issued ``in future 
years.''

    Question 13. I am concerned about the rate of progress that EPA is 
making in responding to the Supreme Court decision on the revised ozone 
and fine particulate standards. That was just about 1 year ago. But, 
the Agency still hasn't released an implementation strategy so the 
States can really get started on the 8-hour ozone rule. This is 
particularly unsettling in light of the findings from a recent public 
health study. The study shows that children appear to actually develop 
asthma from playing sports in areas with high ozone concentrations. Can 
you give me an idea of what the schedule is on the new ozone standard?
    Response. Since the U.S. Supreme Court's action on February 27, 
2001 EPA has made much progress working with our State and other 
Federal partners to implement the revised ozone standard. The Agency 
successfully defended the standards in the D.C. Circuit, which ruled on 
March 26, 2002, that the Agency acted reasonably when setting the 8-
hour ozone standard. This is a significant victory in EPA's ongoing 
efforts to protect the health of millions of Americans from the dangers 
of air pollution. Concurrently with defending the standards in court, 
the Agency has been responding to the Supreme Court's implementation 
decision. The Court held that EPA's approach for implementing the 8-hr 
ozone NAAQS was not acceptable because it did not adequately consider 
the provisions of Title I, Part D, Subpart 2. The Court directed EPA to 
develop an implementation approach that incorporates appropriate 
principles from that part of the Clean Air Act. In response, EPA 
embarked upon a process of outreach to gather information and ideas 
that could underpin a Federal rulemaking dealing with the issues raised 
by the Court. EPA also began to examine all of the complex issues 
surrounding the court mandate. Some of the issues under consideration 
include. (1) the relationship of Subpart I to Subpart 2; (2) 
nonattainment area classifications and associated attainment dates; (3) 
rate of progress requirements for nonattainment areas; (4) the role of 
mandatory measures in State attainment plans; (5) the requirements for 
conformity of federally supported projects such as highways and 
airports; and, (6) attainment demonstration requirements. In the fall 
of 2001, we began outreach efforts to fully inform the elected 
officials and the general public of the issues. We have expanded the 
dialog with interested parties, including States and local air 
agencies, other governmental organizations, and individual 
stakeholders, to further the exchange of ideas and develop solutions. 
In early March of this year, we held public meetings in Washington and 
Atlanta to receive input on the numerous issues. Over 150 persons 
attended these meetings. A third public meeting is scheduled for April 
3, 2002 in Phoenix. Concerning our schedule for the ozone standard, we 
plan to propose an implementation rule this summer and issue a final 
rule about a year later.

    Question 14. As you know from meeting with them, the Attorney 
General of Vermont and other Attorneys General from other Northeast 
States are very concerned about New Source Review enforcement and 
regulations. They are worried about what EPA and Justice are doing and 
what they will do. So am I.

    Question 14(a). What is the Agency doing with the NSR enforcement 
actions it has already started?
    Answer. EPA's enforcement activities to address New Source Review 
violations continue to be vigorous. EPA has since January 2001 made 
approximately 87 information requests to power plants, refineries and 
other facilities, such as paper mills; issued about 22 Notices of 
Violation; filed and concluded at least 7 cases; and engaged in 
numerous other enforcement activities such as depositions, motion 
practice and on-going settlement discussions--all to enforce the Clean 
Air Act's NSR requirements. We believe our NSR cases are strong and 
will continue to urge companies to come to the table and settle these 
cases. In the meantime, we will vigorously pursue our investigations 
and litigation.

    Question 14(b). Will EPA's proposed budget change the level of 
effort, personnel or resources allocated to prosecuting those actions 
already started?
    Answer. No, the staff dedicated to NSR enforcement has, in fact, 
increased, in that we recently hired two attorneys for that office. 
Additionally, we anticipate that we will be able to manage the FTE 
reduction from fiscal year 2002 to fiscal year 2003 through normal 
attrition, without the reassignment of existing enforcement staff and 
without a hiring freeze.
    Moreover, we have since January 2001 filed and concluded 5 major 
cases against refineries for NSR violations the combined effect of 
which will be an estimated reduction of 76,000 tons of sulfur dioxide 
(SO2) emissions per year and 31,000 tons of nitrogen oxides 
(NOx) emissions per year. We also filed and concluded a major case 
against a power plant, PSEG, which alone will reduce the company's 
emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) by 90 percent and its 
emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) by more than 80 percent. These 
decreases represent 32 percent of all the SO2 and 20 percent 
of all the NOx emitted from stationary sources in New Jersey, and 19 
percent of all the SO2 and 5 percent of all the NOx from all 
sources in the State, including cars and trucks.

    Question 14 (c). Does EPA expect to initiate any new NSR 
enforcement actions this year?
    Answer. Yes, as described above, we continue to vigorously pursue 
NSR enforcement. As with any enforcement action, however, how soon and 
how many cases can be concluded depends on the particular facts of each 
case.

    Question 15. Please describe EPA's new State enforcement program 
and explain how it differs from the one the Agency proposed last year?
    Response. Last year when the President's fiscal year 2002 Budget 
proposed a $25 million enforcement grant program, EPA worked 
extensively with States and Tribes to solicit and consider their 
comments and suggestions. The design for the proposed $15 million 
program in the President's fiscal year 2003 Budget provides for 
performance-based grants that will build on the comments and 
suggestions received previously. Options for use and allocation of 
grant funds identified during the outreach process are outlined below.
    Options for Use of Funds (One or a combination of options may be 
used)
      Capacity Building. funds would be used to expand the 
capabilities of existing enforcement and compliance assurance programs.
      Problem-Based Strategies. funds would be used to 
implement a strategy to address a specific environmental risk or 
noncompliance pattern (identified by the State or Tribe).
    Options for Allocating Funds to States and Tribes (One or a 
combination of options may be used)
      Competitive Awards. funds will be awarded based on the 
merits of the proposal; not all States and tribes would receive funds.
      Base Share Grants. each State receives a minimum amount, 
plus additional funds are available through the competitive award 
process.
      Tribal Set-Aside. Recognizing that Tribal environmental 
programs may not compete well with States it may be necessary to set 
aside a portion of the funds for Tribal grants.

                          ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM

    Question 16. How many unfilled jobs exist in the enforcement 
division?
    Response. In Fiscal Year 2002, the Office of Enforcement and 
Compliance Assurance has a workyear ceiling of 3,407 (excluding the 50 
FTE provided in the supplemental bill) across all appropriations among 
its Headquarters, Field and Regional offices. We are managing very 
close to our current authorized FTE levels and expect to lapse only a 
few workyears this year.

    Question 17. EPA is currently spending 0.3 percent of the 
replacement value of its real estate assets on building repairs and 
improvements, well below the real estate industry's recommended level 
of 2 percent to 5 percent of the replacement value. Is EPA under-
funding its building repairs and improvements?
    Response. We believe we have allocated sufficient resources for 
these activities. Over the past 6 years, the Agency's facility 
inventory has dramatically shifted from primarily rent/leased 
facilities to government-owned facilities (39 percent owned in fiscal 
year 1997 to 63 percent owned in fiscal year 2003). The Agency's Repair 
and Improvement account, which is the primary funding source for 
repairs and improvements, has remained constant over this same period. 
In recognition, the President's Budget contains a $10.0M increase over 
fiscal year 02 to begin mitigating the current repair backlog which 
exist in our facilities. This increase will enable EPA to devote 1.2 
percent of the replacement value of it's real estate assets to repair 
and maintenance, closer to the industry standard.

