    [House Hearing, 110 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                      ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND THE TOXICS
                      RELEASE INVENTORY REPORTING PROGRAM:
                        COMMUNITIES HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

              SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

                                     OF THE

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                       ON

                            H.R. 1055 and H.R. 1103

                                   __________

                                OCTOBER 4, 2007

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 110-71

          Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

                            energycommerce.house.gov

                         U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    45-093 PDF                 WASHINGTON DC:  2009
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
    Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov  Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
    Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

                      JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan, Chairman

    HENRY A. WAXMAN, California          JOE BARTON, Texas
    EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts          Ranking Member
    RICK BOUCHER, Virginia               RALPH M. HALL, Texas
    EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York             J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois
    FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey       FRED UPTON, Michigan
    BART GORDON, Tennessee               CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
    BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois              NATHAN DEAL, Georgia
    ANNA G. ESHOO, California            ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
    BART STUPAK, Michigan                BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming
    ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York             JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
    ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland             HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico
    GENE GREEN, Texas                    JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona
    DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado              CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING,
        Vice Chairman                    Mississippi
    LOIS CAPPS, California               VITO FOSSELLA, New York
    MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania             STEVE BUYER, Indiana
    JANE HARMAN, California              GEORGE RADANOVICH, California
    TOM ALLEN, Maine                     JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania
    JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois             MARY BONO, California
    HILDA L. SOLIS, California           GREG WALDEN, Oregon
    CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas           LEE TERRY, Nebraska
    JAY INSLEE, Washington               MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey
    TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin             MIKE ROGERS, Michigan
    MIKE ROSS, Arkansas                  SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina
    DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon               JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma
    ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York          TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania
    JIM MATHESON, Utah                   MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
    G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina     MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
    CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana
    JOHN BARROW, Georgia
    BARON P. HILL, Indiana

                                     ______

                               Professional Staff

                     Dennis B. Fitzgibbons, Chief of Staff

                       Gregg A. Rothschild, Chief Counsel

                          Sharon E. Davis, Chief Clerk

                   David L. Cavicke, Minority Staff Director

                                      (ii)
              Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials

                       ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland, Chairman
    FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey       JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois,
    BART STUPAK, Michigan                     Ranking Member
    LOIS CAPPS, California               CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
    TOM ALLEN, Maine                     NATHAN DEAL, Georgia
    HILDA L. SOLIS, California           HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico
        Vice Chairman                    JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona
    TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin             VITO FOSELLA, New York
    G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina     GEORGE RADANOVICH, California
    JOHN BARROW, Georgia                 JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania
    BARON P. HILL, Indiana               LEE TERRY, Nebraska
    DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado              MIKE ROGERS, Michigan
    ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York          JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma
    HENRY A. WAXMAN, California          TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania
    GENE GREEN, Texas                    JOE BARTON, Texas (ex officio)
    JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
    JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan (ex
        officio)
                                     ------

                               Professional Staff

                        Richard Frandsen, Chief Counsel
                        Ann Strickland, Brookings Fellow
                            Caroline Ahearn, Counsel
                             Rachel Bleshman, Clerk
                         Gerald Couri, Minority Counsel

                                 C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hon. Albert R. Wynn, a Representative in Congress from the State
      of Maryland, opening statement.................................     1
     Hon. John Shimkus, a Representative in Congress from the State
      of Illinois, opening statement.................................     3
    Hon. Hilda L. Solis, a Representative in Congress from the State
      of California, opening statement...............................     5
    Hon. John Barrow, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Georgia, opening statement.....................................     6
    Hon. Tim Murphy, a Representative in Congress from the
      Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, opening statement................     7
    Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
      State of New Jersey, opening statement.........................     8
    Hon. Tammy Baldwin, a Representative in Congress from the State
      of Wisconsin, opening statement................................    10
    Hon. Gene Green, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Texas, prepared statement......................................    11

                                   Witnesses

    Granta Y. Nakayama, Assistant Administrator, Office of
      Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, U.S. Environmental
      Protection Agency..............................................    12
        Prepared statement...........................................    15
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   219
    Wade Najjum, Assistant Inspector General, Program Evaluation,
      Office of Inspector General, U.S. Environmental Protection
      Agency.........................................................    24
        Prepared statement...........................................    25
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   210
    Molly O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, Office of Environmental
      Information, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency..............    28
        Prepared statement...........................................    31
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   232
    Thomas M. Sullivan, Chief Counsel, Advocacy, Office of Advocacy,
      U.S. Small Business Administration.............................    38
        Prepared statement...........................................    40
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   264
    John B. Stephenson, Director, Natural Resources and Environment,
      Government Accountability Office...............................    48
        Prepared statement...........................................    50
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   257
    Hilary O. Shelton, Director, National Association for the
      Advancement of Colored People, Washington Bureau...............    93
        Prepared statement...........................................    95
    Robert D. Bullard, Ware professor, Department of Sociology;
      director, Environmental Justice Resource Center, Clark Atlanta
      University.....................................................    97
        Prepared statement...........................................    99
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   202
    Jose Bravo, Communities for a Better Environment; executive
      director, Just Transition Alliance.............................   107
        Prepared statement...........................................   108
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   197
    Andrew Bopp, director, public affairs, Society of Glass and
      Ceramic Decorators.............................................   110
        Prepared statement...........................................   113
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   193
    Alan Finkelstein, assistant fire marshal, Strongsville Fire and
      Emergency Services.............................................   119
        Prepared statement...........................................   121
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   206
    Nancy Wittenberg, assistant commissioner, New Jersey Department
      of Environmental Protection....................................   131
        Prepared statement...........................................   133
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   215

                               Submitted Material

    H.R. 1055, to amend the Emergency Planning and Community Right-
      to-Know Act of 1986 to strike a provision relating to
      modification in reporting frequency............................   148
    H.R. 1103, to codify Executive Order 12898, relating to
      environmental justice, to require the Administrator of the
      Environmental Protection Agency to fully implement the
      recommendations of the Inspector General of the Agency and the
      Comptroller General of the United States, and for other
      purposes.......................................................   151
    Keith W. McCoy, executive director, Business Network for
      Environmental Justice, letter of October 4, 2007, submitted by
      Mr. Shimkus....................................................   158
    Letter of support from various organizations, September 28, 2007.   182
    307 Community, Environment, Faith Investor, Labor, Legal, Public
      Health, Public Interest, Research and Scientists Organizations,
      letter of September 28, 2007...................................   184
    Roxanne Brown, legislative representative, United Steelworkers,
      submitted statement............................................   191

                      ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND THE TOXICS
      RELEASE INVENTORY REPORTING PROGRAM: COMMUNITIES HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW

                                  ----------

                           THURSDAY, OCTOBER 4, 2007

                  House of Representatives,
                    Subcommittee on Environment
                               and Hazardous Materials,
                              Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 a.m., in
    room 2322 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Albert R.
    Wynn (chairman) presiding.
        Members present: Representatives Solis, Capps, Baldwin,
    Barrow, Pallone, Pitts, Terry, Murphy, and Barton.
        Also present: Representative Shimkus.
        Staff present: Caroline Ahearn, Ann Strickland, Mary
    O'Lone, Dick Frandsen, Rachel Bleshman, Lauren Bloomberg, Jodi
    Seth, Jerry Couri, Garrett Golding, and Mo Zilly.

     OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ALBERT R. WYNN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND

        Mr. Wynn. Good morning. I would like to call the hearing to
    order. Today we have a hearing on H.R. 1103, the Environmental
    Justice Act of 2007, introduced by the distinguished vice chair
    of the subcommittee, Ms. Hilda Solis, and a hearing on H.R.
    1055, the Toxic Right-to-Know Protection Act, introduced by
    another distinguished member of this subcommittee,
    Representative Frank Pallone.
        For purposes of making opening statements the Chairs and
    ranking members of the subcommittee and the full committee will
    each be recognized for 5 minutes. All other members of the
    subcommittee will be recognized for 3 minutes, however, those
    members may waive the right to make an opening statement and
    when first recognized to question witnesses instead, add those
    3 minutes to their time for questions.
        Without objection all members have 5 legislative days to
    submit opening statements for the record.
        The Chair would now recognize himself for an opening
    statement.
        As I indicated, we are here to hold a hearing on two very
    important bills, the Environmental Justice Act of 2007, and
    also the Toxic Release Inventory Right-to-Know Act sponsored by
    Mr. Pallone. That is H.R. 1055. It restores the requirements
    for reporting toxic emissions data from polluting facilities
    and assures that the information is reported annually to the
    EPA.
        With respect to environmental justice, many people believe
    that the movement began in Warren County, NC, a poor,
    predominantly African-American community where I lived as a
    child. In 1978, transformer oil contaminated with cancer-
    causing PCBs was illegally dumped over 210 miles of North
    Carolina roadsides. The roadsides were listed as an EPA
    Superfund site, and EPA approved a landfill to dispose of the
    contaminated soils.
        In 1982, dump trunks containing this waste rolled into
    Warren County and more than 6 weeks of marches and non-violent
    street demonstrations followed.
        In 1993, the community's greatest fear was realized,
    however. The landfill seal began to fail, threatening to
    contaminate drinking water. Decontamination of the landfill was
    not completed until 2003.
        The national attention given to Warren County resulted in a
    landmark study. In 1987, the United Church of Christ study,
    ``Toxic Waste and Race in the United States,'' found that race,
    more than income or home values, was the main predictor for the
    location of hazardous waste facilities. In fact, people of
    color were 47 percent more likely to live near hazardous waste
    facilities than white Americans.
        To focus the Federal Government's attention on
    environmental and human health conditions in minority and low-
    income communities, in 1994, President Clinton issued the
    Environmental Justice Executive order. Environmental justice
    strategies and policies were issued, and EPA created the Office
    of Environmental Justice.
        But more than a decade later, where are we? In a 2004
    report, the EPA Inspector General determined that EPA needs to
    consistently implement the intent of the Executive order on
    environmental justice. In a 2006 report the EPA Inspector
    General concluded, EPA needs to conduct environmental justice
    reviews of its programs, policies, and activities, and finally
    in 2005, the Government Accountability Office determined that
    EPA should devote more attention to environmental justice when
    developing clean air rules.
        In the United States today minorities are exposed to higher
    levels of air pollution. These exposure levels negatively
    affect the health of infants, are associated with higher rates
    of infant mortality, and also result in higher prevalence of
    death rates from asthma.
        For example, Puerto Rican children have an asthma rate 140
    percent higher than non-Hispanic white children and African-
    Americans, only 12 percent of the population, constitute 25
    percent of all deaths from asthma.
        H.R. 1103 directs EPA to, one, conduct environmental
    justice reviews of its program and policies to determine
    whether they may have a disproportionately high and adverse
    human health or environmental affect on minority or low-income
    populations.
        Second, it requires EPA to analyze new rules to identify
    potential environmental justice issues to see if such
    disproportion affects will be created.
        Third, it requires EPA to fully respond to public
    confidence that raise environmental justice issues, and fourth,
    requires the EPA to provide emergency planning procedures. And
    fifth, creates Congressional reporting requirements to provide
    for oversight of EPA's implementation of the Act.
        Interesting, to add insult to injury, in December of this
    past year EPA adopted a new rule that reduces the amount of
    information on toxic chemical management and releases that is
    provided to EPA and the public. Under the Emergency Planning
    and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986, EPCRA, facilities that
    manufacture, process, or otherwise use more than the specified
    amounts of nearly 650 toxic chemicals are required to report
    their releases to water, air, and land. This information is
    compiled in the Nation's Toxic Release Inventory.
        However, under EPA's new rules, for the first time,
    facilities will not have to provide detailed information about
    persistent bio-accumulative and toxic PBT chemicals. PBTs are
    long-lasting toxics such as lead, mercury, and PCPs that can
    build up in the body.
        In addition, for non-PBT chemicals, the EPA has
    significantly raised the threshold before facilities are
    required to report detailed information on releases or waste
    management. The impact of these data reporting changes is
    significant to minority and low-income communities. According
    to GAO nearly 22,000 detailed TRI reports containing
    information on the amounts of chemicals released and managed in
    some 3,500 facilities will no longer be required.
        EPA received over 120,000 comments about these changes; 99
    percent oppose the changes--including 23 States, 30 public
    health organizations, 40 labor organizations, and more than 200
    environmental and public interest groups. Even the EPA's
    Science Advisory Board objected to the changes.
        The Toxic Right-to-Know Protection Act will maintain the
    annual reporting requirements and provide the community with
    information it needs to assess the potential affects of toxic
    emissions from polluting facilities.
         At this time I recognize my distinguished ranking member,
    who is waiting eagerly, for 5 minutes.

      OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

        Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for
    recognizing me, and thanks for listening to me on the floor
    about one of the concerns about the hearing.
        These are really two distinct issues, and as the Senate had
    an opportunity to hold hearings, add comments and ask questions
    on environmental justice and the toxic release inventory, and I
    understand scheduling and committee rooms and all that stuff,
    but I don't think we do justice to both these issues by
    clomping them and putting them together.
        Having said that, here we are, and we will continue to move
    forward. We, but we owe it to our constituents and all
    Americans to be thorough, balanced, and thoughtful.
        First of all, on the H.R. 1055, the Toxic Right-to-Know
    Act, amends one sub-section of one section of the environmental
    law. It will have impact on thousands of small businesses
    across this country, many in my district, and several, I
    suspect, in every member of Congress's district.
        For example, today on the second panel we will hear
    testimony from Andy Bopp, who will be representing Baltimore
    Glass Decorators. Here is one of the products Baltimore Glass
    decorates, and I think there is some in their gift shop, too.
    This business does not have the financial or the manpower
    resources to comply with unnecessary regulations, and as you
    follow their testimony, we will see how stringent and just
    bureaucratic they are.
         I worry that small business benefits and employees rise or
    fall depending upon the layers of regulations they are
    subjected to, and it is our duty to insure that our Nation's
    small businesses are not being crippled for little to no public
    benefits.
        Highlighting this is the troublesome word of ``release.''
    As part of this program it is extremely misleading and harmful,
    and I have got Webster's Dictionary to--and what happened in
    the passage of this law, we redefined the word, ``release,'' to
    not mean release. And I, the one thing I will do when we bring
    this bill to the floor is try to clarify what this bill
    actually does. And I would just refer, I don't have time to
    read the Webster's Dictionary, but most people when they hear,
    release, will think of stuff like emit or discharge.
        Well, according to TRI, release could mean manage, use, or
    recycle. A lot different than emitting or discharging. So that
    is problematic in the legislation just to begin with.
        Does filling out more paperwork improve the health of our
    constituents? I don't believe it does, but I am interested to
    learn more today about this proposal.
        I would also like to highlight the testimony of the first
    responder on the second panel, who a fire marshal, Mr.
    Finkelstein. Sir, first of all, I would like to thank you for
    your service, and many of us work with our local firefighters
    through the Fire Act Grant, but in his testimony I think there
    is going to be an attempt to connect TRI with emergency
    planning and responding, but since this data is 18 months old,
    any first responder who is using 18-month-old data to enter a
    facility has bigger concerns than just TRI. Because they use
    other sections, especially sections 311 and 312, for more
    appropriate use in managing emergency information and data as
    far as entry into facilities.
        The other bill on environmental justice, I think we just
    have a long way to go to understand, and the Clinton order says
    let us address this, and the real question is is the EPA moving
    in a way in which, that is part of the hearing process today,
    we will take the comments and hopefully be able to work with
    you as we are having good success in the elemental mercury
    debates. I hope that we can move both these pieces of
    legislation with like effort so that when we get to the floor,
    that we have got the big kumbayah movement, and we can move
    quicker rather than slower.
        And with that I yield back my time.
        Mr. Wynn. I thank the gentleman. I am also in favor of
    kumbayah.
        At this time I would like to recognize the vice chair of
    the committee, Representative Hilda Solis, who is also the
    sponsor of H.R. 1103, the Environmental Justice Act, and I
    would like to compliment her for her leadership on this issue
    over the years. Ms. Solis, the floor is yours.

     OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HILDA L. SOLIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                 CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

        Ms. Solis. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the
    ranking member also.
        Believe it or not, this is a very historical moment. In the
    last several years that I have been serving on this committee,
    I can't recall ever having a hearing on this particular
    subject. So I applaud our chairman and thank goodness for the
    changes that occurred this last fall because otherwise we
    wouldn't be sitting here today. And I really want to thank the
    members that worked with us very closely on this and really
    salute our chairman for the work that he has done.
        This isn't just an idea that was hatched yesterday. We have
    been talking about environmental justice issues for many, many
    years, only we never had the ability to have a formal hearing
    on it. Today is that day. So I really want to say how pleased
    and thankful many, many communities, communities of color, that
    are disadvantaged, that are looking for our leadership here in
    the House of Representatives. And I have worked tirelessly
    throughout my career before I came here to the Congress,
    passing and codifying the Executive order that Clinton had
    introduced in 1994, back then, to talk about environmental
    justice.
        And I guess today what we are going to try to find out is
    how well the administration has been doing in implementing that
    Executive order and then focus on this piece of legislation,
    which I really believe will provide a better path to where we
    need to go to understand how we implement this Executive order
    that we hope to one day soon see codified. And this is the
    first beginning for that.
        And I want to just cite that there are many, many advocates
    that are supporting us on this mission today, and according to
    a recent report released by the United Church of Christ titled,
    ``Toxic Waste and Race at Twenty,'' people of color make up the
    majority of those living in neighborhoods within 2 miles of the
    Nation's commercial hazardous waste facilities. These
    communities have been under attack under the policies of the
    present administration, and since 2004, the administration has
    requested at least a 25 percent cut in the environmental
    justice budget.
        And in early 2005, the EPA released a draft strategic plan
    on environmental justice, which had disregarded race, of all
    things, race, as a consideration for determining environmental
    justice, in direct contradiction to the Executive order.
    Despite reaffirming its commitment to environmental justice in
    November 2005, in this memo, the administration finalized
    weakening changes to the toxic release inventory program in
    December 2006.
        A proposed rule on locomotive emissions released this April
    failed to mention environmental justice even one time, despite
    the promises to include environmental justice considerations in
    proposed and final rules. In 2004 the IG reported that EPA had
    not consistently implemented the Executive order, and in 2006
    reported that the EPA did not know the impact, the impact of
    these policies and what they were having on environmental
    justice communities.
        In 2005, the GAO found that EPA failed to consider the
    impact of its air regulations on communities of color and
    underrepresented areas. And, during budget hearings in March,
    Acting Inspector General Roderick testified that the EPA had
    yet to establish a plan of action for implementation of
    recommendations on environmental justice.
        Absent a real commitment to environmental justice, the
    health and well being of our communities will continue to
    suffer. H.R. 1103 and H.R. 1055 will do better for the health
    of all of our communities, regardless of where you live. H.R.
    1103 will significantly, in my opinion, advance environmental
    protections in communities of color and low-income communities
    by requiring the implementation of the Executive order and the
    implementations of recommendations that go along with that in
    the IG and the GAO report.
        More than 50 organizations and Congress are on record in
    support of that Executive order, and it is time that we give
    real protections to our communities by codifying this
    legislation. We must reinforce the community right to know by
    reinstating the Toxic Release Inventory Program, a successful
    program for more than 21 years.
        And I yield back the balance of my time.
        Mr. Wynn. I thank the gentlelady, and again, compliment and
    commend her for her passion and her leadership on this issue. I
    think she is right, we wouldn't be here without her efforts,
    and I am very pleased that we are here today.
         At this time I would be happy to recognize Mr. Barrow, the
    distinguished gentlemen from Georgia.

      OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARROW, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                   CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA

        Mr. Barrow. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I, too, want to
    commend my colleague and my hero, Ms. Solis, for her authorship
    of the Environmental Justice Act for 2007, my friend and
    colleague, Mr. Pallone. He is not my hero yet, but he is
    working on it. I appreciate your authorship of the Toxic Right-
    to-Know Act.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling this hearing. There is
    more than one way to repeal a law. There is more than one way
    to repeal an Executive order. There is the up and up way, out
    front and in the open where everybody can see it, and there is
    another way, by neglect. You can repeal a lot of things by
    neglect. I feel like there has been some neglect of Congress's
    responsibility in overseeing the implementation of the
    Executive order in question. There has been some neglect on the
    part of the executive branch of the Government in implementing
    the order, and this hearing is an opportunity for us to shine a
    light on that and try and get things going back in the right
    direction.
        I know a little something about this. Back in Augusta, GA,
    we have a community that is living smack dab on top of a
    brownfield. Hyde Park in Augusta is an area that is on the
    industrial edge of town, and there are people who are deeply
    tied to the land. They got their lifetime's investment in the
    homes in that area, and they don't know whether to stay, they
    don't know whether to leave, we haven't got the money to buy
    them out, a lot of folks don't want to be bought out. They are
    attached to the community and the sense of community they have
    and yet they are stuck with all of these issues.
        And I sort of feel like it is important for us to kind of
    add another element to this, try to build some support, but
    getting going on this, you realize this isn't just some vast
    environment conspiracy against poor folks.
        You know, economic development in general fuels
    environmental injustice.
        There is a penalty to pay for going first in economic
    development. In my part of the country, in Augusta, for
    example, it was an industrial crossroads. It was a commercial
    town. The railroad came. After the railroad, at the point where
    the river crosses the fall line, and there is a lot of business
    to be done, and a lot of folks did business in the old days
    without much regard to the environmental consequences. And as a
    result that area is pretty fouled up, and the economic
    development just naturally moves onto the next area. It moves
    onto the greenfield just beyond. And it leaves these
    brownfields back to fester and to swelter and indecision and
    indifference.
        The point I want to emphasize is not only is that wrong,
    not only is it unjust, it is expensive. It is wasteful. There
    are reasons that some places develop first. There are reasons
    why economic and transportation infrastructure grows there, and
    it is there. It is incredibly wasteful for us to leave areas
    basically undevelopable or unusable and to move onto the next
    greenfield. It is expensive, because it adds to the
    transportation costs for all concerned, it leaves these pockets
    of economic stagnation behind. All that adds to the cost of
    doing business for everybody.
        And so one thing I want to try and add to the mix as we
    talk about the injustice of this, is the stupidity of it. It is
    like the French diplomat said, it is worse than a sin. It is a
    mistake. And what I think we ought to recognize is cleaning up
    the mess that has been made and stopping the messing from going
    on any further is not only the right thing to do, it is the
    smart thing to do. And I hope we can focus on that and build
    support for this, because we got huge economic development
    potential right in these brownfield backyards of ours.
        And with that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you again for your
    leadership on this issue, and I yield back.
        Mr. Wynn. I thank the gentleman from Georgia.
        At this time I would recognize the gentleman from
    Pennsylvania, Mr. Murphy.

       OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TIM MURPHY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
             CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

        Mr. Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was on the floor
    giving a speech, and I appreciate your indulgence in allowing
    me to be a few minutes late.
        The issue of environmental justice brings to light a
    community in my district, Jeannette, PA, once home to a
    thriving glass industry, where some years ago someone bought
    that plant, and it remains a rusted heap that is surrounded by
    an area that is becoming less and less desirable for people to
    live there.
        Low-income families face in their backyards an area that is
    soon to be high in a number of pollutants in this brownfield,
    and nothing is done about it. It is a place that I think breeds
    less economic development and poverty rather than being an
    economic engine for that embattled community.
        That is why legislation that looks at environmental justice
    is so important. We have to recognize a responsibility over
    time for those who are involved with development and
    manufacturing to make sure we are doing all we can to keep that
    environment clean, create jobs, and make sure that we
    understand the long-term legacy of responsibility to the
    communities that those are in.
        Today we are also going to be dealing with some issues
    involving the burden of paperwork, and I know that we are going
    to have people of divergent opinions on that, but it is
    important for the future of all business, small and large, that
    EPA is working with employers to making sure that we find ways
    that work towards keeping our communities and our air and our
    soil and our water clean but also working towards those,
    working with those industries so that we find ways of making
    sure we achieve that.
        The issue is to keep the air, the water, the land clean and
    not just to create more rules and not just to create mounds of
    paperwork and polluting our desks with paperwork. Let us find
    ways of solving these problems so we can really work towards
    the protection of our environment and our communities and work
    towards other jobs.
        And I yield back my time, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Wynn. I thank the gentleman. At this time it gives me
    great pleasure to recognize a gentleman from New Jersey, Mr.
    Pallone, who is a leader on these issues and is the author of
    H.R. 1055, Toxic Right-to-Know Protection Act.
        Mr. Pallone.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE
                IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

        Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I am trying to be
    good this morning but with the other side but I just want to
    commend you because the fact of the matter is that we couldn't
    have even had a hearing on these issues in the previous
    Congress, and I am not just saying that to be bad, because I
    often requested this and other hearings when I was the ranking
    member, and we weren't able to get them. In fact, it was very
    difficult, even impossible to get somebody from the EPA to come
    in and be questioned at all because for whatever reason the
    previous majority just didn't want them to be questioned. And I
    will leave it at that, but I do want to mention that, because I
    think it is important that under your leadership we are able to
    do this today.
        I wanted to focus on the Toxic Release Inventory issue and
    its relationship to environmental justice. Toxic Release
    Inventory or TRI was actually authored by my Senator, Frank
    Lautenberg, of New Jersey, and passed into law in 1986, as part
    of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act or
    EPCRA. After a tragic disaster at a Union Carbide facility in
    Bhopal, India, that killed thousands of people, Congress passed
    it to ensure that communities know how much the most dangerous
    industrial chemicals are being released into the air, water,
    and the ground, and for a decade it worked.
        However, in December 2006, the EPA announced final rules
    that loosen reporting requirements for the TRI. With these
    rules, the Bush administration has undermined this critical
    program in two ways. First, it eliminates detailed reports for
    more than 5,000 facilities that release up to 2,000 pounds of
    chemicals every year. And second, it eliminates detailed
    reports from nearly 2,000 facilities that manage up to 500
    pounds of chemicals known to pose some of the worst threats to
    human health, including lead and mercury.
        Now, this new rule adversely affects communities around the
    Nation. Without accurate and detailed TRI data, communities
    have less power to hold companies accountable and make informed
    decisions about how toxic chemicals are to be managed. As the
    GAO said in a recent report, and I quote, ``EPA's recent
    changes to the toxic release inventory significantly reduce the
    amount of information available to the public about toxic
    chemicals in their communities.'' The changes mean that over
    3,500 facilities nationwide, including more than 100 in my
    State, will not have to submit detailed information about their
    chemical use. In 75 counties around the country communities
    will no longer have access to detailed information about the
    status of toxic chemicals in their backyards.
        The bottom line, Mr. Chairman, is that EPA's TRI Burden
    Reduction Rule makes less information available that was
    previously available to the public. Now, this is all about
    right to know, which to me is so important. Communities have a
    right to know what kinds of chemicals are being released in
    their backyards. This information was also useful to workers
    who could be affected on the jobsite and first responders who
    need to plan for incidents at specific high-risk facilities.
        It is also an environmental justice issue. According to the
    GAO report many of the facilities that will no longer be
    reporting detailed toxic and chemical release info, are located
    in low-income and high-minority areas, and with that in mind I
    look forward to hearing from EPA today on how much analysis
    went into the agency's conclusion that the new rule would not,
    and I quote, ``disproportionately impact minority or low-income
    communities.''
        I believe that today's testimony by GAO strongly rejects
    such a notion. And in response to this ill-advised and
    potentially harmful rule and process in which it was finalized,
    myself and Congresswoman Solis, because I know she is a co-
    sponsor, and she has had a lot to do with this, we introduced
    together the Toxic Right-to-Know Protection Act, and that Act
    codifies the stronger reporting requirements that were in place
    before the Bush administration weakened them late last year by
    codifying these requirements.
        Neither the current administration nor future
    administrations, because I don't trust anybody in the future
    either, could again change the guidelines without the approval
    of Congress.
        And I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about this
    issue. But thank you, again, Mr. Chairman, for even having this
    hearing. I do appreciate it.
        Mr. Wynn. Thank you, Mr. Pallone, and you were not being
    bad. I do want to, again, compliment you for your leadership on
    this particular issue. It is a critical and important thing.
    You have done a great job over the years.
        At this time I would recognize the gentleman, Mr. Terry,
    for an opening statement.
        Mr. Terry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wish to waive to
    reserve enough time for questions.
        Mr. Wynn. All right. Thank you. At this time I would like
    to recognize Ms. Baldwin.

     OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TAMMY BALDWIN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN

        Ms. Baldwin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am very pleased
    that the committee is holding this hearing today on two very
    important measures, and I want to begin by commenting on H.R.
    1055 and say that I am encouraged that today we will be
    examining the EPA's decision to weaken the community right-to-
    know rules.
        Congress, as we have just heard discussed, created the
    Toxic Release Inventory Program under the premise that
    communities should know what toxic chemicals are being dumped
    in their backyards. Over the years the program has also been
    effective in protecting public health and urging businesses to
    voluntarily reduce chemical releases, as no business wants to
    be on the top of an EPA polluter list.
        Given the successful nature of the program, it is really
    difficult for me to comprehend EPA's justification for altering
    the TRI rules. Yet, in changes that the EPA argues were
    necessary to ease paperwork, the agency has weakened reporting
    requirements.
        The result is a quadrupling of the amount of toxic
    pollutants that companies can release before they have to tell
    the public. In my home State of Wisconsin EPA's rule allows 113
    facilities to no longer have to notify my constituents of their
    harmful releases. Clearly, at stake is our public health, but
    EPA's rule also jeopardizes our communities' access to critical
    information used by emergency responders, academics, public
    interest groups, State agencies, and labor groups among others.
        Emergency responders, for instance, use this data to
    protect the public against chemical spills or situations where
    toxic waste is released into the water supply. Similarly,
    public interest groups use the data to push for environmental
    policy changes, and labor groups use the data to evaluate
    hazards to workers.
        TRI data is so important that the EPA should be evaluating
    ways to refine the data and make it available faster, rather
    than coming up with ways to stifle the information and protect
    the polluters. At least 305 community, environmental, faith-
    based, investor, labor, public health, and science
    organizations have called upon Congress to restore toxic
    chemical reporting.
        And I am hopeful that today's hearing will highlight the
    importance of a strong TRI and demonstrate the need for passage
    of Congressman Pallone's Toxic Right-to-Know Protection Act so
    that the EPA can return to an agency that protects the public
    interest rather than the polluting businesses.
        I also want to commend Congresswoman Solis's efforts to
    bring environmental justice to those in minority and low-income
    populations who disproportionately bear the burden of our
    Nation's pollution. These pollutions face higher rates of low
    birth weight, greater risk of asthma, and increased occurrences
    of infant mortality.
        The good news is that together focused attention, increased
    research, and public access to information can all help improve
    the environment and human health conditions facing minority and
    low-income communities. In the end environmental justice is not
    just about cleaning up toxins, but rather it is about insuring
    a healthy and bright future for generations to come.
        So thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this very important and
    historic hearing, and I yield back the balance of my time.
        Mr. Wynn. Thank you very much, Ms. Baldwin. I appreciate
    your comments and your insightful remarks.
        At this time the Chair would recognize Mr. Pitts from
    Pennsylvania.
        Mr. Pitts. I will waive.
        Mr. Wynn. The gentleman has waived. Are there any further
    opening statements?
        If not, at this time the Chair would like to acknowledge a
    distinguished visitor from Maryland who has joined us for
    today's hearing. He is Division Chief Michael Love of the
    Montgomery County Fire and Rescue Service.
        Chief Love, we are delighted to have you here. In addition
    to service on Montgomery County's Fire and Rescue Service,
    Chief Love is also a member of the Local Emergency Planning
    Commission, which is the local government organization that
    receives TRI data and uses it in planning for chemical spills,
    accidents, and other emergencies.
        Thank you again for being with us.
         That concludes all opening statements. Other statements
    for the record will be accepted at this time.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Green follows:]

      Prepared Statement of Hon. Gene Green, a Representative in Congress
                            from the State of Texas

        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing on the
    Environmental Justice Act of 2007 and the Toxic Right to Know
    Act.
        My district includes part of Houston, the fourth largest
    city in the United States, and over 65 percent of the
    population is Hispanic.
        The 29th district also includes the Port of Houston and is
    the home of many petrochemical companies.
        Both of this bills that we are discussing today are of
    importance to the 29th district.
        Houston has its fair share of environmental problems. We
    have higher than average levels of air toxics, which may be
    related to adverse health effects in the population.
        We also have our fair share of environmental waste sites.
    On September 29, an abandoned waste site on the San Jacinto
    River that is leaking toxic levels of dioxin into Galveston Bay
    was placed on the National Priority List short list.
        I have worked in conjunction with the EPA, the State of
    Texas, and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality to
    have the site placed on the National Priority List.
        I am hopeful that we will be able to work together and
    begin cleaning up this site soon.
        I support the industry in my district. They employ many of
    my constituents. However, letting communities know what
    chemicals are being released and disposed of in their backyard
    is a responsibility these companies must uphold.
        The current Toxic Release Inventory Program reporting
    requirements, in an effort to reduce paperwork, have the
    potential to endanger communities such as my own.
        Companies that work with chemicals should be required to
    report in detail their use and disposal of these chemicals.
        Also, the EPA has a responsibility to practice
    environmental justice. Just because my constituents live close
    to where they work does not mean they should suffer from health
    effects.
        Communities that are heavily minority populated and lower
    income areas should not be subjected pollution just because of
    their race and economics.
        I support both of these bills and I urge my colleagues to
    do the same.
        Thank you Mr. Chairman.
                                  ----------

        Mr. Wynn. We are going to move into the testimony of our
    witnesses. I think we have an excellent panel. The first panel
    is a governmental panel, and I would like to introduce them at
    this time.
        First we have Mr. Granta Nakayama, Assistant Administrator,
    Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, U.S.
    Environmental Protection Agency.
        We also have Mr. Wade Najjum, Assistant Inspector General
    for Program Evaluation, Office of Inspector General, U.S.
    Environmental Protection Agency.
        We have with us also Ms. Molly O'Neill, Assistant
    Administrator, Office of Environmental Information, U.S.
    Environmental Protection Agency.
        And also we have with us Mr. Thomas, the Honorable Thomas
    Sullivan, Chief Counsel for Advocacy, Office of Advocacy, U.S.
    Small Business Administration.
        And Mr. John B. Stephenson, Director, Natural Resources and
    Environment, Government Accountability Office.
        Thank you all for coming. We are going to now have 5
    minutes opening statements from the panel, and your prepared
    testimony in full will be, which you submitted in advance, will
    be made a part of the hearing record.
        Mr. Nakayama.