    Question 18.  On the topic of smart growth, I see a need for tools 
for community planning, visualization of growth, development and design 
alternative modeling, evaluation of fiscal and environmental impacts, 
and consensus-building.
    Question 18a. Does EPA agree that decision support tools will 
assist communities in making informed decisions by helping them 
understand the implications of different choices and that these tools 
will help increase public involvement and help all participants make 
choices based on sound technical information?
    Answer. Yes, EPA believes that decision support tools are useful 
for communities to make better informed decisions about how and where 
to grow. While the Federal Government cannot and should not be a 
national or regional development board, it can help expand the 
availability of these tools by partnering with selected organizations, 
and supporting an economy of scale that makes them more cost-effective 
and accessible. An October 2001 GAO report found that local and State 
officials felt that the Federal Government could provide technical 
assistance to assess and mitigate land use impacts as a means to better 
protect air and water quality.\1\ EPA concurs with that finding and, in 
order to be proactive on these issues, we are helping States and 
communities realize the economic, community, and environmental benefits 
of smart growth. We recognize that local land use decisions are best 
made by local officials, and that EPA can help them gather data and 
information on which to base those decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \1\General Accounting Office, Environmental Protection: Federal 
Incentives Could Help Promote Land Use That Protects Air and Water 
Quality, October 2001. GAO-02-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    EPA's current efforts focus on increasing the ability of State and 
local governments to evaluate the environmental impacts of development 
patterns. For example, EPA is working with communities to pilot the use 
of the Smart Growth Index (SGI) a GIS-based tool developed in 
partnership with the Criterion software company to measure the discrete 
air and water impacts of proposed development decisions. Several 
additional cities will be piloting SGI in 2002. In addition, EPA's 
Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation and the Office of 
Environmental Information are jointly supporting the development of 
remote sensing data in three cities to examine long-term, development-
related changes in the amount of open space, impervious surfaces, 
farmland, and urbanized land area. Remote sensing data projects will be 
launched in an additional three cities by the end of 2002.
    Regional EPA offices have also recognized the benefits of 
developing tools for local decisionmaking. EPA's Chicago office, for 
example, supported the development of L-THIA Long-Term Hydrological 
Impact Analysis which provides estimates of changes in runoff, 
recharge, and nonpoint source pollution resulting from past or proposed 
land use changes. EPA's Atlanta office has partnered with the 
University of Florida to map all large, ecologically significant 
properties in the entire eight-State southeast region. The resulting 
``greenprint'' will provide systematic information to localities to 
support their protection of large ecosystem properties.

    Question 18b. Does EPA have ideas on how to educate communities 
about such tools, how to assist communities in determining which tools 
may be the most useful in addressing their needs, and how to provide 
communities with the necessary resources to acquire such tools and put 
them to use?
    Answer. Through its extensive work with partners in the Smart 
Growth Network, EPA has been successful in helping local and State 
governments to both apply relevant planning tools and develop new and 
innovative approaches to the decisionmaking challenges at hand. The 
Smart Growth Network--comprised of more than 30 leading organizations 
representing financiers, developers, local government leaders, 
community interests, and environmentalists--has been a critical link in 
EPA's collaboration with communities. Grants to Network partners have 
yielded some of EPA's most effective efforts to date to educate 
communities. Through a grant to CONCERN, EPA supports a website that 
receives an average of 10,000 hits per day, and is identified by the 
American Planning Association as one of the ten leading Web-based 
resources on smart growth. Grants to Network partners Local Government 
Commission and Urban Land Institute have resulted in a successful 5-
year track record of conferences on smart growth tools and approaches, 
the most recent one of which (January 2002 in San Diego) attracted 900 
participants, largely representing local governments. With EPA's 
support, the International City/County Management Association currently 
provides Smart Growth Network member services to approximately 600 
individual members and serves as an important clearinghouse of 
information for those interested in smart growth.
    New activities in 2002 will continue to focus on facilitating smart 
growth implementation by communities, and the application of newly 
available tools to assist community decisionmaking. A new initiative 
announced by Governor Whitman will provide direct technical assistance 
to roughly ten pilot communities to implement new tools to help them 
prioritize open space for preservation. In so doing, these communities 
can better accommodate needed growth while preserving their most 
fragile and environmentally critical lands. In addition, EPA will begin 
a new effort to support States as they facilitate and advance local 
implementation of smart growth through a pilot State Workshop for Smart 
Growth scheduled for May 2002.
    EPA's own efforts and discussions with our partners in the Network 
have made us aware of the full range of tools that continue to be in 
demand by communities. Tools that would allow them to better analyze 
and estimate build-out scenarios, either through analytical models or 
visual representations, are of great assistance to local decisionmakers 
and members of the public. Similarly, tools that will allow planners 
and the public to more accurately assess the impacts (environmental, 
transportation, fiscal, etc.) of projects can support improved 
decisionmaking. Visualization tools continue to be useful in conveying 
development options to a broad audience. More challenging is the need 
to develop and make available tools that better reflect the true cost 
of various services (water, postal service, auto insurance, 
electricity, and infrastructure costs for impact fee assessment) by 
location, so as to enable local leaders to more equitably collect and 
distribute resources throughout a community. Finally, tools that can 
aid communities in removing the barriers to development, such as red 
tape permit assessments or plans for disposal of vacant properties, can 
facilitate the private sector's full involvement in a community's plans 
for smart growth. EPA is working to support the wider availability of 
these types of tools, but more help is needed to accomplish this 
enormous task.

    Question 19.  Please provide me with a detailed breakdown of EPA's 
spending for Smart Growth activities in the proposed fiscal year 2003 
budget and how funding compares to fiscal year 2002 enacted levels.
    Answer. Funding designated for smart growth-related work is 
primarily located in the Agency's Office of Policy, Economics, and 
Innovation (OPEI), which coordinates, among other activities, the Smart 
Growth Network. Resources for fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2003 are 
shown below.

                                                               Resources ($ in thousands)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              FY 2001                                                FY 2002                                  FY 2003 (Proposed)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$3,360.0*..........................  21.0 FTE..............  $3,868.0*.............  20.0 FTE.............  $3,984.0*............  20.0 FTE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Dollars include salary expenses

    Resources in fiscal year 2002 are being evenly allocated between 
continued education and outreach efforts and direct implementation 
efforts. While the Agency will continue to emphasize this dual approach 
in fiscal year 2003, we expect to place greater emphasis on smart 
growth implementation in the coming years to meet rising demand at the 
State and local level for better tools and technical assistance. Brief 
descriptions of these two efforts are provided below.
Maintain and Expand Smart Growth Outreach and Education
    The Smart Growth Network is a principal source of information and 
expertise for the smart growth field. The core of the Network's 
information dissemination strategy is composed of four activities. the 
Smart Growth Network Web site, the Smart Growth Network membership 
program, the annual Partners for Smart Growth conference, and the wide 
dissemination of research products, such as the Governor's Guide to 
Smart Growth in cooperation with the National Governors' Association, 
and Local Tools for Smart Growth in cooperation with the National 
Association of Counties. A new activity in fiscal year 2002 to 
recognize leaders in smart growth will also serve to demonstrate 
innovative approaches for communities and individuals.

Smart Growth Implementation
    EPA will help communities put smart growth into action through 
technical assistance, the provision of tools, and local capacity 
building. These efforts will focus on the three groups that have the 
greatest impact on smart growth implementation.
    Local and State government; the private sector (developers, 
engineers, and financial institutions); and standard-setting 
organizations (such as the Institute of Transportation Engineers). For 
example, in fiscal year 2002, EPA will provide grants and direct 
technical assistance to help communities better link open space 
preservation to brownfields redevelopment in an effort to promote 
community-level smart growth.

    Question 20. EPA's budget states that the Agency will be working to 
``exclude lower risk wastes from the hazardous waste regulation.'' This 
is a policy that began in the last Administration. I agree that low-
risk wastes should not be subject to the full panoply of hazardous 
waste regulation, but I see a need for balance. EPA did a study in 1996 
that demonstrated that many high-risk waste that should be in the 
hazardous waste system are not. (For instance Texas, Rhode Island, 
Vermont and New Jersey, among others, regulate some chemicals as 
hazardous that other States do not) That study was not followed up with 
action. Does EPA agree that if low-risk wastes are removed from the 
hazardous waste system, there is at least an equal need to assure that 
hazardous chemicals that are very toxic and do threaten groundwater and 
drinking water supplies should be in the hazardous waste system?
    Response. The Agency is taking a balanced approach to ensure that 
high-risk wastes are appropriately regulated under RCRA, and that low-
risk wastes are not over-regulated. We agree that there is a continuing 
need to evaluate whether wastes should be brought into the hazardous 
waste system, or otherwise addressed to control potential risks. In 
recent years the Agency has completed a number of evaluations of 
industrial wastes to determine if any of these should be added to the 
list of hazardous wastes. These include recent evaluations of wastes 
from the paint manufacturing, inorganic chemicals, and chlorinated 
aliphatics production industries. We are also continuing investigations 
into other wastes of potential concern (e.g., wastes from the dye and 
pigment production industries), and we are examining certain wastes 
that are already regulated as hazardous to clarify the scope of the 
regulations (e.g., spent petroleum catalysts). As discussed in the EPA 
budget, we are also examining a limited number of specific waste 
streams for potential exemptions under RCRA, to the extent they do not 
pose a risk to public health or the environment. This effort is an 
outgrowth of a previous rulemaking and public comment. Subsequently, we 
were directed in the fiscal year 2002 appropriation to expeditiously 
address these requests for exemptions.
    In summary, we intend to continue to improve management of wastes 
by both effectively addressing wastes that present risks of concern 
while also ensuring that other waste streams are not inappropriately 
over-regulated.

    Question 21. Please explain the decision to eliminate work on high-
efficiency renewable fuel engines, as well as the development of a 
production prototype 85-mpg family size vehicle.
    Response. Federal agencies' work under the Partnership for a New 
Generation of Vehicles (PNGV) is winding down. The ``big three'' 
automakers have agreed to develop a fuel efficient vehicle using 
technology developed under PNGV. In fact, Ford Motor Company expects to 
manufacture a hybrid vehicle for model year 2003. Other companies, like 
Toyota and Honda already have fuel efficient hybrid vehicles on the 
road and have plans to introduce more models using hybrid technology.
    EPA is focusing its automotive expertise on engine and hybrid 
technology working with the Ford Motor Company and Eaton Corporation 
through an historic Cooperative Research and Development Agreement 
(CRADA). Through this very effective program, EPA has developed 
advanced automotive engine and drivetrain technologies that result in 
vehicles that are simultaneously extremely clean and extremely 
efficient. EPA's efforts have already produced impressive results.
    Together with EPA's unique engineering expertise and industry 
funding and commitments, Ford and Eaton are working to extend these 
significant engineering advances so they can be introduced on the road 
later this decade. The fiscal year 2003 President's Budget for EPA's 
Clean Automotive Technology program is $17.1 million, with most of the 
funding being used to meet EPA's obligations under the CRADAs.

    Question 22. Does EPA intend to fund further study of any other 
remediation technologies such as ECASOL?
    Response. EPA has initiated a program that will be fully 
operational in 2003 to evaluate a wide range of rapid treatment 
technologies for biological agents. The goal of this program is to 
accurately characterize the capabilities of promising technologies so 
that the inventory of usable tools is as broad as possible. This will 
allow contractors and others to tailor remediation efforts to specific 
circumstances.
                                 ______
                                 
 Responses of Hon. Christine Todd Whitman to Additional Questions from 
                           Senator Lieberman

    Question 1. Please provide the President's request and enacted 
levels following for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund and Drinking 
Water State Revolving Fund for fiscal years 2001,2002, and 2003. Please 
provide a distribution of these funds by State, including the proposed 
distribution for fiscal year 2003.
    Response. 