       STATEMENT OF GRANTA Y. NAKAYAMA, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR,
         OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE, U.S.
            ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, WASHINGTON, DC

        Mr. Nakayama. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Wynn,
    Ranking Member Shimkus and Vice-Chair Solis, and distinguished
    members of the subcommittee. I am Granta Nakayama, Assistant
    Administrator for the Office of Enforcement and Compliance
    Assurance at the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
    My office is responsible for enforcing the Nation's
    environmental laws, as well as serving as EPA's National
    Program Manager for environmental justice.
        Thank you for inviting me to the hearing today on
    environmental justice legislation including the pending bills,
    H.R. 1055 and H.R. 1103, the Environmental Justice Act of 1007.
    I am pleased to discuss the environmental justice
    accomplishments of the agency, what we have learned from our
    efforts, and how we will continue to pursue the cause of
    environmental justice.
        Insuring environmental justice means not only protecting
    human health and the environment for everyone but also insuring
    that all people are treated fairly and given the opportunity to
    participate meaningfully in the development, implementation,
    and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
    policies.
        EPA has learned that addressing environmental justice
    issues is everyone's shared responsibility. We also recognize
    that environmental justice issues are complex and multi-
    faceted. While no single tool or approach along may provide the
    solution, EPA continues to believe that using the range of our
    existing statutory, regulatory, and enforcement tools for
    protecting the environment and public health is a sound
    approach. These tools coupled with building the capacity of
    communities and other stakeholders to participate meaningfully
    in the environmental decisions that affect them is an effective
    way to protect the health and environment of all our Nation's
    people and communities.
        EPA is committed to comprehensively integrating
    environmental justice considerations into its programs,
    policies, and activities. EPA is the lead for implementing
    Executive order 12898, Federal actions to address environmental
    justice in minority populations and low-income populations.
    This Executive order directs Federal agencies to make achieving
    environmental justice part of its mission. EPA works to comply
    with this Executive order and has taken significant and
    meaningful steps to integrate environmental justice into its
    mission.
        In 2005, Administrator Johnson reaffirmed EPA's commitment
    to EJ. The Administrator also identified national EJ priorities
    such as reducing asthma and elevated blood lead levels. For
    2008, the agency's national program guidance and strategic
    plans are being examined to identify activities, initiatives,
    and strategies for integrating environmental justice into
    planning and budgeting documents.
        EPA's Inspector General recently identified the need for EJ
    program reviews. The agency agreed, and we will begin
    conducting those reviews in March 2008. The EPA renewed the
    charter of the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
    for 2 years so that EPA will continue to receive valuable
    advice and recommendations from its stakeholders.
        Since 1993, EPA has awarded more than $31 million in grants
    to more than 1,100 community organizations and others to take
    an active role in our Nation's environmental stewardship. These
    environmental justice grants promote community empowerment and
    capacity building essential to maximize meaningful
    participation in the regulatory process.
        Just yesterday EPA announced it has awarded $1 million in
    environmental justice small grants this year to 20 community-
    based organizations to raise awareness and build their capacity
    to solve local environmental and public health issues.
        EPA is making significant headway on the road to
    environmental justice. In moving forward we will complete the
    Environmental Justice Program reviews so that we can
    appropriately evaluate the effectiveness of EPA's actions for
    environmental justice. We will also finalize the Environmental
    Justice Strategic Enforcement Assessment Tool, or EJ SEAT, to
    enhance the EPA Office of Enforcement and Compliance
    Assurance's ability to consistently identify potential
    environmental justice areas of concern and assist in making
    effective enforcement and compliance assurance resource
    deployment decisions. We will evaluate the tool, its strengths,
    and limitations.
        In conclusion, I believe we are on the right track and have
    the statutory authorities and needed flexibilities to identify
    problems and tailor solutions that result in improvements in
    health and environmental quality for all.
        I look forward to working with Congress to insure the
    continued progress towards this goal. I want to personally
    thank you, Chairman Wynn, for allowing me to appear before you
    on behalf of the EPA. Thank you for holding this hearing on
    this very important topic, environmental justice, and I would
    be happy to take any questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Nakayama follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.001

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.002

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.003

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.004

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.005

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.006

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.007

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.008

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.009

        Mr. Wynn. Thank you very much, Mr. Nakayama.
        Let us see. Mr. Najjum, I believe you are next.

     WADE NAJJUM, ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL, PROGRAM EVALUATION,
      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
                                 AGENCY

        Mr. Najjum. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the
    subcommittee. I am Wade Najjum, Assistant Inspector General for
    Program Evaluation with the EPA Office of Inspector General. I
    am pleased to be here today to discuss the OIG's work on how
    EPA has incorporated environmental justice within its programs
    and activities.
        Over the past 5 years, the OIG has been examining EPA's
    environmental justice activities as part of our strategic plan
    to review how EPA fulfills its responsibilities. We have issued
    two reports specifically dealing with EPA implementation of
    environmental justice reviews.
        In 2006, we completed our most recent evaluation of whether
    EPA program and regional offices had performed environmental
    justice reviews of their programs, policies, and activities. We
    sought to determine: if there had been clear direction from
    EPA's senior management to perform environmental justice
    reviews; if EPA had performed these reviews; and if EPA had
    adequate guidance to conduct these reviews or if there was a
    need for additional guidance or protocols.
        We concluded that EPA program and regional offices have not
    routinely performed environmental justice reviews. Therefore,
    EPA could not determine whether its programs have a
    disproportionately high and adverse human health or
    environmental effect on minority and low-income populations. We
    were given multiple reasons why the reviews were not performed,
    including: the absence of a specific directive from EPA
    management to conduct such reviews; a belief by some program
    offices that they are not subject to the order since their
    programs do not lend themselves to reviewing impacts on
    minority and low-income populations; and uncertainty about how
    to perform the reviews.
        We made four recommendations to EPA to address these
    issues: require program and regional offices to determine where
    environmental justice reviews are needed and establish a plan
    to complete them; ensure that these reviews include a
    determination if there is a disproportionate impact on minority
    and low-income populations; develop specific review guidance;
    and designate a responsible office to compile the results of
    these reviews and make recommendations to EPA senior
    leadership. EPA agreed with our recommendations and established
    milestones for completing those actions.
        In our 2004 review, we reported on how EPA was integrating
    environmental justice into its operations. Specifically, we
    sought to determine: how EPA had implemented the order and
    integrated its concepts into regional and program offices; and
    how were environmental justice areas defined at the regional
    levels and what was the impact.
        We concluded that EPA had not fully implemented the order
    and was not consistently integrating environmental justice into
    its day-to-day operations at that time. EPA had not identified
    minority and low-income communities, or defined the term
    ``disproportionately impacted.'' In the absence of
    environmental justice definitions, criteria, or standards from
    EPA, many regional and program offices individually took steps
    to implement environmental justice policies. The result was
    inconsistency in environmental justice actions across EPA
    regions and programs. Thus, how environmental justice action
    was implemented was dependent, in part, on where you lived.
        We made 12 recommendations to EPA to address the issues we
    raised. EPA disagreed with 11 of our 12 recommendations. EPA
    did agree to perform a study of program and regional office's
    funding and staffing for environmental justice to ensure that
    adequate resources were available to fully implement its
    environmental justice plans. EPA completed that study in May
    2004.
        In the interest of objectivity I should also say that since
    the issuance of our reports, EPA has taken some positive steps
    to address environmental justice issues. However, we think EPA
    recognizes that more work needs to be done, particularly in its
    efforts to integrate environmental justice into its decision
    making, planning, and budgeting processes. Also, EPA still
    needs broader guidance on environmental justice program and
    policy reviews, which EPA acknowledges is not in place.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today.
    I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Najjum follows:]

                          Statement of Wade T. Najjum

         Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee.
    I am Wade Najjum, Assistant Inspector General for Program
    Evaluation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
    Office of Inspector General (OIG). I am pleased to be here
    today to discuss the OIG's work on how EPA has incorporated
    environmental justice within its programs and activities. EPA
    has made some progress in these areas over the past five years.
    However, our reports show that more could be done.

                          Environmental Justice at EPA

         EPA defines environmental justice as the fair treatment
    and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race,
    color, national origin, or income with respect to the
    development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental
    laws, regulations, and policies. Fair treatment means that no
    group of people should bear a disproportionate share of the
    negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial,
    governmental, and commercial operations or policies. Meaningful
    involvement means that: 1) people have an opportunity to
    participate in decisions about activities that may affect their
    environment and/or health; 2) the public's contribution can
    influence the regulatory agency's decision; 3) their concerns
    will be considered in the decision making process; and 4) the
    decision makers seek out and facilitate the involvement of
    those potentially affected.
         In February 1994, the President signed Executive Order
    12898 (Order) focusing Federal attention on the environmental
    and human health conditions of minority and low-income
    populations with the goal of achieving environmental protection
    for all communities. This Order directed Federal agencies to
    develop environmental justice strategies to help them address
    disproportionately high and adverse human health or
    environmental effects of their programs on minority and low-
    income populations. The Order is also intended to promote
    nondiscrimination in Federal programs that affect human health
    and the environment. It aims to provide minority and low-income
    communities' access to public information and public
    participation in matters relating to human health and the
    environment. The Order established an Interagency Working Group
    on environmental justice chaired by the EPA Administrator and
    comprised of the heads of 11 departments or agencies and
    several White House offices.
         At EPA, the Office of Environmental Justice (OEJ) within
    the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA)
    coordinates EPA's efforts to integrate environmental justice
    into all policies, programs, and activities. Within each
    regional office there is at least one environmental justice
    coordinator who serves as the focal point within their
    organizations and as the liaison to OEJ. Among the
    coordinator's duties are to provide policy advice and to
    develop and implement programs within their regions. There is
    no specific environmental justice statute to fund environmental
    justice activities at EPA. Consequently, OEJ performs
    activities using a general Environmental Program Management
    appropriation budget line item.

                         OIG Environmental Justice Work

         For the past 5 years, the OIG has been examining EPA's
    environmental justice activities as part of our broader
    strategic plan to review how EPA fulfills its responsibilities
    to address environmental threats and their impact on
    ecosystems, communities, and susceptible populations. We have
    issued two reports focusing on EPA's implementation of
    Executive Order 12898 requirements.

             Evaluation of EPA's Implementation of Executive Order

         In a 2004 review, we reported on how EPA was integrating
    environmental justice into its operations. Specifically, we
    sought to answer the following questions: 1) how had EPA
    implemented the Order and integrated its concepts into its
    regional and program offices; and 2) how were environmental
    justice areas defined at the regional levels and what was the
    impact.
         We concluded that EPA had not fully implemented the Order
    and was not consistently integrating environmental justice into
    its day-to-day operations at that time. EPA had not identified
    minority and low-income communities, or defined the term
    ``disproportionately impacted.' Moreover, in 2001, EPA restated
    its commitment to environmental justice in a manner that did
    not emphasize minority and low-income populations which we
    believed was the intent of the Order. In the absence of
    environmental justice definitions, criteria, or standards from
    EPA, many regional and program offices individually took steps
    to implement environmental justice policies. The result was
    inconsistency in determining environmental justice communities
    across EPA regions and programs. For example, between the
    regions there was a wide array of approaches for identifying
    environmental justice communities. Thus, the implementation of
    environmental justice actions was dependent, in part, on where
    you lived.
         We made 12 recommendations to EPA to address the issues we
    raised, which are listed in Attachment A. Four key
    recommendations were: 1) reaffirm the Executive Order as a
    priority; 2) establish specific timeframes for developing
    definitions, goals, and measurements; 3) develop a
    comprehensive strategic plan; and 4) determine if adequate
    resources are being applied to implement environmental justice.
    EPA disagreed with 11 of the 12 recommendations. EPA did agree
    to perform a comprehensive study of program and regional
    offices' funding and staffing for environmental justice to
    ensure that adequate resources are available to fully implement
    its environmental justice plans. In May 2004, EPA issued its
    report entitled ``Environmental Justice Program Comprehensive
    Management Study'' conducted by Tetra Tech EM Inc.

                Evaluation of EPA Environmental Justice Reviews

         In 2006, we completed our evaluation of whether EPA
    program and regional offices have performed environmental
    justice reviews of their programs, policies, and activities as
    required by the Order. We specifically sought to determine if:
    1) there had been clear direction from EPA senior management to
    perform environmental justice reviews of EPA programs,
    policies, and activities; 2) EPA had performed environmental
    justice reviews; and 3) EPA had adequate guidance to conduct
    these reviews or if there was a need for additional directions
    or protocols.
         To determine the direction, frequency, and guidance for
    environmental justice reviews, we met with OECA, OEJ, and
    Office of Air and Radiation representatives. We then conducted
    an EPA-wide survey of each of the Deputy Assistant
    Administrators in EPA's 13 program offices and each of the 10
    Deputy Regional Administrators on their experience conducting
    environmental justice reviews of their programs, policies, and
    activities. We also asked them to describe their satisfaction
    with available guidance and instructions for conducting these
    reviews, and whether they needed additional directions or
    protocols. We did not design our survey to draw inferences or
    project results. Rather we sought to obtain descriptive
    information on implementing environmental justice at EPA.
         Our survey results showed that EPA program and regional
    offices have not routinely performed environmental justice
    reviews. Reasons for not performing these reviews included the
    absence of a specific directive from EPA management to conduct
    such reviews; a belief by some program offices that they are
    not subject to the Order since their programs do not lend
    themselves to reviewing impacts on minority and low-income
    populations; and confusion regarding how to perform the
    reviews. In addition, we found that program and regional
    offices lacked clear guidance to follow when conducting
    environmental justice reviews. Survey respondents stated that
    protocols, a framework, or additional directions would be
    useful for conducting environmental justice reviews. We
    concluded that EPA cannot determine whether its programs have a
    disproportionately high and adverse human health or
    environmental effect on minority and low-income populations
    without performing these types of reviews.
         We made four recommendations to EPA to address these
    issues. We recommended that EPA: 1) require program and
    regional offices to determine where environmental justice
    reviews are needed and establish a plan to complete them; 2)
    ensure that environmental justice reviews determine whether EPA
    programs, policies, and activities may have a
    disproportionately high and adverse health or environmental
    impact on minority and low-income populations; 3) develop
    specific environmental justice review guidance that includes
    protocols, a framework, or directions; and 4) designate a
    responsible office to compile the results of environmental
    justice reviews and make recommendations to EPA senior
    leadership. EPA agreed with our recommendations and established
    milestones for completing those actions. For example, in
    response to our third recommendation EPA convened an Agency-
    wide Environmental Justice workgroup in April 2007 to begin
    developing protocols to provide guidance for conducting
    reviews. Implementation of the protocols developed is scheduled
    for March 2008.