                                                                     Office of Water
                                                         Clean Water SRF and Drinking Water SRF
                                                      FY 01 and FY 02 Pres. Request/Enacted Levels
                                                                 FY 2003 Proposed Level
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               RC                                       2001                        2002
              Allowance Holder                State          RC/State Title          President's  2001 Enacted   President's  2002 Enacted     FY 2002
                                              Code                                     Budget                      Budget                     Estimates
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
01.........................................      10  CONNECTICUT..................      $9,875.2     $16,460.3     $10,387.0     $16,497.0     $14,810.6
01.........................................      20  MAINE........................      $6,240.0     $10,400.9      $6,563.3     $10,424.1      $9,358.5
01.........................................      30  MASSACHUSETTS................     $27,368.5     $45,618.5     $28,786.8     $45,720.2     $41,046.5
01.........................................      40  NEW HAMPSHIRE................      $8,055.6     $13,427.3      $8,473.1     $13,457.2     $12,081.6
01.........................................      50  RHODE ISLAND.................      $5,412.6      $9,021.9      $5,693.1      $9,042.0      $8,117.7
01.........................................      60  VERMONT......................      $3,957.3      $6,596.1      $4,162.3      $6,610.8      $5,935.0
02.........................................      10  NEW JERSEY...................     $32,940.5     $54,906.2     $34,647.6     $55,028.5     $49,403.4
02.........................................      20  NEW YORK.....................     $88,974.3    $148,304.7     $93,585.1    $148,635.1    $133,441.3
02.........................................      30  PUERTO RICO..................     $10,513.6     $17,524.4     $11,058.5     $17,563.5     $15,768.1
02.........................................      40  VIRGIN ISLANDS...............        $420.0        $700.1        $441.8        $701.7        $630.0
03.........................................      10  DELAWARE.....................      $3,957.3      $6,596.1      $4,162.3      $6,610.8      $5,935.0
03.........................................      20  DIST OF COLUMBIA.............      $3,957.3      $6,596.1      $4,162.3      $6,610.8      $5,935.0
03.........................................      30  MARYLAND.....................     $19,496.2     $32,496.4     $20,507.1     $32,569.1     $29,239.8
03.........................................      40  PENNSYLVANIA.................     $31,930.7     $53,222.9     $33,585.4     $53,341.5     $47,888.8
03.........................................      50  VIRGINIA.....................     $16,497.0     $27,497.6     $17,351.9     $27,558.9     $24,741.7
03.........................................      60  WEST VIRGINIA................     $12,566.0     $20,945.4     $13,217.2     $20,992.0     $18,846.2
04.........................................      10  ALABAMA......................      $9,013.6     $15,024.2      $9,480.7     $15,057.6     $13,518.4
04.........................................      20  FLORIDA......................     $27,209.9     $45,354.2     $28,619.9     $45,455.2     $40,808.7
04.........................................      30  GEORGIA......................     $13,629.2     $22,717.6     $14,335.5     $22,768.2     $20,440.8
04.........................................      40  KENTUCKY.....................     $10,259.4     $17,100.6     $10,791.1     $17,138.7     $15,386.8
04.........................................      50  MISSISSIPPI..................      $7,262.6     $12,105.4      $7,638.9     $12,132.4     $10,892.2
04.........................................      60  NORTH CAROLINA...............     $14,548.2     $24,249.4     $15,302.1     $24,303.4     $21,819.1
04.........................................      70  SOUTH CAROLINA...............      $8,258.0     $13,795.4      $8,686.0     $13,795.4     $12,385.2
04.........................................      80  TENNESSEE....................     $11,710.0     $19,518.5     $12,316.8     $19,562.0     $17,562.3
05.........................................      10  ILLINOIS.....................     $36,457.0     $60,767.6     $38,346.3     $60,903.0     $54,677.3
05.........................................      20  INDIANA......................     $19,426.9     $32,381.2     $20,433.6     $32,453.4     $29,135.9
05.........................................      30  MICHIGAN.....................     $34,660.5     $57,773.1     $36,456.7     $57,901.8     $51,983.0
05.........................................      40  MINNESOTA....................     $14,816.0     $24,695.8     $15,583.8     $24,750.8     $22,220.7
05.........................................      50  OHIO.........................     $45,379.8     $75,640.3     $47,731.5     $75,808.8     $68,059.5
05.........................................      60  WISCONSIN....................     $21,792.5     $36,324.2     $22,921.8     $36,405.2     $32,683.8
06.........................................      10  ARKANSAS.....................      $5,273.2      $8,789.5      $5,546.4      $8,809.0      $7,908.6
06.........................................      20  LOUISIANA....................      $8,861.4     $14,770.4      $9,320.6     $14,803.3     $13,290.1
06.........................................      30  NEW MEXICO...................      $3,957.3      $6,596.1      $4,162.3      $6,610.8      $5,935.0
06.........................................      40  OKLAHOMA.....................      $6,512.5     $10,855.3      $6,850.0     $10,879.5      $9,767.4
06.........................................      50  TEXAS........................     $36,843.6     $61,411.9     $38,752.9     $61,548.7     $55,257.1
07.........................................      10  IOWA.........................     $10,909.8     $18,184.7     $11,475.1     $18,225.2     $16,362.2
07.........................................      20  KANSAS.......................      $7,276.1     $12,128.0      $7,653.2     $12,155.0     $10,912.5
07.........................................      30  MISSOURI.....................     $22,346.4     $37,247.6     $23,504.4     $37,330.5     $33,514.5
07.........................................      40  NEBRASKA.....................      $4,123.0      $6,872.4      $4,336.7      $6,887.7      $6,183.6
08.........................................      10  COLORADO.....................      $6,448.0     $10,747.7      $6,782.1     $10,771.6      $9,670.5
08.........................................      20  MONTANA......................      $3,957.3      $6,596.1      $4,162.3      $6,610.8      $5,935.0
08.........................................      30  NORTH DAKOTA.................      $3,957.3      $6,596.1      $4,162.3      $6,610.8      $5,935.0
08.........................................      40  SOUTH DAKOTA.................      $3,957.3      $6,596.1      $4,162.3      $6,610.8      $5,935.0
08.........................................      50  UTAH.........................      $4,247.4      $7,079.7      $4,467.5      $7,095.4      $6,370.1
08.........................................      60  WYOMING......................      $3,957.3      $6,596.1      $4,162.3      $6,610.8      $5,935.0
09.........................................      10  ARIZONA......................      $5,444.5      $9,075.1      $5,726.7      $9,095.3      $8,165.6
09.........................................      20  CALIFORNIA...................     $57,651.7     $96,095.4     $60,639.3     $96,309.5     $86,464.6
09.........................................      30  HAWAII.......................      $6,243.2     $10,406.3      $6,566.7     $10,429.4      $9,363.3
09.........................................      40  NEVADA.......................      $3,957.3      $6,596.1      $4,162.3      $6,610.8      $5,935.0
09.........................................      50  AMERICAN SOMOA...............        $723.7      $1,206.3        $761.2      $1,209.0      $1,085.4
09.........................................      60  GUAM.........................        $523.7        $872.8        $550.8        $874.8        $785.4
09.........................................      70  NORTHERN MARIANAS ISLANDS....        $336.3        $560.6        $353.8        $561.9        $504.4
10.........................................      10  ALASKA.......................      $4,824.4      $8,041.5      $5,074.4      $8,059.4      $7,235.6
10.........................................      20  IDAHO........................      $3,957.3      $6,596.1      $4,162.3      $6,610.8      $5,935.0
10.........................................      30  OREGON.......................      $9,106.1     $15,178.3      $9,578.0     $15,212.1     $13,657.1
10.........................................      40  WASHINGTON...................     $14,018.2     $23,365.9     $14,744.6     $23,418.0     $21,024.1
9R.........................................      *N  Undist. National Resources...      $4,000.0     $20,205.5     $12,750.0     $20,250.0     $18,180.0
RT.........................................            ...........................    $800,000.0  $1,347,030.0    $850,000.0  $1,350,000.0  $1,212,000.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                                     Office of Water
                                                         Clean Water SRF and Drinking Water SRF
                                                      FY 01 and FY 02 Pres. Request/Enacted Levels
                                                                 FY 2003 Proposed Level
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              RC                                       2001                      2002
             Allowance Holder                State             RC Title            President's      2001     President's   2002 Enacted       FY 2002
                                             Code                                     Budget      Enacted       Budget                       Estimates
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
01Drinking Water (SRF)....................
01........................................      10  CONNECTICUT..................     $7,806.3     $7,789.1     $7,789.1          8052.5          8052.5
01........................................      20  MAINE........................     $7,806.3     $7,789.1     $7,789.1          8052.5          8052.5
01........................................      30  MASSACHUSETTS................    $30,051.4    $29,985.3    $29,985.3         28787.9         28787.9
01........................................      40  NEW HAMPSHIRE................     $7,806.3     $7,789.1     $7,789.1          8052.5          8052.5
01........................................      50  RHODE ISLAND.................     $7,806.3     $7,789.1     $7,789.1          8052.5          8052.5
01........................................      60  VERMONT......................     $7,806.3     $7,789.1     $7,789.1          8052.5          8052.5
02........................................      10  NEW JERSEY...................    $19,016.6    $18,974.8    $18,974.8         18538.6         18538.6
02........................................      20  NEW YORK.....................    $49,396.1    $49,287.4    $49,287.4         62430.7         62430.7
02........................................      30  PUERTO RICO..................    $11,208.5    $11,183.8    $11,183.8         10741.3         10741.3
03........................................      10  DELAWARE.....................     $7,806.3     $7,789.1     $7,789.1          8052.5          8052.5
03........................................      20  DIST OF COLUMBIA.............     $7,806.3     $7,789.1     $7,789.1          8052.5          8052.5
03........................................      30  MARYLAND.....................     $7,806.3     $7,789.1     $7,789.1          9350.9          9350.9
03........................................      40  PENNSYLVANIA.................    $24,560.0    $24,505.9    $24,505.9         25930.6         25930.6
03........................................      50  VIRGINIA.....................    $15,231.9    $15,198.4    $15,198.4         11127.6         11127.6
03........................................      60  WEST VIRGINIA................     $7,806.3     $7,789.1     $7,789.1          8052.5          8052.5
04........................................      10  ALABAMA......................     $9,279.9     $9,259.5     $9,259.5          8052.5          8052.5
04........................................      20  FLORIDA......................    $22,628.5    $22,578.7    $22,578.7         18841.3         18841.3
04........................................      30  GEORGIA......................    $16,720.6    $16,683.8    $16,683.8         12749.8         12749.8
04........................................      40  KENTUCKY.....................    $11,895.4    $11,869.3    $11,869.3          9805.1          9805.1
04........................................      50  MISSISSIPPI..................     $9,067.3     $9,047.4     $9,047.4          8052.5          8052.5
04........................................      60  NORTH CAROLINA...............    $14,096.4    $14,065.4    $14,065.4         14139.9         14139.9
04........................................      70  SOUTH CAROLINA...............     $8,407.2     $8,388.7     $8,388.7          8052.5          8052.5
04........................................      80  TENNESSEE....................    $10,476.8    $10,453.7    $10,453.7            8145            8145
05........................................      10  ILLINOIS.....................    $27,134.3    $27,074.6    $27,074.6         30050.4         30050.4
05........................................      20  INDIANA......................     $9,523.1     $9,502.2     $9,502.2          9455.1          9455.1
05........................................      30  MICHIGAN.....................    $22,966.7    $22,916.2    $22,916.2           33003           33003
05........................................      40  MINNESOTA....................    $12,996.6    $12,968.0    $12,968.0         15952.9         15952.9
05........................................      50  OHIO.........................    $24,999.9    $24,944.9    $24,944.9         24547.6         24547.6
05........................................      60  WISCONSIN....................    $10,466.8    $10,443.8    $10,443.8         15946.5         15946.5
06........................................      10  ARKANSAS.....................    $11,106.8    $11,082.4    $11,082.4          8717.8          8717.8
06........................................      20  LOUISIANA....................    $10,906.3    $10,882.3    $10,882.3          8052.5          8052.5
06........................................      30  NEW MEXICO...................     $7,806.3     $7,789.1     $7,789.1          8052.5          8052.5
06........................................      40  OKLAHOMA.....................    $11,207.7    $11,183.0    $11,183.0         12446.5         12446.5
06........................................      50  TEXAS........................    $59,210.0    $59,079.8    $59,079.8         62023.7         62023.7
07........................................      10  IOWA.........................    $12,319.8    $12,292.7    $12,292.7         14784.6         14784.6
07........................................      20  KANSAS.......................    $10,970.8    $10,946.6    $10,946.6          9234.7          9234.7
07........................................      30  MISSOURI.....................    $10,496.0    $10,472.9    $10,472.9         11702.6         11702.6
07........................................      40  NEBRASKA.....................     $7,806.3     $7,789.1     $7,789.1          8052.5          8052.5
08........................................      10  COLORADO.....................    $10,503.4    $10,480.3    $10,480.3           13323           13323
08........................................      20  MONTANA......................     $7,806.3     $7,789.1     $7,789.1          8052.5          8052.5
08........................................      30  NORTH DAKOTA.................     $7,806.3     $7,789.1     $7,789.1          8052.5          8052.5
08........................................      40  SOUTH DAKOTA.................     $7,806.3     $7,789.1     $7,789.1          8052.5          8052.5
08........................................      50  UTAH.........................     $7,806.3     $7,789.1     $7,789.1          8052.5          8052.5
08........................................      60  WYOMING......................     $7,806.3     $7,789.1     $7,789.1          8052.5          8052.5
09........................................      10  ARIZONA......................     $7,955.4     $7,937.9     $7,937.9          9126.3          9126.3
09........................................      20  CALIFORNIA...................    $84,525.4    $84,340.0    $84,340.0         82460.9         82460.9
09........................................      30  HAWAII.......................     $7,806.3     $7,789.1     $7,789.1          8052.5          8052.5
09........................................      40  NEVADA.......................     $7,806.3     $7,789.1     $7,789.1          8052.5          8052.5
10........................................      10  ALASKA.......................     $7,806.3     $7,789.1     $7,789.1          8052.5          8052.5
10........................................      20  IDAHO........................     $7,806.3     $7,789.1     $7,789.1          8052.5          8052.5
10........................................      30  OREGON.......................    $11,584.3    $11,558.8    $11,558.8         14148.9         14148.9
10........................................      40  WASHINGTON...................    $21,013.0    $20,966.8    $20,966.8           19872           19872
40........................................      *N  Undist. National Resources...     $2,576.1     $2,570.4     $2,570.4          2657.3          2657.3
9R........................................      *N  Undist. National Resources...    $44,375.0    $44,277.3    $44,277.3           44750           44750
RT........................................  ......  .............................   $825,000.0   $823,185.0   $823,185.0      $850,000.0      $850,000.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Question 2. I am troubled by what appears to be a precipitous 
decline in enforcement actions, including investigations, as well as 
criminal and civil enforcement cases, while the EPA is asking for more 
enforcement funds. What is your view of this decline in enforcement 
investigations, and can you explain why you need more money to do a lot 
fewer actions?
    Response. EPA's enforcement program remains as strong as ever. Both 
last year's results and the enforcement actions we have pursued since 
January 2001 demonstrate the comprehensive efforts undertaken to reduce 
and eliminate harmful pollution:
      EPA showed record results last year from our enforcement 
activities nearly doubling the amount spent by violators and liable 
parties on pollution controls and cleanups; more than tripling the 
number of facilities voluntarily auditing and disclosing violations 
under EPA's audit policy; almost doubling the civil judicial penalties 
assessed against environmental violators; and increasing the spending 
by violators on Supplemental Environmental Projects by 60 percent (see 
attached summary of our enforcement results from fiscal year 2001)
      Since January 2001, we have initiated (either 
investigated or filed) about 73 and concluded at least 52 
``significant'' cases. ``Significant'' cases are those judicial or 
administrative actions where there is significant environmental impact; 
wide-spread violations of environmental laws at more than one facility; 
a significant environmental or programmatic issue; significant 
penalties, injunctive relief or supplemental environmental projects 
(SEPs); or where Headquarters has been extensively involved. As with 
the fiscal year 2001 results reported above, the end of year results 
for this year will report the complete results for all cases, not just 
the ``significant'' enforcement actions summarized here. As you know, 
exactly how soon or how many cases will be concluded in any given year 
depends on the facts of each case.
    Specific examples of enforcement successes already achieved since 
January 2001 include:

      We have filed and concluded 5 major cases against 
refineries for NSR violations the combined effect of which will be an 
estimated reduction of 76,000 tons of sulfur dioxide (SO2) 
emissions per year and 31,000 tons of nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions 
per year
      We also filed and concluded a major case against a power 
plant, PSEG, which alone will reduce the company's emissions of sulfur 
dioxide (SO2) by 90 percent and its emissions of nitrogen 
oxides (NOx) by more than 80 percent. These decreases represent 32 
percent of all the SO2 and 20 percent of all the NOx emitted 
from stationary sources in New Jersey, and 19 percent of all the 
SO2 and 5 percent of all the NOx from all sources in the 
State, including cars and trucks
      We issued many imminent hazard orders to address 
immediate threats to human health and the environment. For example, EPA 
issued two imminent hazard orders under RCRA to Magnesium Corporation 
to address dangerous dioxin levels at the facility and the threat to 
workers' health from extremely high levels of hexachlorobenzene in 
anode dust. EPA also issued two imminent hazard orders against Seaboard 
Farms under the Clean Water Act and RCRA to address contaminated 
drinking water resulting from hog farm waste.
      We also issued an Administrative order (made final on 
appeal in April 2001) under RCRA to address imminent threats from the 
improper storage and disposal of large volumes of munitions and 
unexploded ordnance that had been buried at the Massachusetts Military 
Reservation on Cape Cod. The emergency order required the National 
Guard Bureau to detonate the munitions in a special ``controlled 
demolition chamber'' that was present at MMR, except for those 
munitions and ordnance that were unsafe to move (and which could be 
detonated in place).
      With respect to criminal enforcement, the number of 
criminal enforcement activities has remained steady for the past two 
fiscal years relative to cases initiated, referral of cases for 
prosecution, and defendants charged. During the first quarter of fiscal 
year 2002, the criminal enforcement program has initiated more cases 
with more defendants charged than during same period in fiscal year 
2001. The number of cases initiated include activities which support 
Homeland Security as well as traditional environmental crimes 
enforcement, while the rise in defendants is solely attributable to 
violations of environmental statutes. These results are attributable to 
the extraordinary effort of our investigative staff, who are working to 
meet the ongoing requirement of enforcing our nation's environmental 
laws while also responding to the President's No. 1 priority--Homeland 
Security.