                          Noteworthy EPA Achievements

         In the interest of objectivity I also should say that
    since the issuance of our reports, EPA has taken some steps to
    address environmental justice issues. In 2005, Administrator
    Stephen Johnson reaffirmed EPA's commitment to environmental
    justice by directing staff to establish measurable commitments
    that address environmental priorities such as: reducing asthma
    attacks, air toxics, and blood lead levels; ensuring that
    companies meet environmental laws; ensuring that fish and
    shellfish are safe to eat; and ensuring that water is safe to
    drink. EPA is also including language in the fiscal year 2008
    National Program Guidance that each headquarters program office
    should use its environmental justice action plan and EPA's
    strategic plan to identify activities, initiatives, or
    strategies that address the integration of environmental
    justice. Finally, EPA is modifying its emergency management
    procedures in the wake of Hurricane Katrina to incorporate an
    environmental justice function and staffing support in the
    EPA's Incident Command Structure so that environmental justice
    issues are addressed in a timely manner.
         These are all positive steps but EPA recognizes that more
    work needs to be done, particularly in its efforts to making
    environmental justice part of its mission by integrating
    environmental justice into its decision making, planning, and
    budgeting processes. EPA needs to be able to determine if their
    programs, policies, and actions have a disproportionate health
    or environmental impact on minority or low-income populations.
    EPA also still needs broad guidance on environmental justice
    program and policy reviews, which EPA acknowledges is not in
    place.
         One of EPA's goals is to provide an environment where all
    people enjoy the same degree of protection from environmental
    and health hazards and equal access to the decision-making
    process to maintain a healthy environment in which to live and
    work. Our work has shown that EPA still needs to do more to
    integrate environmental justice into its programs and
    activities so that it may achieve this goal.
         Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today.
    I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

                                  Attachment A

        Recommendations from 2004 OIG Report ``EPA Needs to
    Consistently Implement the Intent of the Executive Order on
    Environmental Justice''
        1) Issue a memorandum that reaffirms that Executive Order
    12898 is the Agency's priority and that minority and low-income
    populations that are disproportionately impacted will receive
    the intended actions of this Executive Order.
        2) Clearly define the mission of the Office of
    Environmental Justice and provide Agency staff with an
    understanding of the roles and responsibilities of the office.
        3) Establish specific time frames for the development of
    definitions, goals and measurements that will ensure that the
    1994 Executive Order is complied with in the most expeditious
    manner.
        4) Develop and articulate a clear vision on the Agency's
    approach to environmental justice. The vision should focus on
    environmental justice integration and provide objectives that
    are clear, precise, and focused on environmental results.
        5) Develop a comprehensive strategic plan for environmental
    justice. The plan should include a comprehensive mission
    statement that discusses, among other things, the Agency's
    major functions and operations, a set of outcome-related goals
    and objectives, and a description of how the Agency intends to
    achieve and monitor the goals and objectives.
        6) Provide the regions and program offices a standard and
    consistent definition for a minority and low-income community,
    with instructions on how the Agency will implement and
    operationalize environmental justice into the Agency's daily
    activities. This could be done through issuing guidance or a
    policy statement from the Administrator.
        7) Ensure that the comprehensive training program currently
    under development includes standard and consistent definitions
    of the key environmental justice concepts (i.e., low-income,
    minority, disproportionately impacted) and instructions for
    implementation.
        8) Perform a comprehensive study of program and regional
    offices' funding and staffing for environmental justice to
    ensure that adequate resources are available to fully implement
    the Agency's environmental justice plan.
        9) Develop a systematic approach to gathering accurate and
    complete information relating to environmental justice that is
    usable for assessing whether progress is being made by the
    program and regional offices.
        10) Develop a standard strategy that limits variations
    relating to Geographical Information System (GIS) applications,
    including use of census information, determination of minority
    status, income threshold, and all other criteria necessary to
    provide regions with information for environmental justice
    decisions.
        11) Require that the selected strategy for determining an
    environmental justice community is consistent for all EPA
    program and regional offices.
        12) Develop a clear and comprehensive policy on actions
    that will benefit and protect identified minority and low-
    income communities and strive to include in States' Performance
    Partnership Agreements and Performance Partnership Grants.
                                  ----------

        Mr. Wynn. Thank you very much for your testimony.
        Ms. O'Neill.

     STATEMENT OF MOLLY A. O'NEILL ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE
      OF ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
                         AGENCY, WASHINGTON, DC

        Ms. O'Neill. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and distinguished
    members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to
    testify today about the progress EPA is making in providing
    important information to communities across the Nation
    regarding our work to publish the annual toxic release
    inventory or TRI. This testimony reflects my dual roles as the
    Chief Information Officer at the U.S. EPA and as the Assistant
    Administrator of Environmental Information where the toxic
    release inventory is one of the programs that I oversee.
        Let me begin by saying I believe environmental information
    is a strategic asset as we work to protect human health and the
    environment. I believe this is important because environmental
    information underlies all decisions made by EPA and our
    partners to achieve our goals. As you know, EPA's TRI Program
    provides information on releases and waste management
    activities for nearly 650 chemicals reported from industry.
    Environmental information has many uses, and one of the most
    effective is to encourage facilities to reduce emissions or
    releases.
        The December 2006 final TRI rule expanding eligibility for
    use of short-form reporting provided important incentives for
    pollution prevention. The rule would allow companies to use a
    shorter, simpler reporting form known as Form A to provide
    required information so long as they eliminate or minimize
    releases to the environment. No facilities were excused from
    reporting under the TRI rule, and no chemicals were removed
    from the required reporting list. The only change in
    requirements is that facilities are permitted to use the short
    form if they maintain releases and total waste is below limits
    established in the rule.
        The rule is an important part of EPA's strategy to minimize
    releases of toxic chemicals across the United States. It
    rewards facilities that completely eliminate releases of the
    worst environmental substances persistent by accumulative and
    toxic chemicals to PBTs. By allowing them to use a shorter
    reporting form, provided they do not exceed 500 pounds of
    recycling energy recovery and treatment for that chemical, EPA
    believes these stringent requirements for short-form reporting
    are appropriate for PBT chemicals because of the greater
    potential for environmental harm.
        For other toxics the rule allows for short-form reporting
    for those facilities that reduce or maintain releases below
    2,000 pounds, provided their total waste management does not
    exceed 5,000 pounds. EPA believes that providing incentives to
    encourage pollution prevention and better waste management
    practices is good for the environment, good for facilities, and
    good for people who live around them.
        These limits encourage pollution prevention and should be
    given an opportunity to work. EPA does not support H.R. 1055,
    because it would eliminate the valuable incentives provided in
    the December 2006, rule before we have even had a chance to
    determine their effectiveness and could also have adverse
    resource implications to the TRI Program.
        We would not expect the effects of the December 2006, new
    incentives to be reflected in the reports for calendar year
    2006, that we are not processing. Beginning with reports for
    2007, which would be due July 1, 2008, EPA will begin to
    evaluate the effectiveness of these incentives in reducing
    releases and promoting pollution prevention.
        EPA does continue to demonstrate our commitment to public
    access to environmental information. This year we expanded TRI
    reporting of dioxin and dioxin-like chemicals, compounds,
    increasing public access to how facilities use, manage, and
    release the most toxic chemical group.
        In addition, EPA converted the entire TRI reporting system
    over to the modern industry standard classification practice to
    enhance information sharing and comparability across sectors.
    We continue to take steps to improve TRI to enhance its utility
    for local communities. We continue to get it out earlier and
    earlier to the public.
        In addition to TRI, my role as EPA's Chief Information
    Officer, I also want you to know that we are working on new and
    innovative tools and applications to deliver a new suite and a
    more comprehensive suite of environmental data to local
    communities, including the use of geo-special tools, which will
    provide easy access to detailed local information. Ultimately
    these efforts and other projects underway will provide a useful
    set of environmental information about local environments.
        On behalf of Administrator Johnson, thank you for inviting
    me to come here to speak today and to tell you our progress
    that EPA is making on providing important information to
    communities across the Nation, including TRI.
        And in particular I want to thank you for inviting me
    personally to describe my views and our views at EPA on H.R.
    1055, the Toxic Right-to-Know Protection Act.
        I would be happy to address any questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. O'Neill follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.010

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.011

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.012

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.013

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.014

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.015

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.016

        Mr. Wynn. Thank you very much, Ms. O'Neill.
        Mr. Sullivan.

       STATEMENT OF THOMAS M. SULLIVAN, CHIEF COUNSEL, ADVOCACY,
        OFFICE OF ADVOCACY, U.S. SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION,
                             WASHINGTON, DC

        Mr. Sullivan. Chairman Wynn, Congressman Shimkus, and
    members of the subcommittee, thank you for giving me the
    opportunity to appear this morning.
        I am the Chief Counsel for Advocacy at the U.S. Small
    Business Administration. My office is an independent one within
    the SBA, and therefore, the comments expressed in my statement
    do not necessarily reflect the position of the administration
    or the SBA. Due to my office's independence, my statement was
    not submitted to OMB for approval.
        Small businesses have been asking for TRI paperwork burden
    relief since 1990. This hearing is actually the fifth hearing
    held by House committees on TRI reform in five consecutive
    Congresses. Five years after TRI was created, my office
    petitioned EPA to develop streamlined reporting for small
    volume chemical users.
        In 1994, EPA responded to the petition by adopting Form A,
    as Ms. O'Neill mentioned, the short form for TRI reporting.
    Adapted as a less burdensome alternative to the long form, Form
    R, the original Form A allowed companies to report their
    releases as a range instead of a specific number.
        Unfortunately, the Form A developed in 1994 was never
    utilized to its potential, owing to restrictive eligibility
    requirements subsequently imposed on the short form. Small
    business have consistently voiced their concerns to my office
    that the TRI Program imposes substantial paperwork burdens with
    little corresponding environmental benefit, especially for
    thousands of businesses that have zero discharges or emissions
    to the environment. These businesses must devote scarce time
    and resources to completing the lengthy, complex form R reports
    each year, despite the fact that they have zero discharges.
        Why is TRI paperwork burden reduction important to small
    business? Well, the reason for my office's involvement is
    simple. Small businesses are disproportionately impacted by
    Federal rules and regulations. The overall regulatory burden in
    the United States exceeds $1.1 trillion. I will repeat that.
    The burden in the United States exceeds $1.1 trillion. For
    firms employing fewer than 20 employees, the most recent
    estimate of their annual regulatory burden is $7,647 per
    employee.
        Looking specifically at compliance with Federal
    environmental rules, the difference between small and large
    firms is even more dramatic. Small firms have to spend four and
    a half times more per employee for environmental compliance
    than larger businesses do. Environmental requirements,
    including TRI paperwork, can comprise up to 72 percent of small
    manufacturers' total regulatory costs.
        EPA's reform to the TRI reporting rules allows more small
    businesses to use the short form instead of the longer Form R.
    This will save money, and it provides an incentive for
    companies to recycle chemicals instead of disposing them.
        The TRI Burden Reduction Rule will strengthen overall
    environmental compliance. I recently talked with a TRI expert
    who runs an environmental consulting firm in southeast
    Michigan. He works with small businesses on environmental
    management issues, and he was proud of the help he provided to
    a paper mill. He had worked with a paper mill to encourage them
    to recycle small amounts of mercury generated when switches and
    other process control circuits undergo maintenance in the
    mill's powerhouse.
        He explained to me that EPA's TRI reform will allow a
    number of industrial operations such as tool and die shops and
    metal stamping plants to file a Form A for the first time. It
    will also provide an incentive for other companies to recycle
    their TRI chemicals rather than disposing of them.
        The Office of Advocacy supports EPA's TRI Burden Reduction
    Rule. Although the rule reform does not go as far as some small
    businesses would prefer, my office supports EPA's December 2006
    rule. The rule demonstrates that EPA is listening to the
    concerns of small business, and EPA's reform should be a model
    for other agencies to reform their existing rules and
    regulations to reduce costs while preserving or strengthening
    regulatory objectives. H.R. 1055 prevents EPA from moving
    forward with the reforms, so my office is opposed to the
    legislation.
        Thank you for allowing me to present these views, and I
    would be happy to answer questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Sullivan follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.017

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.018

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.019

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.020

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.021

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.022

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.023

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.024

        Mr. Wynn. Thank you, Mr. Sullivan.
        Mr. Stephenson.

     STATEMENT OF JOHN B. STEPHENSON, DIRECTOR, NATURAL RESOURCES
    AND ENVIRONMENT, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, WASHINGTON,
                                   DC

        Mr. Stephenson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Shimkus,
    members of the committee.
        I am here today to discuss two studies the GAO has
    undertaken that relate these two issues. Our first study
    examined the extent to which EPA was meeting its environmental
    justice commitment that environmental laws will not
    disproportionately impact minority and low-income communities.
        As Ms. Solis indicated, in July 2005 we issued a report to
    her that concluded that EPA in general devoted very little
    attention to environmental justice when developing new air
    rules. We made several recommendations for improvement that EPA
    has only partially responded to since we issued our report.
        For example, to its credit EPA now includes the Office of
    Environmental Justice as an ex officio member of its Regulatory
    Steering Committee, however, the Office is still not
    sufficiently involved in working groups for individuals rules.
    We believe that more specific guidance, training, and
    manageable benchmarks are needed to hold EPA officials
    accountable for achieving EJ goals.
        Our second study on the new toxic release inventory rule is
    almost complete and will result in a report later this month.
    TRI's an extremely important system as has been mentioned
    because it is EPA's mechanism for meeting the requirements of
    the Emergency Preparedness and Communities Right-to-Know Act
    for facilities to report and make public their use of toxic
    chemicals. There are currently over 23,000 facilities across
    the country that report valuable information annually on over
    600 dangerous chemicals. In developing the TRI rule we found
    that EPA did not follow its internal rule-making guidelines.
        For example, the rule pretends to reduce industry's
    reporting burden by quadrupling the threshold from 500 to 2,000
    pounds for facilities to use the shorter, less-informative Form
    A for reporting toxic chemical releases. However, EPA did not
    fully analyze the impact of the loss of chemical information on
    TRI users like States, communities, and first responders.
        EPA's internal stakeholders were in the process of
    analyzing several other burden reduction options when OMB late
    in the process suggested increasing the reporting threshold, an
    option that EPA had earlier rejected. Pressure to quickly
    implement the rule left EPA with insufficient time for a
    complete economic analysis.
        For example, electronic reporting, which has been mentioned
    today and which has shown to provide far more burden reduction
    in this rule, was missing from the analysis. Notwithstanding
    the lack of analysis, EPA published the proposed rule in the
    Federal Register and received over 120,000 comments, including
    a dozen attorney generals from California, Connecticut,
    Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New
    Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Vermont, and Wisconsin opposing
    the rule because of its impact on TRI information and
    environmental justice implications.
        Mr. Chairman, we are very concerned that to achieve burden
    reduction EPA is tinkering with what has historically been a
    highly-successful program to control the use of toxic
    chemicals. EPA contends that the rule will result in only a 1
    percent loss of information, however, this is an aggregate
    estimate based on total pounds of chemicals nationwide and
    ignores the more important implications of the rule on
    individual communities.
        In fact, we estimate that the rule has the potential to
    reduce information on toxic chemical releases from over 6,600
    facilities. Moreover, a disproportionately larger number of
    these facilities are near minority and low-income communities.
        Time permitting, Mr. Chairman, I would like to, I have a
    couple of graphics. I think each of you, if you can't see the
    monitors, has a package, and it should be in front of them. To
    illustrate the impact of the TRI rule on individual
    communities.
        This uses Google Earth, which is a free software available
    to everybody and overlays EPA information on it. And what you
    are seeing in this first slide is the, indeed, the 23,000 TRI
    reporting facilities, and I know you can't count 23,000. Could
    you switch the slide? There you go. You can see that there are
    23,000 facilities, and you can see the focus of where those
    are.
        Now, this second slide shows you the 6,600 plus facilities
    that are subject to information reduction under this new rule.
    There is still quite a few facilities there. Now, you can use
    this. We are not using this interactively. These are stagnant,
    but you can actually use this to zoom in on any individual
    community, and we selected Los Angeles, but you could do this
    with any other area.
        So the next slide zooms in on which 6,600 of these
    facilities are located in and around the Los Angeles area, and
    you can see there is quite a few.
        And then finally we wanted to connect the dots between TRI
    and environmental justice by showing you the implications of
    these facilities in the Los Angeles area on low-income and
    minority communities. The cylinders represent low income
    households within a 1-mile radius of the facility. The higher
    the cylinder, the poorer the community, and the colors
    represent minority. Red colors represent 80 percent minority or
    greater. And, frankly, I think the graphic speaks for itself.
        In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, let me say that failing to
    demonstrate any burden reduction, EPA now asserts that the TRI
    rule will provide an incentive for facilities to reduce their
    toxic chemical releases. It is difficult for us to understand
    how raising the threshold for reporting would achieve that
    objective.
        Mr. Chairman, that concludes a summary of my statement. I
    will be happy to answer questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Stephenson follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.025