                                          Criminal Enforcement Snapshot
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Fiscal Year                   Cases Initiated             Referrals                Defendants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000.................................  477....................  236....................  360
2001.................................  482....................  256....................  372
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA continues to successfully address environmental violations 
using the various tools available, ranging from voluntary incentives to 
imminent hazard orders. Concluding cases is no small feat, and we are 
proud of the accomplishments achieved and will continue to pursue 
enforcement in order to achieve similar results in the future.
Enforcement Accomplishments fiscal year 2001
    EPA's enforcement program achieved tremendous success in fiscal 
year 2001, protecting human health and the environment through record 
setting amounts in injunctive relief, significant reductions in 
pollutant loadings, an estimated reduction of more than 660 million 
pounds of harmful pollutants and the treatment and safe management of 
an estimated record 1.84 billion pounds of pollutants, in addition to a 
significant increase in the commitment on the part of violators to 
spend on supplemental environmental projects:

      Number of facilities voluntarily auditing and disclosing 
violations under EPA's audit policy more than tripled--from 437 in 
fiscal year 2000 to 1,754 in fiscal year 2001
      Spending by violators on Supplemental Environmental 
Projects was up 60 percent from $56 million in fiscal year 2000 to $89 
million in fiscal year 2001
      Amount spent by violators and liable parties on pollution 
controls and cleanups nearly doubled from $2.6 billion in fiscal year 
2000 to $4.4 billion in fiscal year 2001.
      Civil judicial penalties assessed against environmental 
violators nearly doubled from $55 million in fiscal year 2000 to $102 
million in fiscal year 2001; civil administrative penalties levied by 
EPA were down slightly at $1.5 million from about $25.5 million in 
fiscal year 2000 $24 million in fiscal year 2001. Overall, penalties 
increased as our strategy focused on large judicial cases.
      Total years for criminal sentences for environmental 
violations rose from 146 years in fiscal year 2001 to 256 years in 
fiscal year 2001 as a result of EPA's strategy to, as a priority, seek 
jail time for significant criminal cases.
      Criminal fines fell from $122 million in fiscal year 2000 
to $95 million in fiscal year 2001 again, our strategy was to seek jail 
time for significant criminal cases.

    By focusing on environmental results or outcomes, such as the 
reductions in pollution, and by using all of the tools available, such 
as compliance assistance, incentives, and enforcement, EPA is 
continuing to aggressively address the most serious environmental 
problems and achieve unprecedented results.

                                  Snapshot: End of Year Results FY 1999 to 2001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Activity                        FY 1999                  FY 2000                  FY 2001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Audit Policy Settlements.............  106 companies..........  217 companies..........  304 companies
                                       624 facilities.........  437 facilities.........  1754 facilities
Value of Injunctive Relief...........  $3.4 billion...........  $2.6 billion...........  $4.4 billion
Civil Judicial Penalties.............  $141 million...........  $55 million............  $102 million
Civil Administrative Penalties.......  $25.5 million..........  $25.5 million..........  $24 million
SEPs.................................  $237 million...........  $56 million............  $89 million
Inspections..........................  22,000.................  20,000.................  18,000 (est.)
Administrative Actions...............  3500...................  5300...................  3200
Civil Referrals......................  403....................  368....................  327
Criminal Referrals...................  241....................  236....................  256
Criminal Sentences...................  208 years..............  146 years..............  256 years
Criminal Fines.......................  $62 million............  $122 million...........  $95 million
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Question 3.  In describing the accomplishments of EPA's climate 
protection programs, the 2003 Annual Performance Plan and Justification 
discusses the savings associated with EPA's climate change programs, 
including a reduction of growth in greenhouse gas emissions by 20 
percent in the 1990-2010 period, with a total of 450 MMTCE. Please 
explain the relationship between these accomplishments and the 
President' s recent announcement on climate change, in which he 
announced a goal of reducing the carbon intensity in the U.S. by 18 
percent. Since the baseline improvements during the period cited by the 
President appears to be 14 percent, please explain if the 
accomplishments of the EPA's climate programs are factored into that 
baseline improvement of 14 percent, and if so, what portion of the 14 
percent improvement is attributable to the EPA programs. Since the 
President's climate change proposal appears to increase the carbon 
intensity by 4 percent over the baseline by 2012, could we reach the 
President's goal by simply investing more in the voluntary energy 
efficiency programs at EPA? How much more of an investment would it 
take?
    Response. In its 2003 Annual Performance Plan and Justification, 
EPA discusses a number of accomplishments that are attributable to its 
climate protection programs. One of the savings figures cited, a 
cumulative reduction of 450 MMTCE through 2010, is based on an EPA 
analysis of investments made to date through EPA's voluntary programs. 
Since many of the investments promoted through EPA's climate programs 
involve energy-efficient equipment with lifetimes of decades or more, 
the investments that have been spurred through 2001 will continue to 
deliver environmental and economic benefits through 2010 and beyond. 
The second savings figure cited is also based on accomplishments 
through 2001 and shows that EPA's voluntary climate programs have 
reduced the growth in greenhouse gas emissions since 1990 by about 20 
percent from what it would have been without these programs. In 2001 
alone, EPA's climate protection programs reduced greenhouse gas 
emissions by more than 65 MMTCE equivalent to the annual emissions from 
about 45 million cars.
    EPA's partnership programs play a key role in the President's 
climate change strategy. The accomplishments of EPA's climate 
protection programs are a significant factor in the 14 percent 
business-as-usual improvements cited in the President's policy, along 
with the effects of current regulations and autonomous improvements in 
efficiency. The President's plan will require the full implementation 
and continued funding for EPA's existing climate protection partnership 
programs, such as Energy Star, Natural Gas STAR, and the PFC Reduction 
Climate Partnership with the Semiconductor Industry. In addition, new 
business challenges, such as the recently announced EPA Climate Leaders 
program and the Combined Heat and Power Partnership, will play a major 
role in meeting the President's new emissions reduction goal of more 
than 100 million metric tons of carbon equivalent in 2012. Climate 
Leaders challenges businesses to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions 
through setting an aggressive long-term emissions reduction goal and 
performing a corporate-wide inventory to track their annual progress 
toward this goal, while the CHP Partnership works with businesses to 
promote use of these highly efficient co-generation technologies.
    The President has challenged American businesses and industries to 
reduce greenhouse gas emissions and is confident that voluntary 
approaches can achieve his commitment. Already, agreements with the 
semi-conductor and aluminum industries, and with industries that emit 
methane, are dramatically reducing emissions of the most potent 
greenhouse gases. The President's plan will build on these successes, 
with broader agreements and greater reductions. The Administration is 
confident that a combination of new EPA voluntary programs, such as 
Climate Leaders, tax incentives for renewable energy and technology 
improvements, and enhanced baseline protection through an improved 
1605(b) program will encourage many more companies to undertake 
voluntary greenhouse gas reductions and thereby achieve the President's 
goal. The President has also committed that if progress is not 
sufficient by 2012, the United States will respond with additional 
measures that may include a broad, market-based program, as well as 
additional incentives and voluntary measures designed to accelerate 
technology development and deployment. The Administration is currently 
assessing what resources will be necessary to accomplish the 
President's goal, however the President's fiscal year 2003 Budget 
includes $4.5 billion in spending and tax incentives related to 
addressing the challenge of climate change.

    Question 4. Please explain the relationship of EPA's request for 
funds ($9,775,800) for the Montreal Protocol's Multilateral Fund to the 
U.S. commitment to that Fund. Please explain what other funds are being 
targeted to meeting this commitment. Is EPA and the State Department 
requesting ``full funding'' for our present commitment; if not, what is 
the requested shortfall? Has the United States met all of its past 
financial commitments to the Fund? If not, how much in arrears is the 
U.S. in regarding its negotiated commitments to the Multilateral Fund?
    Response. Every 3 years, the Protocol Parties commission a study on 
the funding needed to meet the needs of developing countries through 
the next triennium. On that basis, the Parties decide on a Fund budget. 
Payments of donor countries are then based on the U.N. scale of 
assessment. After considering the last report in 1999, the eleventh 
meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol took Decision XI/7, 
which set the US commitment for the Montreal Protocol Multilateral Fund 
for 2000, 2001 and 2002 at $36.7 per year. A report detailing the needs 
of the Fund for the next triennium (2003-2005) is due to the Parties 
next month. It is widely expected to suggest the need for increasing 
the level of replenishment in order to enable developing countries to 
meet their upcoming 2005 phaseout requirements which include a 50 
percent reduction in CFCs and Halons, an 85 percent reduction in carbon 
tetra chloride, and a 20 percent reduction in both methyl bromide and 
methyl chloroform.
    As noted in your question, EPA is requesting $9,775,800 for 2003. 
We understand that the State Department, which also requests funds for 
the Multilateral Fund, is requesting $23m for 2003. The shortfall, if 
any, will not be known until the Parties review the technical needs 
assessment report and reach a final decision on replenishment.
    Because Fund payments are technically due at the beginning of the 
year, the US is currently some $58m in arrears to the Fund. However, 
taking into account the US payments that are expected to be finalized 
in the next few months with fiscal year 2002 funding, the US is 
expected to be some $25.5m in arrears compared with its negotiated 
commitments. This is a cumulative shortfall which is a result of the US 
funding at a level that is less than the commitment level over a number 
of years due to reductions in funding by Congress.
                                 ______
                                 
 Responses of Hon. Christine Todd Whitman to Additional Questions from 
                             Senator Smith

    Question 1. As you may recall, during the 106th Congress, Senator 
Crapo and I introduced legislation to create a TMDL pilot program which 
allowed local communities to experiment with different approaches to 
reaching their clean water goals.
    I commend the Administration for proposing a similar initiative 
that would give $21 million in grants for local watershed projects. Can 
you describe this initiative in more detail and please explain, if and 
how it will help communities faced with large TMDL implementation 
costs?
    What would be the criteria to apply for this program and how will 
watersheds be chosen to participate?
    Response. The Administration plans to invest this money in 
community-based watershed efforts to protect and restore America's 
waterways. The initiative will support watershed resources that sustain 
human health, economic stability, ecosystem integrity, recreational 
opportunity, natural or cultural significance, or other important uses.
    Most importantly, the initiative will foster and encourage the 
development and implementation of innovative and novel approaches to 
clean water. For example, grant money could be used to support projects 
such as third party TMDLs, pollutant trading, watershed NPDES permits 
under the Clean Water Act, and other creative approaches to advance 
protection of the resources.
    EPA will distribute the funds through a competitive grant process. 
Candidates can include States, municipalities, non-profit 
organizations, universities and other groups. The Agency will be 
consulting with a wide variety of stakeholders in the coming months to 
develop the most appropriate selection criteria. EPA hopes to make the 
final selections as early as next fall and begin the process of 
dispersing funds as soon as the budget is approved.
    One of the pressing issues facing EPA and States is how TMDLs can 
be implemented more cost-effectively. The development of more cost-
effective TMDLs on a watershed basis creates opportunities to shift 
pollution control responsibilities from high cost controls over point 
source discharges to comparatively low cost controls over nonpoint 
sources.

    Question 2. In the Department of Defense fiscal year 2002 
appropriations bill, Congress provided EPA with $90 million for 
drinking water vulnerability assessments, security at EPA labs and 
anthrax decontamination activities.
    I am particularly interested in making sure that the vulnerability 
assessment funds are distributed to drinking water systems as quickly 
as possible so that vulnerabilities can be identified and appropriate 
safeguards put in place. Can you shed some light on how your Agency 
plans to distribute these funds to drinking water systems? And the time 
line for doing so?
    Response. EPA is continuing to partner with the States, tribes, 
U.S. Territories, and water quality organizations to identify the most 
efficient and effective distribution of the funds to increase 
protection of our Nation's critical water infrastructure. EPA's goal is 
to help make the most systems safest soonest. The Office of Water 
received the Supplemental Security funds within 3 appropriations; 
Science and Technology, State and Tribal Assistance Grants, and 
Environmental Programs and Management. The proposed breakout within 
each appropriation is as follows:
    Science and Technology (S&T)/Budgetary Resources (in millions). 
$82.8 Timing of Obligation.
      About $50.0 M of these funds will be used to provide 
direct assistance to the approximately 400 largest drinking water 
systems to carry out vulnerability assessments and enhance emergency 
response plans. EPA's goal is to complete the majority of the awards by 
the end of July 2002.
      $23.0 M will support technical assistance and training to 
small and medium drinking water systems on vulnerability assessments 
and either developing emergency response plans or strengthening 
existing plans. EPA is working jointly with States and utility 
organizations in determining a specific allocation plan, and expects to 
begin obligation of funds in July through September 2002.
      $3.0 M will support wastewater utilities' undertaking of 
vulnerability assessments, developing emergency operations plans, and 
collecting data on appropriate remediation efforts. EPA intends to 
award funds by September 2002.
      About $5.8 M will support activities to further develop 
and conduct additional training on vulnerability assessments and other 
counter terrorism tools, and investigate security-related detection, 
monitoring, and treatment tools. EPA intends to begin awarding funds 
from July through September 2002.
      About $1.0 M will support salaries and travel expenses of 
10 FTEs in both EPA Headquarters and Regional Offices who are working 
exclusively on critical water infrastructure protection.
Obstacles to Obligation of Funds
      At the request of the Governors, EPA will jointly review 
grant applications from the largest drinking water systems with State 
Drinking Water and Emergency Response agencies. Timely award of funds 
will depend on receipt of State comments and resolution of any issues.
      Award of remaining funds will depend on completion of 
interagency research plans and State/EPA medium and small systems 
strategy.