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.026

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.027

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.028

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.029

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.030

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.031

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.032

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.033

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.034

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.035

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.036

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.037

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.038

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.039

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.040

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.041

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.042

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.043

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.044

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.045

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.046

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.047

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.048

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.049

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.050

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.051

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.052

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.053

        Mr. Wynn. Thank you very much for your testimony. I would
    like to thank all of the witnesses.
        At this time the Chair would like to raise a few questions.
        Mr. Nakayama, about how many rulemakings does EPA engage
    in?
        Mr. Nakayama. I don't have the exact number. I am sure it
    is hundreds.
        Mr. Wynn. What percentage would you say the Office of
    Environmental Justice substantially participated in?
        Mr. Nakayama. I would say a very small fraction.
        Mr. Wynn. OK. Thank you. Is it true that some programs of
    the EPA have not incorporated environmental justice in their
    core functions?
        Mr. Nakayama. I know we are working on getting all parts of
    EPA to integrate EJ into their functions, and this fiscal year
    2008, strategic plan is moving forward.
        Mr. Wynn. So that is somewhat of a left-handed way of
    saying that, yes, in the last 13 years there are some that have
    not.
        Mr. Nakayama. I don't personally know one way or the other.
        Mr. Wynn. OK. That is fine. In the 13 years since the
    Executive order was issued, has EPA ever done a comprehensive
    review to determine whether this program or policies have a
    disproportionately high impact on minority communities,
    minority or low-income communities?
        Mr. Nakayama. We are engaged in that process now to conduct
    these EJ reviews as a result of both the IG report----
        Mr. Wynn. I guess that is also another way of saying, no,
    you haven't in the past.
        Ms. O'Neill, now, you said your basic rationale is if they
    minimize the releases, you want to allow them to use the short
    form. Is that basically your position?
        Ms. O'Neill. There is incentive to use the short form if
    they minimize or eliminate releases.
        Mr. Wynn. OK. Now, it seems to me that the environmental
    community States and everyone else really would like to
    minimize releases as well, is it your position that you
    disagree with the 23 States and the 30 public health
    organizations and the 40 labor organizations and the 200
    environmental organizations that have basically said they want
    this data notwithstanding the incentivizing that has taken
    place?
        Ms. O'Neill. I think that the States would agree that the
    first priority would be to eliminate or reduce waste as a
    priority.
        Mr. Wynn. But the States said that they didn't want this
    rule. Twenty-three States at least said they didn't want it.
        Ms. O'Neill. Some of the comments to the rule based on what
    I have seen are not entirely or the understanding of what we
    are doing. The reality of it is that each community is still
    getting information on the chemicals that are there.
        Mr. Wynn. Well, isn't it true that there would be 22,000,
    more than 22,000 less long-form reports with detailed
    information? Isn't that true?
        Ms. O'Neill. That is not true for this particular December
    26 rule. As a result of that. Actually, there were 11,000 that
    were already eligible under the previous rule. So it is an
    additional 11,000. In total you are correct.
        Mr. Wynn. In total it is 22,000?
        Ms. O'Neill. Right. I just wanted to clarify that.
        Mr. Wynn. OK. Now, you are saying, well, they are not going
    to release these toxic materials, and so you think that is a
    justification for not providing the data. But isn't it true
    that even if they don't release the toxic material, that the
    material will still be in the facility?
        Ms. O'Neill. It depends on whether it is PBT or non-PBT,
    but some will. Absolutely. Up to 500 pounds of PBTs.
        Mr. Wynn. So it would impact the employees in the facility
    even if the material were not released. Isn't that true?
        Ms. O'Neill. The facility employees should know where the
    information is and where the chemicals are.
        Mr. Wynn. Well, they wouldn't be able to get the
    information because reports are not submitted. The detailed
    reports are not submitted. Now, what about first responders and
    others outside of the facility? Even if there is no release,
    again, the toxic material is still inside. Isn't that true?
        Ms. O'Neill. That is exactly right, and that is why EPCRA
    sets up different sections of the rule so that it can address
    emergency responses different than TRI.
        Mr. Wynn. But the responders still need to be aware of that
    information.
        Let me turn to Mr. Sullivan. You are talking about
    paperwork, but isn't it true that all these are electronically-
    filed reports?
        Mr. Sullivan. I don't know that the percentage that are
    filed electronically or the number that are filed in paper. I
    would ask----
        Mr. Wynn. But they could be filed electronically.
        Mr. Sullivan. The actual program that receives the reports
    could respond.
        Mr. Wynn. Now, you cited at one point $1 trillion is the
    burden, but isn't it true that the burden on an individual
    small business would only be about $900 a year?
        Mr. Sullivan. You will hear from the next testimony that
    one example of a saving is 2 days worth of paperwork for this
    rule, and there are other estimates.
        Mr. Wynn. Well, but it comes to an average of $900.
        Mr. Sullivan. EPA's estimate is $900. That is correct.
        Mr. Wynn. OK. Well, we will work with that. One final
    question.
        Now, you talked about small businesses and the implications
    of these are very small, but isn't it true that the definition
    of small business includes businesses up to 500 employees?
        Mr. Sullivan. SBA's definition of small employers includes
    businesses up to 500. That is correct.
        Mr. Wynn. So these aren't exactly Ma and Pa operations that
    are filing these reports.
        Mr. Sullivan. Mr. Chairman, Mom and Pop operations from all
    over the country have appealed to my office for over 10 years
    to get this type of reform.
        Mr. Wynn. But employees, businesses under 10 employees
    aren't included.
        Mr. Sullivan. The 10 employee threshold in the law was done
    on a risk analysis, and if you extend that same risk analysis,
    it leads to the reforms finalized in December 2006.
        Mr. Wynn. But Ma and Pa really aren't included.
        My time is up. I recognize my distinguished ranking member
    for questions at this time.
        Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The frustrating thing
    with me in this is we keep using the word ``release'' and we
    don't define it, and I know the chairman tried to identify. It
    would help us, it would help the minority if in the movement of
    this bill that we just properly label.
        So we could say toxic use chemical reporting, use inside a
    facility, we could say chemical reporting inside a facility, we
    could say possible toxic release inventory, what is possible to
    be released. We could say, here is a good acronym, TUMRI, toxic
    use manage and release inventory. So it identifies as not--
    every person on the panel kept using the word, release, and
    what it tells the public is that we are releasing all this
    stuff. All this stuff is in the atmosphere. All this stuff for
    environmental justice is killing the people in the minority
    communities when that is not true. This is a redefinition of
    the word, release, in 1986, by Senator Lautenberg. It is not
    Webster's definition of what a release is.
        I am a simple infantrymen, southern Illinoian, rural
    person, and I think just to help address this debate we need to
    just properly define it, and that is my appeal to the people
    who really want to address this, to say if we want industry to
    report every chemical process in a facility and maybe they just
    recycle it, where there is, it is just in a cycle of
    manufacturing, then let us let them do that. Let us don't scare
    the world to say that all these things that are on this list
    are toxic releases, because they are not.
        And so every testimony that is using the word, release,
    based upon the Lautenberg language is really deceptive in this
    testimony because 99.9 percent of all Americans would not agree
    with that definition, nor would Webster's definition.
        So I would hope that it is a simple change. It would be in
    compliance with moving forward, but it is very, very
    frustrating.
        Mr. Sullivan, how does this EPA reform, not hurt local
    communities?
        Mr. Sullivan. Congressman Shimkus, when we appealed to EPA
    to reform the rule, we wanted to make sure that the same type
    of risk analysis that led to EPA Administrator Carol Browner's
    adoption of the short form transcended into this new paperwork
    burden reduction reform announced in December 2006. And when
    EPA did the analysis of moving information from Form R to Form
    A, and this was mentioned by GAO, they maintained 99 percent of
    the information. That is the same percentage requirement that
    Carol Browner used to adopt the short form.
        So when you look at specific communities and you say, well,
    is it the same environmental protections from Carol Browner
    conveyed to this new rule, the answer is yes.
        Mr. Shimkus. And we all love our first responders, and we
    want to make sure that they are protected and knowledgeable.
    How do you respond to the criticisms that this TRI reform hurts
    emergency responders?
        Mr. Sullivan. Well, first of all, I commend the committee
    for having the hearing to clear up a terrible misconception,
    and that terrible misconception is that the Toxic Release
    Inventory provide first responder information when the alarm
    goes off, they are responding to a tragedy, and they are faced
    with a life-threatening situation of either breaking down a
    door or knowing that there is an explosive chemical behind that
    door, taking the appropriate procedures. That is not what TRI
    data is for.
        In fact, to supplement Congressman Shimkus's earlier
    statement, the TRI covers about 24,000 facilities. MSDS sheets,
    which are available for employees and local firefighters and
    first responders, along with chemical inventory data, covers
    over 550,000 facilities, and it is timely information, not
    information that is over a year old like TRI data is. So I
    think that this committee deserves credit for really exposing
    terrible misinformation that the TRI data is the most important
    for first responders. That is not what the facts bear out, Mr.
    Shimkus.
        Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I have 6 seconds
    left, and I will yield back.
        Mr. Wynn. Thank you. The Chair would recognize Ms. Solis
    for questions.
        Ms. Solis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        My question is for Mr. Stephenson, and I wanted to ask just
    quite frankly, in your opinion, do you believe that the
    Executive order on environmental justice has been implemented
    adequately by EPA?
        Mr. Stephenson. In a nutshell, no. That is what we reported
    in 2005, and we think they are moving in the right direction.
    We think including them as an ex officio member of the steering
    committee is good, but we saw no evidence of its inclusion in
    individual rule marking.
        Ms. Solis. And you mentioned something about the current
    working groups that are coming about and that there is still a
    lack of representation of EJ representatives or stakeholders in
    those working groups. Is that correct?
        Mr. Stephenson. That is right. The only one that was held
    up oddly enough was looking at EJ implications of this very
    rule, the TRI rule.
        Ms. Solis. Which is amazing to me. I don't understand that.
        My question is the facilities that you showed up here in
    Los Angeles, what would happen in a community like East Los
    Angeles, for example, which is pointed out very clearly in your
    documentation as the hot spots here, if they didn't have to
    report? This is like the 1 percent that doesn't, that would not
    be, would not have the advantage of giving us information, and
    this is where a higher tendency of minority, low-income, and
    toxic levels are much higher.
        What would that mean to communities of color?
        Mr. Stephenson. Well, there is a misconception here. We
    never said that TRI was the first source of information for
    emergency responders. Nevertheless, they use it in overall
    planning. We have been told that by the States.
        This is a public right-to-know program, TRI, and we use
    that term ``release'' because that is the name of the program,
    Toxic Release Inventory. You are absolutely right that it is
    any facility that manages, handles, disposes of appropriately,
    nevertheless the program is called the Toxic Release Inventory.
        So the purpose of this program, the reason it has been
    highly successful is because the public has information about
    these chemicals. Individuals can go into the TRI database put
    in their ZIP Code and find out information about what is
    happening around them. We don't see burden reduction from
    raising the threshold from 500, 2,000 pounds.
        Ms. Solis. And you mentioned something, if I could just
    interrupt, that with the reporting requirements being now much
    more easily accessible through computer, that that definitely
    would possibly lower costs for businesses.
        Mr. Stephenson. Absolutely. Right now, and we think EPA is
    doing a good job integrating this information in more usable
    forms to the public, and we are disappointed that it takes 12
    months to get the data out, but that is changing.
        Ms. Solis. Yes.
        Mr. Stephenson. Right now over 95 percent of the filers use
    electronic filing, and we expect that will go to 99 percent.
        Ms. Solis. Yes.
        Mr. Stephenson. So that is where the true burden reduction
    and usefulness of this program comes, not from a rule to change
    the threshold for reporting. It is not paperwork anymore.
        Ms. Solis. Well, I think that this information is very
    timely because in the area that I do represent, which is kind
    of somewhat outlined in your graph here, the Port of Long Beach
    and Los Angeles as we know are major targets for potential
    terrorism, and if you can see in the map there, and I know the
    area. Geographically there is a lot of refineries, oil
    refineries, a lot of chemical plants, and a major thoroughfare
    for our railroad system. God forbid if something were to
    happen, and we didn't know what was available there. And this
    is where that information would be lacking if we continue to
    not see enforcement of the original legislation.
        So I am very concerned about that, and I just want to thank
    you for giving us your information.
        And I want to go next, if I can, please, to Granta
    Nakayama, and wanted to ask him with the administration's
    request to cut back on environmental justice funding, which was
    about a 30 percent cut, you mentioned earlier in your statement
    that you were giving out grants now of $1 million to community
    groups. Is it not true that during the discussion debate on the
    budget that if this, if that went through, according to the
    Bush administration, that these grant programs wouldn't even be
    there, and it was partly because Congress put the money back
    in?
        Mr. Nakayama. First of all, I want to be very clear that
    the President's budget request for the Office of Environmental
    Justice has been fairly flat over the last 5 or 6 years. There
    hasn't been much change. Congress through its generosity has
    provided an add on so that we could pursue these environmental
    justice grants. Appreciate the support of that program. We made
    great use of that money. I think it is having a big impact.
        Ms. Solis. But it would have been cut. That is my question.
        Mr. Nakayama. Well, last year we didn't get the add on,
    because he had a continuing resolution. We did not get that add
    on, and yet we took out, the administration put $895,000,
    almost $1 million, out of other EPA activities, not out of my
    office, not out of the Office of Enforcement and Compliance
    Assurance, put that money in there so we could continue this
    program.
        Ms. Solis. My next question is, did the Office of
    Environmental Justice analyze the impact of the closure on the
    Region 10 Environmental Justice Office for budget reasons prior
    to its closure?
        Mr. Nakayama. The Region 10 Environmental Justice Office
    wasn't closed. What they did is they reorganized and pulled the
    environmental justice function out of the administration and
    resource management function and put it in a line operation. In
    other words, the real, they put it in the actual line
    organization that regulates the environmental activities in
    region 10. And what that did is I think it produced a much more
    active and much more effective environmental justice function
    in region 10.
        Ms. Solis. One of the other questions I have is for our
    witness, Mr. Sullivan. You mentioned that the cost to small
    business given reporting of these chemicals is about a 72
    percent burden or something like that to that effect. How do
    you quantify that with TRI? How do you quantify that? Please
    explain that to me.
        Mr. Sullivan. Of course. Every 2 or 3 years my office hires
    an outside contractor to research regulatory burden with the
    attempt of trying to figure out whether there is a
    disproportionality of small versus large, because when we work
    with OSHA and EPA and IRS and Department of Transportation, the
    idea of our involvement and encouraging agency sensitivity to
    small firms is to level that playing field.
        Ms. Solis. But there were a lot of other regulatory
    mechanisms in place where the Government actually provides
    assistance for cleanup, the Underground Storage Tank Program as
    an example. That isn't a direct burden necessarily placed on
    small businesses.
        Mr. Wynn. The gentle lady's time has expired.
        Ms. Solis. We can submit. Thank you.
        Mr. Wynn. We are going to try to get one more line of
    questioning before recessing to vote.
        Mr. Murphy of Pennsylvania.
        Mr. Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        A quick question for the EPA here. Would the OSHA worker
    safety requirements apply in any plant that has to report and
    more specifically, does the TRI impact the OSHA safety
    requirements for workers?
        Ms. O'Neill. Assuming that is for me.
        Mr. Murphy. Yes.
        Ms. O'Neill. No, it does not impact.
        Mr. Murphy. Not at all?
        Ms. O'Neill. No.
        Mr. Murphy. OSHA standards are separate here?
        Ms. O'Neill. Yes, they are.
        Mr. Murphy. OK. That is an important thing. I may have some
    other follow up I want to use on that later on.
        I am going to yield to the ranking member, Mr. Shimkus, the
    remainder of my time.
        Mr. Shimkus. I thank you. Chairman Barton, I mean, ranking
    member, Joe, do you want to ask a question because we are going
    to be----
        Mr. Barton. No.
        Mr. Shimkus. All right. Let me go to Ms. O'Neill. Does TRI
    set pollution limits for permits?
        Ms. O'Neill. No.
        Mr. Shimkus. Does TRI set environmental health standards?
        Ms. O'Neill. No, it does not.
        Mr. Shimkus. Is it anything more than a reporting program?
        Ms. O'Neill. It is a reporting program. Yes.
        Mr. Shimkus. Is anyone newly exempted from TRI reporting
    that previously had to file a report?
        Ms. O'Neill. No, they are not.
        Mr. Shimkus. Were any chemicals that previously had to be
    reported removed from the list of reportable chemicals?
        Ms. O'Neill. No, they were not.
        Mr. Shimkus. How current is TRI data?
        Ms. O'Neill. By the time it is published, a year and a half
    old.
        Mr. Shimkus. Eighteen months.
        Ms. O'Neill. Eighteen months. We are working on that.
        Mr. Shimkus. All right. Is EPA prevented from getting
    additional data from reporting entities under TRI regulations?
        Ms. O'Neill. No.
        Mr. Shimkus. OK. And for my last opportunity, I am still
    going to be lobbying for a change in the title. I got
    corrected. It wasn't the 1986, Act. The 1986, Act actually
    defined release as release. it was the 1990, changes that added
    all this other stuff, so if you all want to submit to me
    additional terminology that would adequately define what this
    program is, I think the committee would be happy to receive it.
    I would, and we would, maybe if we move forward, properly
    define what we actually are trying to do here.
        And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
        Mr. Wynn. Thank you. The subcommittee's going to stand in
    recess until the conclusion of this series of votes. We are
    going to reconvene 5 minutes after the conclusion of the last
    vote. Thank you.
        [Recess.]
        Mr. Wynn. The subcommittee will reconvene. At this point we
    are going to proceed directly with questions from Mr. Barrow of
    Georgia.
        Mr. Barrow. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I hear, and I can relate to Mr. Shimkus's point about how
    the toxic release inventory is sort of misleading nomenclature.
    I guess instead of TRI it might be best for us to rename it
    TMI, toxic management index, but TMI also means too much
    information. Some folks don't want us to have enough
    information.
        So I want to focus in on that concern of mine. I may agree
    with him that the use of the word, release, ain't Webster's
    definition of the word, release, but I will see him Webster's
    definition of release and raise him Webster's definition of
    small business, because I think the definition of small
    business that works for some purposes. It doesn't necessary
    apply in this context here.
        And you can think about something without thinking about
    the things which it relates. You have the quality of being
    either a good Congressional staffer or a good lawyer, but I
    want to talk about small business in a more practical sense,
    because I hear Mr. Sullivan's point. He is right. You know,
    little Mom and Pop outfits is one thing but 500 person,
    employees, especially when you are going to outsource so much
    of your stuff through contractors, who knows how that can be
    done.
        I am intrigued, though, and I want to pick up on his point
    about the so-called trillion dollar burden we are imposing on
    business in this country, and I can relate to that, but I
    wonder if we think about what the cost of the compliance regime
    in this country would be if it wasn't on the honor system,