            State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG)/Budgetary 
                    Resources (in millions). $5.0

    Timing of Obligation:
      $5.0 M will be awarded to States and Territories to 
support counter-terrorism coordination work in conjunction with EPA and 
drinking water utilities to implement homeland security activities. 
Funds will be awarded by the September fiscal year 2002.
    Obstacles to Obligation of Funds:
      Award of funds to support counter-terrorism coordinators 
is subject to receipt of grant applications from States which may be 
dependent on internal State processes.

            Environmental Programs and Management (EPM)/ Budgetary 
                    Resources (in millions). $1.0

    Timing of Obligation:
      $1.0M will support wastewater utilities activities, 
including development and testing of counter terrorism tools and 
training for vulnerability assessments. EPA intends to award funds by 
September 2002.
    Obstacles to Obligation of Funds:
      At the request of the Governors, EPA will jointly review 
grant applications from the largest drinking water systems with State 
Drinking Water and Emergency Response agencies. Timely award of funds 
will depend on receipt of State comments and resolution of any issues.

    Question 3.  As you know, EPA failed to finalize a large number of 
MACT regulations within the statutory deadlines, because both the 
Clinton and Bush Administrations denied the Air Office the 3-4 million 
per year that would have allowed timely completion.
    As a result, by March, each State will now have to develop its own 
emission standard for each industry and substance without a MACT. This 
is a superb example of penny-wise and pound foolish. What plans does 
the EPA have regarding finishing these regulations and addressing the 
burden on States?
    Response. This Administration is committed to reducing toxic air 
pollution. As you know, the Clean Air Act set out ambitious schedules 
for EPA to promulgate technology-based standards for 189 hazardous air 
pollutants emitted from 174 source categories. The programs to reduce 
toxic air pollution have removed hundreds of thousands of tons of 
toxics from the air since the program began in 1990 historic reductions 
that dwarf all previous efforts to control emissions of carcinogenic 
chemicals. As you have noted, delays in the Maximum Achievable Control 
Technology (MACT) program preceded the current Administration. 
Appropriations constraints and legal challenges have contributed to 
slow progress in this program. The deadline for all of the technology-
based MACT standards was November 2000. EPA missed that deadline. The 
time lost cannot be made up now.
    However, when Governor Whitman came into office, she confirmed that 
we need to issue these standards as soon as possible, and EPA is now on 
a tight time line to complete all of the regulations by May 2004. The 
Governor has signed 14 MACT standards either proposals or final rules 
since she took office. In addition, EPA staff has drafts of all but 3 
of the 21 remaining MACTs to be proposed. After the May 15, 2002 
deadline, 34 standards will remain to be finalized, which will then be 
subject to the Clean Air Act Section 112(j) ``hammer'' provisions.
    We believe there will be little or no burden on States if we 
complete all the standards by May 2004. The Section 112(j) provisions 
require major sources to submit a part 1 Title V operating permit 
application on May 15, 2002 followed by a part 2 permit application 2 
years later, or May 15, 2004. In a Part 1 application, the source sends 
general information about the facility to the permitting authority 
usually the State. Part 2 is a more comprehensive, detailed application 
containing information on specific pollutants, emission points, and 
controls to the permitting authority. However, barring further legal 
challenges and assuming that EPA hews to the time line, all MACT 
standards will be promulgated before the part 2 application is due. 
Therefore, the sources will not need to submit the part 2 and 
permitting authorities will not need to develop case-by-case MACT.
                                 ______
                                 
 Responses of Hon. Christine Todd Whitman to Additional Questions from 
                             Senator Wyden

    The purpose of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) STAR 
Fellowship program is to encourage promising students to obtain 
advanced degrees and pursue careers in environmentally related fields. 
The program is consistent with the mission of EPA to provide leadership 
in the nation's environmental science, research, education, assessment, 
restoration, and preservation efforts.
    STAR Fellowships have provided a unique opportunity for students at 
Oregon State University and doubtless many other universities as well. 
The program allows the best students to choose their own cutting edge 
area for research and multidisciplinary training.
    One of EPA's targets is environmental monitoring and impact 
assessment. Many of the STAR fellows in Oregon have worked on 
biodiversity and ecological research with an applied focus. This 
program often provides the sole source of support for these students 
and is instrumental in developing a pipeline of environmental 
professionals to meet national needs.
    In your fiscal year 2003 Annual Performance Plan and congressional 
justification you stated, ``A blue ribbon panel of the Science Advisory 
Board recommended in 1994 that EPA enhance its environmental education 
programs for training the next generation of scientists and 
engineers.''

    Question 1. In view of this recommendation from your own Science 
Advisory Board and the national demand for talented, environmental 
professionals, how can you justify cutting the STAR program from your 
fiscal year 2003 budget?
    Response. The President's Budget proposes to strengthen math and 
science education in the United States by improving the quality of math 
and science education in grades K-12 and by attracting the most 
promising U.S. students into graduate level science and engineering by 
providing more competitive stipends. The President's K-12 math and 
science initiative and the higher graduate stipends are being funded 
through the National Science Foundation's (NSF) budget. NSF is noted 
for its expertise and success in funding competitive programs in math 
and science. The Budget increases NSF's annual stipends for fellowship 
and tranineeship programs from $21,500 to $25,000. Funding for EPA's 
STAR Fellowship Program was eliminated in fiscal year 2003 as part of 
the larger initiative to strengthen math and science programs through 
the National Science Foundation (NSF). However, EPA will continue 
funding for its Minority Academic Institutions (MAI) Fellowships 
program at $1.5 million in fiscal year 2003.

    Question 2. EPA is apparently transferring part of the funding 
formerly used for the STAR program to support education programs at the 
National Science Foundation (NSF). Do you believe that NSF has the 
capability and track record to provide educational opportunities 
comparable to EPA, and if so, please provide me with the rationale and 
the safeguards that will be used to ensure that the money goes for the 
same purpose and not research or other activities.
    Response. As stated in the response to question a, the President's 
Budget proposes to strengthen math and science education in the United 
States by improving the quality of math and science education in grades 
K-12 and by attracting the most promising U.S. students into graduate 
level science and engineering by providing more competitive stipends. 
NSF is noted for its expertise and success in funding competitive 
programs in math and science. Funding for EPA's STAR Fellowship Program 
was eliminated as part of the larger initiative to strengthen math and 
science programs through the National Science Foundation (NSF). NSF has 
conducted an excellent graduate research fellowship program in many 
science disciplines for many years.