    people investigating themselves, but if we had a shown-up
    police force that actually did the monitoring, came on the
    premises and monitored. Came on the premises and recorded, came
    on the premises and did the reporting. If we had third-party
    verification rather than the self-reporting regime we have, I
    would rather imagine that burden would be a great deal bigger.
        Which leads me to my question. How is range reporting going
    to lower that trillion dollar burden in a substantial way if
    you still have the burden of knowing and determining yourself
    through monitoring and assessment and recording and reporting
    to yourself, you still have the burden of determining exactly
    how much you are managing, how is it going to lower the cost if
    you just go ahead, to report it in broad ranges? I can tell you
    about range reporting. I have got an income that is a whole lot
    bigger than something I don't recognize. The range reporting
    regime we have got for Congressional income is something that I
    can't relate to at all, bears no relation to my real-life
    circumstances.
        And what I am getting at is if you got to know precisely
    how much you are managing and or releasing in order to be able
    to validly comply with the oath you got to take when you fill
    out the short form, just like you got to fill out that oath to
    fill out the long form, if you got to know down to the jot and
    tiddle how much you are managing, how much you are producing,
    how much you are handling in order to fill out a range report,
    why not go ahead and submit the precise report? Why not go
    ahead and say how much of that trillion dollar burden are we
    going to relieve by them, by forcing the small businesses and
    the medium sized and all to know precisely how much they are
    handled but not tell us, to keep that information secret.
        When you add to the fact that you are creating a tremendous
    incentive for folks to fudge a little bit. The honor system
    works better, I think, when you require people to be precise,
    but here you are actually inviting people to be vague and
    general in the reporting. Aren't you going to be inviting
    people to be vague and general in their ascertainment and their
    monitoring?
         I am concerned about that. Who can tell me how it is going
    to lower the cost and how much it is going to lower the cost if
    you still got to know and we are still imposing the burden of
    finding out and determining to your own satisfaction so you can
    take that oath, just exactly how much stuff you are generating.
        Mr. Sullivan, you want to try?
        Mr. Sullivan. I would love to try to respond to the
    Congressman.
        Mr. Barrow. Since I took most of my time leading up to
    this, I want you to be quick.
        Mr. Sullivan. First of all, we are in agreement about the
    honor system. I think that really the crux of EPA's reform is
    to incentivize the honor system.
        Mr. Barrow. Am I correct in understanding, though, that the
    rule still requires the managers to know and to monitor and
    determine exact, precisely, for them to know exactly how much
    it is, but we are still going to require them only to report it
    in general terms? And that is somehow going to incentivize them
    to produce less?
        Mr. Sullivan. If I may fully respond to the Congressman's
    question, I would like to try and point out that a small firm
    with 15 employees that wants to manufacture the brass for this
    distinguished hearing room is given a choice of making sure as
    a start up do we act responsibly, and there are a number of
    reasons why that person would want to act responsibly and
    manage the alloy responsibly so that the amount, the small
    amount of lead that is in there does not leave this facility,
    is not emitted or discharged.
        That is what is the incentive based in this EPA's reform.
    That is in sharp contrast to the old system that doesn't
    recognize this incredible innovator and entrepreneur who wants
    to start a domestic manufacturing of brass and says it doesn't
    matter if you send this outside of your facility or you have
    legally permitted emissions and discharges, because you are
    going to have to fill out the same long form anyway.
        So filling out the small form----
        Mr. Barrow. It seems to me that if we are going to require
    them to know what is in the long form and to determine what is
    in the long form, it is not that much weight of a burden for
    them to tell us what they already know, what they are already
    forced to know.
        Mr. Sullivan. We respectfully disagree. Any burden
    reduction is important in small business.
        Mr. Barrow. Mr. Najjum, in the 2 seconds I have, I had
    remaining, I want to ask you, you heard me talk about the
    situation in Augusta. Would your folks be willing to come down
    there and help us look into the situation at places like Hyde
    Park? Because we have got a community that is literally
    trapped. They can't, do they stay, do they go, and we need to
    bring the resources to bear, to help them evaluate whether or
    not staying is a viable option and how to deal with the unrest
    and the anxiety and the uncertainty of the folks who want to
    stay but also want to make sure that their neighborhoods are
    clean.
        Can you do something about that? Can you come down and look
    at Hyde Park?
        Mr. Najjum. We can talk with your staff about it, and if
    that means going down to look and see if there is something the
    IG can do, certainly.
        Mr. Barrow. Thank you.
        Mr. Wynn. Thank you, Mr. Barrow.
        At this time the Chair would recognize Mr. Pallone, sponsor
    of the TRI bill.
        Mr. Pallone. Thank you. I am going to try to get in a
    question or two about TRI, and then I want to ask an
    environmental justice question.
         Ms. O'Neill, in the GAO report they specifically say at
    one point here that the EPA's TRI burden reduction rule will
    reduce the amount of information about toxic chemical releases
    previously available to the public, and then it says that taken
    by facility some 3,500 facilities no longer have to report any
    quantitative information about their chemical use and releases
    to the TRI.
        With regard to EPA's assertion the critical information
    would be, would not be lost. The agency estimates that less
    than 1 percent of the total pounds of chemical releases would
    on longer be reported, however, we found the impact on data
    available to many communities could be more significant than
    EPA's National totals indicate, particularly at the local
    level.
        Do you disagree with any of those things?
        Ms. O'Neill. I disagree that communities will not be
    getting information. They will be getting information, and they
    can assume, because it is range related.
        Mr. Pallone. But they are saying there is going to be less
    information and that a lot of facilities won't be providing any
    information. Do you agree with that?
        Ms. O'Neill. Ninety-nine percent of the data will still be
    available. There will be some cases where it will be less data,
    but the most important data is available to the community and
    which is what chemical is being managed there, and that is the
    most important thing. And there is a whole suite of other
    information available to local communities. I think it is
    really important that we say that TRI is one set of data.
        Mr. Pallone. OK.
        Ms. O'Neill. And we really need to get, put that in context
    with other environmental data out there that I think is equally
    as important to the communities.
        Mr. Pallone. See, my problem is, and I will be honest with
    you, and I am not trying to denigrate you in any way, the whole
    notion of right-to-know in my opinion, I am only speaking for
    myself, is based on the idea that we can't trust industry to do
    the right thing, we can't even trust agencies and the
    Government, whether it be the Federal or the State or even
    Congress to do the right thing. And the best thing is to have
    transparency, throw everything out there as much as possible
    because the public will be, will react and take on whoever has
    to be taken on because we can't trust the industry or the
    Government to do it.
        So when you say that by raising the threshold you provide
    this incentive, you create an incentive for pollution
    prevention, it kind of goes against the whole philosophy of the
    right to know because you are saying, well, we will incentivize
    the companies or the potential polluter, if you will, and
    provide theoretically less information to the public.
        Well, the whole premise of the right-to-know is that we
    need to incentivize the public, not the potential polluter
    because we can't trust the company or the Government to do the
    right thing.
        I know that Mr. Stephenson at one point, how does raising
    the threshold achieve the objective of less toxic releases, I
    don't see it. So let me just ask you one thing.
        In proposing the new rule did the EPA conduct any studies
    on reporting reductions, creating incentives for pollution
    prevention? Prior to the new rule did the EPA conduct any
    economic analysis demonstrating an incentive affect with
    reduced reporting?
        In other words, you state that the EPA is working to
    determine the effectiveness of these incentives, but shouldn't
    they have determined the effectiveness of those incentives
    before changing the rule rather than hoping that this incentive
    is going to work? I don't, it doesn't seem to me you have
    enough evidence that the incentive works.
        Ms. O'Neill. Well, first of all, EPA did do a lot of
    analysis. They did economic analysis, they looked at a number
    of chemicals that might be affected. We looked at by ZIP Code
    communities that might be affected. We looked at the number
    forms that might switch over. So there was a lot of analysis
    that was put in this. There was discussions, it is my
    understanding there was discussions in terms of do companies if
    they have this opportunity, would they have incentive? I don't
    know in terms of analysis----
        Mr. Pallone. Do you really have any evidence? I have to
    ask, I want to go to one more question unrelated, but do you
    really have any evidence that the incentive will work?
        Ms. O'Neill. In terms of the incentive?
        Mr. Pallone. Yes.
        Ms. O'Neill. I will have to get back to you, quite frankly,
    to see what studies are there, but we can get back to you on
    that.
        Mr. Pallone. All right. I would appreciate that.
        I wanted to ask the Inspector General one question. I had a
    case of environmental, what I considered environmental racism.
    You may not be familiar with it. With the Ringwood Superfund
    Site in New Jersey, and this was a site where it was taken off
    the Superfund list, and myself and my two Senators made an
    issue of the fact that we didn't think there was proper
    cleanup, that we didn't think that the residents were properly
    informed about what was going on. We asked the IG to look into
    it from an environmental racism point of view because it was
    primarily a Native American community.
        The IG, thankfully, came back and said you have got to put
    this back on the Superfund list, you have got to do a more
    thorough cleanup, you didn't do enough to inform the residents
    about this, and all that happened. It is back on the list, a
    more thorough cleanup is being done. They are out there doing
    more public information hearings.
        But they said that there was no evidence that the reason
    this happened, all these bad things happened was because of
    social, cultural, or environmental ethnic reasons. And I guess
    my question is how do we prove that? This was a case of total
    negligence. They didn't do what they were supposed to do, and I
    believe it was because it was a Native American community. But
    it is hard to say, to pinpoint evidence, because they didn't do
    what they were supposed to do. They didn't have the public
    meetings, they didn't have, they didn't do the proper cleanup.
    I don't think anybody was stepping forward to say, we didn't do
    this because you were Native American.
        So I just question that evidentiary requirement. What do
    you require to show that the reason all these bad things
    happened and need to be corrected was related to the fact that
    these were Native Americans? How, what is the evidentiary
    basis? They said there is no evidence, but there is not much
    evidence of anything because they didn't do what they were
    supposed to do.
        Mr. Najjum. I understand the question and the concern,
    Congressman. I understand your frustration, but when we go as
    an IG looking for an audit or an evaluation, we have to have
    evidence and various ways to get it. We went through, in the
    case of Ringwood, yards of e-mails and documentation, anything
    that we could find that would show an indication or evidence
    that the actions or lack there of were based on the Native
    American population.
        Mr. Pallone. In other words, you have to have somebody
    actually saying that we didn't do this or we were negligent or
    we didn't report to these people because they are Native
    American in order for you to come to that conclusion? Nobody is
    going to say that.
        Mr. Najjum. Sometimes they do, sir. When you are going back
    looking through the records sometimes there are indications or
    there would be evidence that actions were taken or not taken in
    the official documents and also in the e-mails and other things
    that go along with that, that would show that people were
    making, or taking actions based on that. But short of that,
    yes, it is very difficult for an IG to look at something
    without comparing it to something else and say in nine out of
    10 cases they did this, and in this one case they did that.
        But then we would still be ascribing a particular motive to
    that, which may or may not be it. That is the problem we face,
    so when we say there was no evidence, we are not coming to a
    conclusion that it happened or it didn't happen. What we are
    saying is we can't prove that without evidence.
        Mr. Pallone. Well, I am going to, I know my time is up, but
    I am going to follow up if I could, Mr. Chairman, with some
    questions on this, because I really believe that more needs to
    be done to look at the cause, whether this really was an
    environmental justice issue.
        But I am sorry. Thank you. Thank you for letting me go over
    a little bit.
        Mr. Wynn. At this time the Chair would recognize Mrs. Capps
    for questions.
        Mrs. Capps. Thank you. I have three people I would like to
    question in this very short time period.
        A brief question, Mr. Nakayama, during the hearing you
    stated that the EPA Office of Environmental Justice has
    participated in very few agency rulemaking efforts.
        Mr. Nakayama. That is true, because we depend on----
        Mrs. Capps. Let me ask you the question. If EPA were about
    to develop a rule that on its face would apply primarily to
    minority, urban, low-income communities, wouldn't that be
    exactly the kind of rule that your Office of Environmental
    Justice should be actively involved in in order to insure that
    EJ impacts are addressed?
        Mr. Nakayama. We are trying to integrate environmental
    justice----
        Mrs. Capps. You believe you should be involved in those
    kind of----
        Mr. Nakayama. I believe the environmental justice
    activities impacts should be considered during the rulemaking.
    Now, we take the position that really we need to build the
    capability of the program office that is developing the rule so
    that they need to take the lead and conduct that EJ analysis,
    because they have special expertise, for example, on air rule,
    they may have expertise of the demographics, their air
    modeling.
        Mrs. Capps. So you don't believe you should be actively
    part of the rulemaking.
        Mr. Nakayama. We should be involved, but the primarily
    lead, we are trying to develop the capability to have the
    program office be the lead.
        Mrs. Capps. All right. Let me turn to Mrs. O'Neill, and
    this will take a little bit of a narrative because it is a
    company in my district that has been reporting its ammonia
    release data to TRI.
        As you know, this is a vegetable company in Santa Maria,
    CA, I happen to represent. I am very happy to. As you know,
    exposure to ammonia can irritate the skin, eyes, and
    respiratory system. Extreme exposure may cause death. The
    company's trend line on TRI starting in 1989, has been to
    reduce its ammonia releases year after year. In 1989, the
    company released 14,000 pounds of ammonia. It is now down to
    5,400 in the last report. This shows, in my opinion, that TRI
    is working, because it is motivating a company like Pick Sweet
    to lower its releases. And it is successful and has something
    to brag about as it is doing that.
        What I am concerned about is companies like this dropping
    out of detailed reporting. Requiring public disclosure provides
    a powerful incentive for facilities to continue to decrease
    toxic releases, provides community residents and first
    responders with vital information in cases of accidental
    releases, in cases of anything happening on the site. The TRI
    rule as proposed would have allowed this company to stop
    providing detailed reports to local emergency planning
    commissions.
        If it weren't for the changes to the proposed rule, would
    this company have been required to file detailed reports and
    provide that information to the local first responders? They
    were only 400 pounds away from the 5,000-pound disclosure
    threshold, and if they had gotten below that and didn't have to
    report it all, the public health people would not have known
    that there was 4,500 pounds of release.
        I would like your reaction.
        Ms. O'Neill. Well, again, on the Emergency Right-to-Know
    Act, the TRI report for EPCRA is broken out into several
    different sections. So under this we are not affecting the
    section for emergency planners at all.
        Mrs. Capps. No matter what the level?
        Ms. O'Neill. No matter what the level. This is just for TRI
    reporting. So EPCRA has several sections in it. OK. So some
    emergency responders use the TRI reports as supplemental
    information, and in that case they will still understand, in
    this particular case they will still have an understanding of
    what the chemicals of concern are there. But they rely on the
    different EPCRA section for all the hazardous materials that
    are there and their locations. So I just want to point that
    out.
        Mrs. Capps. Right. And so we want, I am saying wouldn't,
    shouldn't that continue no matter what the release so that
    they----
        Ms. O'Neill. It does continue for emergency response. What,
    you are talking about two different----
        Mrs. Capps. For emergency response it does?
        Ms. O'Neill. Well, this, the final rule does not affect
    EPCRA associated with emergency response reporting. OK. So what
    you are talking about is the TRI reports where the, for the
    impact for the final rule. And so depending on the type of
    chemical, and I don't have a list in front of me, I am not sure
    if they would meet the threshold. I don't know what else they
    have in their waste management. So they might have had to go
    further down. They might not have been 400 pounds.
        Mrs. Capps. They wouldn't have to report after they got
    below a certain----
        Ms. O'Neill. Well, it is a little bit more complicated than
    that because it is 5,000 for everything but there is a cap on
    the actual type of management and releases, which is 2,000
    pounds. So it may, it actually may incentivize them to go down
    even further. It may incentivize them.
        Mrs. Capps. Well, is there a way to find that out? I would
    like to follow up with you because----
        Ms. O'Neill. If you, yes, if you could submit the question
    so I know what the particular chemical is and the facility, it
    might be a lot easier to get back to you.
        Mrs. Capps. I will.
        I am thinking about first responders to an incident there
    to any kind of incident in the public where they need to have
    some way of knowing what they are walking into.
        Ms. O'Neill. Right, and again, what, the final rule is not
    for section 312 of EPCRA, which is the primary source of
    information for first responders.
        Mrs. Capps. Thank you. I just, I hope, may I have an extra
    few seconds to ask, I would like to get Mr. Stephenson to be
    able to comment on some of these incentives I have been talking
    about.
        The reporting and disclosure requirements in TRI I believe
    myself are very important incentives. Data is, for this company
    supports that conclusion. They worked hard to get their
    releases down. Other than the release of ammonia and accidents
    do happen, they are heading in the right direction. Releases
    were going down.
        What, I want your response if I could ask indulgence of the
    Chair, to----
        Mr. Stephenson. That is our point exactly. If you increase
    the threshold for reporting from 500 to 2,000 you are de-
    incentivizing them to go much below 2,000. So, if there is no
    burden reduction, why not keep the rule the way it was at 500
    pounds? We think that will provide the incentives necessary to
    keep----
        Mrs. Capps. Bring it all the way down.
        Mr. Stephenson. Bring it all the way down.
        Mrs. Capps. Thank you.
        Mr. Wynn. I would like to thank all the witnesses on this
    panel first for your testimony but also for your patience. I
    know we had a pretty considerable break. We appreciate your
    presence here, and as I said, members may be submitting written
    questions.
        Thank you very much.
        At this time I would like to call forth our second panel.
        While they are coming up, I would like to ask unanimous
    consent that two documents be inserted in the record. The first
    is a March 6, 2007, letter to the Honorable John Dingell and
    the Honorable Joe Barton signed by 40 individuals and public
    interest organizations expressing support for the Environmental
    Justice Act of 2007, and the second is a September 28, 2007,
    Dear Representative letter from 307 organizations urging
    support for H.R. 1055, the Toxic Right-to-Know Protection Act.
        Mr. Shimkus. Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Wynn. Yes.
        Mr. Shimkus. I think I am being drafted a unanimous consent
    as we speak.
        Mr. Wynn. Well, what I would like to do if there are no
    objections, the two letters that I have just referenced will be
    submitted to the record, and if at some point you would like to
    introduce or make a unanimous consent request, the Chair will
    certainly entertain that.
        Hearing no objections the two items that are mentioned will
    be entered into the record.
        Mr. Wynn. I would like to welcome our second panel and
    introduce them to you.
        First we have Mr. Hilary O. Shelton, director, National
    Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Washington
    Bureau.
        Second we have Dr. Robert Bullard, Ware professor,
    Department of Sociology, director, Environmental Justice
    Resource Center, Clark Atlanta University.
        Third we have Mr. Jose Bravo, executive director, Just
    Transition Alliance on behalf of the Communities for a Better
    Environment.
        Fourth, Mr. Andrew Bopp, director of public affairs,
    Society of Glass and Ceramic Decorators.
        Fifth, Mr. Alan Finkelstein, assistant fire marshal,
    Strongsville Fire and Emergency Services.
        And last but certainly not least Ms. Nancy Wittenberg,
    assistant commissioner, New Jersey Department of Environmental
    Protection.
        Again, I would like to welcome you, offer you 5 minutes
    each for your statements. Your full prepared testimony will, of
    course, be entered into the record.
        Mr. Shelton.

    STATEMENT OF HILARY O. SHELTON, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
       FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, WASHINGTON BUREAU,
                             WASHINGTON, DC

        Mr. Shelton. Good morning, Chairman Wynn and members of the
    subcommittee. I thank you for the opportunity this morning to
    testify before you.
        As you mentioned, my name is Hilary Shelton, and I am the
    director of the Washington Bureau of the National Association
    for the Advancement of Colored People. I have been invited here
    today to discuss environmental justice and communities' rights
    to know.
        Sadly, more than 40 years after the enactment of the Civil
    Rights Act of 1964, and the Fair Housing Act of 1968, we are
    still a much too segregated society. Centuries of legal
    segregation and Jim Crow and continuing America in which the
    amount of education received and the salary you earn is
    determined in a large part, unfortunately, by the color of your
    skin. And as a result, Americans still living in communities
    marked by concentrations of people who look alike. Even sadder,
    it is communities of color, neighborhoods with large
    concentrations of racial and ethnic minority Americans which
    bear a disproportionate share of the Nation's air, water, and
    toxic waste pollution problems. And since the places where
    people live and work have an enormous impact on their health,
    this disproportionate exposure to pollution leads to a more
    racial and ethnic minority Americans suffering from ill health.
        And perhaps the saddest part of all this is that the
    Federal Government has a proven track record of being less
    responsive to the needs of communities if color when pollution
    is a problem. As a seminal study in the National Law Journal in
    1992, stated, there is a, ``racial divide in the way the United
    States Government cleans up toxic waste sites and punishes
    polluters. White communities see faster action, better results,
    and stiffer penalties than communities where blacks, Hispanics,
    and other racial minorities live.''
        There have been several conclusive studies that
    demonstrate, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that communities of
    color are disproportionately targeted by polluters. As the
    United Church of Christ, ``Toxic Wastes and Race in Twenty,
    1987-2007,'' concluded, race is the most significant
    independent predictor of commercial hazardous waste facilities
    locations. In fact, a December 2, 2005, report by the
    Associated Press reported that 79 percent of African-Americans
    live in polluted neighborhoods.
        So what is the impact and cost of these disparities to
    communities of color? Perhaps most importantly it has been
    effectively argued that disparities in pollution are a leading
    cause of health disparities among America's populations. Many
    of the principle causes of death in the United States today,
    that is cancer, chronic lung disease, and diabetes, have
    significant environmental causes. Furthermore, the
    environmental causes of non-lethal conditions, including birth
    defects, asthma, learning disabilities, and nervous system
    disorders, are also well documented.
        The NAACP recognizes that one of the major hurdles facing
    this committee, as well as the Federal Government, is the fact
    that many of the zoning laws and regulations which determine
    who is exposed to hazardous pollution are made at the local
    level. This, however, does not and should not absolve the
    Federal Government from taking action to try to mitigate
    environmental injustices and help communities help themselves.
        The NAACP strongly supports the two bills that are the
    subject of today's hearings; H.R. 1103, the Environmental
    Justice Act of 2007, and H.R. 1055, the Toxic Right-to-Know
    Protection Act. If enacted, these bills will provide
    communities with powerful tools in their struggle against
    pollutants. By providing communities with details about the
    quantities and quality of the pollution in their air, water,
    and soil, they can make informed decisions and demands on their
    elected officials. An informed community is an empowered
    community.
        In my written testimony I elaborate on why the NAACP feels
    this legislation is necessary and important. For the record, I
    have also included in my testimony an excerpt from this month's
    Crisis Magazine, the magazine of the NAACP. The cover story of
    the July-August edition is on environmental justice, and within
    this article are several good examples of individuals and
    communities who have fought against polluters and pollution.
        I would again like to thank Chairman Wynn and Congresswoman
    Solis, Congressman Pallone and the other members of this
    committee for all of your efforts on this important issue.
        I would also like to thank Leslie Fields of the Sierra
    Club, Environmental Justice Department, for her assistance in
    preparing this statement, as well as the input of the group
    called Advocates for the Environmental Human Rights.
        With that I welcome your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Shelton follows:]

                          Statement of Hilary Shelton

        Good morning Chairman Wynn and members of the subcommittee.
    I thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today.
        My name is Hilary Shelton, and I am the Director of the
    Washington Bureau of the National Association for the
    Advancement of Colored People, the NAACP. The Washington Bureau
    is the public policy advocacy branch of our Nation's oldest,
    largest and most widely recognized grassroots civil rights
    organization. I have been invited here today to discuss
    environmental justice and communities' right to know.
        It is sad but true that today, more than forty years after
    Dr. King spoke to us in his ``I Have a Dream'' speech of one
    nation in which we all lived together under God, and despite
    the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and
    the Fair Housing Act of 1967 we are still a much too segregated
    society. Centuries of legal segregation and Jim Crow and a
    continuing America in which the amount of education you receive
    and the salary you make is determined in large part by the
    color of your skin have resulted in many Americans still living
    in communities marked by a concentration of people who look
    alike.
        Even sadder, it is communities of color, neighborhoods with
    large concentrations of racial and ethnic minority Americans,
    which bear a disproportionate share of the Nation's air, water
    and toxic waste pollution problems. And since the places where
    people live and work have an enormous impact on their health,
    this disproportionate exposure to pollution leads to more
    racial and ethnic minority Americans suffering from ill
    health--both physical and mental.
        And perhaps the saddest part of this all is that the
    Government, our American Government, has a proven track record
    of being less responsive to the needs of communities of color
    when pollution is a problem. As a seminal study on the National
    Law Journal in 1992 stated, there is a ``...racial divide in
    the way the United States Government cleans up toxic waste
    sites and punishes polluters. White communities see faster
    action, better results and stiffer penalties than communities
    where Blacks, Hispanics and other minorities live.''
        There have been several conclusive studies that
    demonstrate, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that communities of
    color are disproportionately targeted by polluters. Perhaps the
    most famous of these studies, by the United Church of Christ,
    is the 1987 study Toxic Wastes and Race in the United States,
    and the more recent follow-up, Toxic Wastes and Race at Twenty
    1987-2007. Both the 1987 and the 2007 UCC reports found race to
    be the most significant independent predictor of commercial
    hazardous waste facility locations when socio-economic and
    other non-racial factors are taken into account. In fact, as I
    am sure we will hear from more than one source today, in the
    2000 study the UCC study found that neighborhoods within 3
    kilometers of commercial hazardous waste facilities are 56
    percent people of color whereas non-host areas are 30 percent
    people of color.
        So what is the impact and cost on communities of color of
    these disparities? Perhaps most importantly, it has been
    effectively argued that disparities in pollution are a leading
    cause of the health disparities among America's populations.
    Many of the principal causes of death in the United States
    today (cancer, chronic lung disease and diabetes) have
    significant environmental causes. Furthermore, the
    environmental effects of non-lethal conditions (including birth
    defects, asthma, learning disabilities and nervous system
    disorders) are also well documented.
        The NAACP recognizes that one of the major hurdles facing
    this committee, as well as the Federal Government, is the fact
    that many of the zoning laws and regulations which determine
    who is exposed to hazardous pollution are made at the local
    level. This however does not, and should not, absolve the
    Federal Government from taking action to try to mitigate
    environmental injustices and help communities help themselves.
        The NAACP strongly supports the two bills that are the
    subject of today's hearing, H.R. 1103, the Environmental
    Justice Act of 2007 and H.R. 1055, the Toxic Right to Know
    Protection Act. If enacted, these bills will provide
    communities with powerful tools in their struggle against
    pollutants. By providing communities with details about the
    quantity and quality of pollutants in their air, water or soil,
    they can make informed decisions and demands of their elected
    officials. An informed community is an empowered community, and
    bills like H.R. 1103 and H.R. 1055 will provide individuals and
    neighborhoods with much-needed tools in their struggles to
    safeguard themselves and their families.
        H.R. 1055 corrects a January 2007 regulation by the U.S.
    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) which would allow up to
    ten times more pollution to be released by a facility before
    that facility is required to submit to EPA a detailed report of
    its emissions. EPA collects such reports in a publicly
    accessible database known as the Toxic Release Inventory or
    ``TRI.'' TRI has proven to be an effective tool for raising
    public awareness of the amounts and kinds of toxic pollution
    released by a variety of facilities, and providing support for
    public advocacy that has reduced toxic pollution levels.
    Without H.R. 1055, communities that are disproportionately
    burdened with toxic pollution will not have the vitally
    important information needed to protect their health and
    environment.
        For example, African Americans living in Mossville,
    Louisiana have been documented by EPA and a Federal Government
    health agency as having elevated levels of dioxin, an extremely
    toxic chemical that can cause cancer and harm the normal
    development of the unborn and children. Using TRI reports that
    were collected by EPA prior to its January 2007 rule change,
    the residents of Mossville were able to identify the industrial
    facilities operating near their community that release the same
    unique dioxin compounds that have been detected in their blood
    and environment. Without TRI reports, the people of Mossville
    would not have the ability to find the sources of their dioxin
    exposures, and call on EPA to take action that protects their
    health and the health of future generations.
        By requiring TRI reports to provide more complete
    information about toxic pollution, House Bill 1055 supports the
    right of communities to access reliable information regarding
    the pollution that affects their health and environment.
        H.R. 1103 also takes tremendous strides towards ensuring
    environmental justice. By codifying executive order 12898, H.R.
    1103 will strengthen compliance and enforcement of
    environmental justice goals at the Federal level. This
    Executive Order reinforced the promise of the Civil Rights Act
    of 1965, which prohibits discrimination in programs receiving
    Federal funds. In the years since Executive Order 12898 was
    issued, the EPA and other Federal agencies have adopted
    commitments to environmental justice. Yet numerous studies have
    concluded that significant action is still needed for EPA to
    integrate equity concerns into their operations in a way that
    will end this form of injustice for minority and low-income
    groups. H.R. 1103 would ensure that Executive Order 12898 is
    carried out faithfully and without delay.
        I would like to close my statement with a few examples of
    why H.R. 1103 and H.R. 1055 are necessary and the good they can
    do. For the record, I would like to include in my written
    testimony an excerpt from this month's Crisis Magazine, the
    Magazine of the NAACP. The cover story of the July / August
    edition is on Environmental Justice, and within the articles
    are several good examples of individuals and communities who
    have fought against polluters and pollution.
        Included in these articles is the story of Peggy Shepard,
    the co-founder of WE ACT, a community group focusing on
    cleaning up communities of color in New York City. Despite a
    strong organizational structure which was able to harness
    public outrage into demonstrations and effective legal
    strategies, Ms. Shepard reports that ``science, technology and
    research are also indispensable tools for a community in its
    struggle to create a safe and sustainable environment. Its lack
    is a void that contributes to communities of color being
    excluded from decision-making positions.''
        I would also like to thank Congressman Wynn, Congresswoman
    Solis, Congressman Pallone and the other members of this
    subcommittee for all of your efforts on this important issue. I
    would also like to thank Leslie fields of the Sierra Club's
    Environmental Justice Department for her assistance in
    preparing this statement, as well as the input of the group
    Advocates for Environmental Human Rights.
        I will happily take your questions.
                                  ----------

        Mr. Wynn. Thank you very much for your testimony.
        Dr. Bullard.

     STATEMENT OF ROBERT D. BULLARD, WARE PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF
      SOCIOLOGY; DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE RESOURCE CENTER,
                 CLARK ATLANTA UNIVERSITY, ATLANTA, GA

        Mr. Bullard. Good afternoon. My name is Robert Bullard, and
    I direct the Environmental Justice Resource Center at Clark
    Atlanta University. Mr. Chairman and members of the
    subcommittee, I want to thank you for holding this hearing.
        This year marks the 25th anniversary of Warren County, NC,
    PCB Landfill protests in 1982, that made headlines and ignited
    the environmental, the national environmental justice movement.
    This year also represents the 20th anniversary of the landmark,
    ``Toxic Wastes and Race at Twenty, Toxic Wastes and Race in the
    United States Report,'' published by the United Church of
    Christ.
        To commemorate this milestone, the UCC asked me to assemble
    a team of researchers to update that report. We did, and that
    report is titled, ``Toxic Wastes and Race at Twenty, 1987-
    2007.'' We released that report in March in Washington, DC.
        The findings, people of color make up the majority, 56
    percent of those living in neighborhoods with a 2-mile radius
    of the Nation's commercial hazardous waste sites, nearly double
    the percentage in areas 2 miles, more than 2 miles.
        People of color make up more than two-thirds, 69 percent,
    of the residents in neighborhoods with clustered facilities. It
    is easier to get two facilities if you have one. It is easier
    to get five if you have four.
        Nine out of 10 EPA regions have racial disparities in the
    location of hazardous waste facilities. I wrote a book in 1990,
    called, ``Dumping in Dixie.'' This is not a Southern phenomena.
    It is national.
        Forty of 44 States, 90 percent of the hazardous waste
    facilities have disproportionately high percentages of people
    of color in host neighborhoods.
        Conclusions: People of color are concentrated in
    neighborhoods and communities with the greatest number of
    facilities and people of color in 2007, are more concentrated
    in areas with commercial hazardous waste facilities than they
    were in 1987.
        Clearly, low-income and communities of color continue to be
    disproportionately and adversely impacted by environmental
    toxins. It has now been more than 13 years since President
    Clinton signed Executive order 12898, however, environmental
    justice still eludes many communities across this Nation.
        Numerous studies have documented that people of color in
    the United States are disproportionately impacted by
    environmental hazards in their homes, schools, neighborhoods,
    and workplace. Schools are not safe in some communities. A
    2001, report indicated that over 600,000 school children in
    Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Michigan, and California
    were, live within, these schools were located within a half a
    mile of a Federal Superfund site.
        When we look at the reports from GAO, from the EPA's
    Inspector General, it is clear that environmental justice from
    the Executive order is not being implemented. Numerous studies,
    the most recent study done by the Associated Press shows that
    79 percent of African-Americans live in the most dangerous
    facilities where, related to TRI.
        If you look at the whole question of the weakening of TRI,
    it is important to note that when you overlay the toxic release
    inventory database facilities with the commercial hazardous
    waste facilities and the other facilities that is located in
    communities of color and low-income communities, you have
    saturated communities. You have sacrifice zones. You have
    communities that not only bear a disproportionate burden but in
    many cases are fence-lined with facilities. And so when you
    tinker and tamper with a database that has been used for many
    years for longitudinal data and for comparative studies, it is
    important to understand that it is not just one facility that
    you are talking about or one database. You are talking about
    communities that are suffering.
        There are more than 36 recommendations from the report.
    There are 10 that were highlighted and lifted out and more than
    100 organizations around the country endorsed them. It is
    important to note that two of those 10 recommendations that
    were top priorities included passing a National Environmental
    Justice Act codifying the Executive order and protecting and
    enhancing community right-to-know, worker right-to-know,
    community and worker right-to-know so that H.R. 1103,
    Environmental Justice Act of 2007, and H.R. 1055, Toxic Right-
    to-Know Protection Act, fall hand in hand with the findings and
    the conclusions of the report.
        Getting Government to respond to environmental and health
    concerns of low income and people of color communities has been
    an uphill struggle. The time to act is now. Our communities
    cannot wait another 20 years. Achieving the environmental
    justice for all makes us a much healthier, stronger, and more
    secure Nation as a whole.
        I will be pleased to answer any questions that you may
    have. Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Bullard follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.054

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.055

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.056

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.057

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.058

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.059

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.060

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.061

        Mr. Wynn. Thank you very much for your testimony.
        Mr. Bravo.

    STATEMENT OF JOSE BRAVO, COMMUNITIES FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT,
     EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, JUST TRANSITION ALLIANCE, CHULA VISTA, CA

        Mr. Bravo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, members
    of the subcommittee for inviting us here to give testimony
    today. On behalf of Communities for a Better Environment and
    the Just Transition Alliance, I would like to thank you for
    inviting me to speak on the important issues of right-to-know
    and environmental justice.
        The bulk of my testimony is based on the courageous work of
    Communities for a Better Environment, where I serve as a board
    member. But my comments here today are also endorsed by the
    Just Transition Alliance, which I am the executive director of.
    Communities for a Better Environment is a California community-
    based environmental organization working for environmental
    justice in highly-industrialized areas of California,
    especially in communities of color and low-income communities
    that have been shown to bear the higher, a higher burden in
    concentration of toxic sources.
        We believe that with the weakening of the toxic release
    inventory California loses more ZIP Codes reporting to TRI than
    any other State in the Nation. The weakening of TRI by setting
    higher reporting thresholds causes California data, lost data
    from all reporting facilities for 64 of 502 ZIP Codes, and
    other California ZIP Codes also lose important data. This is
    tragic, because TRI has been so useful in identifying and
    prioritizing pollution sources, because reporting is so easy to
    do and because the act of reporting itself makes companies much
    more aware of their toxics use. Consequently, weakening, the
    weakening of the, of TRI must be rolled back.
        CBE has used the toxic release inventory since its
    inception as a fundamental right-to-know tool. For example, one
    of the earliest analyses documenting environmental racism was
    the 1989, CBE ``Richmond at Risk'' report. This analysis of
    TRI, Superfund, and demographic data demonstrated that much
    higher concentrations of topic sources and emissions are sited
    in areas with the highest populations of people of color.
    Reports like these were crucial to community-based campaigns
    that led to the development of new environmental justice
    policies by public agencies and the phase-out of unnecessary
    chemical use.
        CBE and many other community-based groups have continued to
    use the toxic release inventory in concert with demographic
    data to map cumulative exposure from large numbers of smaller
    toxic sources, which individually may have posed lower health
    risks, but because of geographic concentration presented
    formidable risks. CBE continued to use the data to document
    increased risks in our 1998, ``Building a Regional Voice for
    Environmental Justice'' report. And in hundreds of individual
    research efforts throughout the years. Frequently, community
    members have used TRI data themselves to push for local
    improvements.
        Our 2004, report found in southern California that African-
    Americans are a third more likely and Latinos nearly twice as
    likely to live in a census tract containing a facility emitting
    high-priority TRI pollutants. The racial differences in
    exposure persisted even when data was controlled for income,
    land use, and manufacturing presence. The racial chasm is also
    larger than emissions are, also larger when emissions are
    carcinogenic, the more dangerous the facility, the higher the
    likelihood that minorities are concentrated nearby.
        The continued undisrupted concentration of large numbers of
    industrial polluters in communities of color with highest
    incidents of health problems, including asthma, is a major
    reason why TRI reporting thresholds need to be restored to the
    lower thresholds for reporting.
        Reporting thresholds back down to 500 pounds instead of the
    new relaxed 2,000 pound threshold is crucial. Not only do
    concentrations of large numbers of smaller emitters cause toxic
    hotspots, but individual companies' emissions can fluctuate or
    grow. Failure to report at the lower significant level can
    cause companies to miss reporting when their emissions increase
    because they are accustomed to reporting. This can lead to many
    years of delay in identification of the problem emissions. In
    one case of a steel company located in a residential
    neighborhood in the Bay Area, the company's toxic emissions
    were causing frequent odor problems, and emissions were about
    500 pounds, but lower than 2,000 pounds, but growing. If TRI
    thresholds had been weakened at that time, the trend in
    documented emissions increases would have been identified.
    Neighbors pushed for cleanup, resulting in the company agreeing
    to install a carbon control plant.
        Some of the worst carcinogens such as methylene chloride
    and perchloroethylene previously widely used in California
    manufacturing are now more rarely used, thanks to community
    campaigns using TRI. These have been a widespread phase out by
    scores of California manufacturers of many carcinogens and
    early phase out in the past of ozone-depleting chemicals due to
    community publications of TRI data on individual companies and
    on regional concentration facilities, of facilities. Good and
    comprehensive TRI reporting was not only responsible for public
    health improvements in the past, but will also provide crucial
    safeguards for overuse of other toxic chemicals and toxic
    hotspot concentrations, which is still, unfortunately,
    widespread.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Bravo follows:]

                            Testimony of Jose Bravo

        Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee:
         On behalf of Communities for a Better Environment (CBE)
    and the Just Transition Alliance (JTA) I would like to thank
    you for inviting me to speak on the important issues of public
    right-to-know and environmental justice.
         The bulk of my testimony is based on the courageous work
    of CBE, where I serve as a board member. But my comments here
    today are also endorsed by the Just Transition Alliance for
    which I am executive director. Communities for a Better
    Environment is a California community-based environmental
    organization working for Environmental Justice in highly-
    industrialized areas of California especially in communities of
    color and low income communities that have been shown to bear a
    higher burden of concentration of toxic sources.

          With the weakening of the Toxic Release
    Inventory, California loses more zip codes reporting to the TRI
    than any other state in the nation. The weakening of the TRI by
    setting higher reporting thresholds causes California to lose
    data from all reporting facilities for 64 out of 502 zip codes,
    and the other California zip codes also lose important data.
    This is tragic, because TRI has been so useful in identifying
    and prioritizing pollution sources, because reporting is so
    easy to do, and because the act of reporting itself makes
    companies much more aware of their toxics use. Consequently the
    weakening of the TRI must be rolled back.
          CBE has used the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI)
    since its inception, as a fundamental Community Right-to-Know
    tool. For example, one of the earliest analyses documenting
    environmental racism was the1989 CBE ``Richmond at Risk:
    report. This analysis of TRI, Superfund, and demographic data
    demonstrated that much higher concentrations of toxics sources
    and emissions are sited in areas with the highest populations
    of people of color. Reports like these were crucial to
    community-based campaigns that led to the development of new
    Environmental Justice policies by public agencies, and to
    phaseout of unnecessary chemical use.
          CBE and many other community-based groups have
    continued to use the TRI in concert with demographic data to
    map cumulative exposure from large numbers of smaller toxic
    sources, which individually may have posed lower health risks,
    but because of geographic concentration presented formidable
    risks. CBE continued to use the data to document increased
    risks in our 1998 ``Holding Our Breath'' report, in our 2004
    ``Building a Regional Voice for Environmental Justice'' report,
    and in hundreds of individual research efforts throughout the
    years. Frequently community members have used the TRI data
    themselves to push for local improvements.
          Our 2004 report found in southern California that
    African-Americans are a third more likely and Latinos nearly
    twice as likely to live in a census tract containing a facility
    emitting high-priority TRI pollutants. The racial differences
    in exposure persisted even when data was controlled for income,
    land use, and manufacturing presence. The racial chasm is also
    larger when emissions are carcinogenic ``the more dangerous the
    facility, the higher the likelihood that minorities are
    concentrated nearby. Mobile sources of pollution just made this
    problem worse.
          The continued undisputed concentration of large
    numbers of industrial polluters in communities of color with
    the highest incidences of health problems (including asthma) is
    a major reason why the TRI reporting thresholds need to be
    restored to the lower thresholds for reporting.
          Putting the TRI reporting thresholds back down to
    500 lbs instead of the new relaxed 2,000 lb. threshold is
    crucial. Not only do concentrations of large numbers of smaller
    emitters cause toxic hotspots, but individual companies'
    emissions can fluctuate or grow. Failure to report at the lower
    significance level can cause companies to miss reporting when
    their emissions increase because they are not accustomed to
    reporting. This can lead to many years of delay in
    identification of problem emissions. In one case of a steel
    company located in a residential neighborhood in the Bay Area,
    the company's toxic emissions were causing frequent odor
    problems and emissions were above 500 lbs., but lower than
    2,000 lbs, but growing. If the TRI threshold had been weakened
    at the time, the trend in documented emissions increases would
    not have been identified. Neighbors pushed for cleanup,
    resulting in the company agreeing to install a carbon control
    system at the plant.
          CBE reports based on TRI data led directly to
    phase out of toxic chemicals at many industrial facilities,
    which operated even better without these chemicals. For
    example, after public campaigns based on TRI data, many
    companies using toxic solvents as degreasing agents found that
    they could eliminate the production steps introducing grease in
    certain metals processing, so that degreasing with toxic
    solvents became completely unnecessary. Other companies found
    that toxic cleaning solvents could be replaced with soap and
    water! Of course this did not cause the phaseout of all toxic
    chemicals, but it resulted in phaseout of many of the most
    unnecessary uses of toxics for many chemicals. It also pushed
    many companies to voluntarily minimize usage until alternatives
    could be phased in.
          Some of the worst carcinogens such as methylene
    chloride and perchloroethylene previously widely used in
    California manufacturing are now more rarely used, thanks to
    community campaigns using TRI data. There has been a widespread
    phaseout by scores of California manufacturers of to community
    publications of TRI data on individual companies and on
    regional concentrations of facilities. Good and comprehensive
    TRI reporting was not only responsible for public health
    improvements in the past, it will also provide crucial
    safeguards for future overuse of other toxic chemicals and
    toxic hotspot concentrations which still are unfortunately
    widespread.
          In the past, CBE identified many companies that
    failed to report to the TRI, skewing the data. To do this, CBE
    had to find data through painstaking research of individual
    local permit information (which is very inaccessible to the
    public, frequently taking months to receive). CBE succeeded in
    getting the non-reporting companies to submit their data to the
    publicly accessible TRI. Even more importantly, CBE won many
    dozens of EPA-approved settlements with these companies in
    which we convinced the companies to completely phase out use of
    the toxic chemicals in lieu of paying penalties for past
    failure to report. We helped the companies identify pollution
    prevention options and consultants, who often found that
    companies would MAKE money from chemical phaseout. As a result,
    millions of pounds of toxic, cancer-causing, and ozone-
    depleting chemicals were completely phased out by dozens of
    California companies.
          While community organizations like CBE have used
    the TRI data successfully for decades, we still have a long way
    to go and cannot afford to lose the full use of this important
    tool. Data shows persistent disparity in statewide patterns of
    toxic use, with continued higher exposure for African Americans
    and Latinos as compared to Anglos.
          We urge you to reinstate the strong TRI reporting
    requirements at the lowest thresholds.
                                  ----------

        Mr. Wynn. Thank you, Mr. Bravo.
        Mr. Bopp.

    STATEMENT OF ANDREW BOPP, DIRECTOR, PUBLIC AFFAIRS, SOCIETY OF
              GLASS AND CERAMIC DECORATORS, ALEXANDRIA, VA

        Mr. Bopp. Thank you, Chairman, and thank the committee for
    allowing me to testify today on EPA's efforts to reduce the
    paperwork burden of TRI reporting on small business. My name is
    Andrew Bopp. I am the public affairs director of Society of
    Glass and Ceramic Decorators. This group is made up primarily
    of companies that custom-print mugs and glassware including
    very small family businesses. And I noted that earlier people
    were referring to companies up to 500. I am talking of
    companies around 15 to 20 employees and then, well, I will get
    into this.
        I have worked with SGCD members for 10 years now, including
    business owners like Nancy Klinefelter, who is president of
    Baltimore Glassware Decorators. I have tried to help her as she
    grapples with the regulatory issues related to operating a
    business where lead is a necessary part of the process. Nancy
    testified on the TRI burden reduction before the Senate EPW
    Committee back in January, and she was eager to be here today.
    Unfortunately, the nature of a small business, she is at a
    trade show in Maryland. No one else from her company could do
    it, so she couldn't be here, so I am basically speaking for her
    and others like her.
        As with most regulations as has been pointed out before,
    the TRI reporting burden creates far more problems for small
    business than for large business. Companies like Nancy's
    especially, and again, we are talking 15, 20 employees, not the
    500 threshold people referred to earlier. To give you an idea
    of the type of company I am talking about, Baltimore Glass was
    started by Nancy's brother back in 1977, with the help of her
    father, who had worked in the glass industry for more than 50
    years. They employ 15 employees, like I said before, including
    Nancy's mother, who works in the office, her father, who acts
    as general manager, and her brothers who work in sales and
    production. This is truly your family-type business that we are
    talking about. They employ no engineers on staff, certainly no
    environmental engineers, so the TRI burden, it falls entirely
    on Nancy.
        Baltimore Glassware is not a unique company. It represents
    the typical wholesale glass and ceramic decorator in this
    country. They print small quantities of glass and ceramic ware,
    such as mugs as Mr. Shimkus showed, for ad specialty,
    restaurants, souvenir-type uses. When custom printing these
    mugs or glasses, companies may use lead-bearing enamels on the
    outside surfaces to achieve the color and mainly durability
    demanded by customers.
        As a rule, unleaded enamels do not have the durability,
    gloss, or color ranges the customers require. It is not a case
    of, oh, we are just going to choose to pick this. It is a case
    of you either get the order or you don't, which means something
    in business.
        These lead-free colors do not hold up well for abrasion of
    deterioration in dishwashers. It is very important to
    understand that the leaded colors become a part of the glass
    after they are fired. Also, due to the cost of these colors,
    Baltimore Glass and all the companies like them use what is
    needed and the rest goes back on the shelf. These are not
    companies that are emitting as I will get to.
        I am testifying today really in support of EPA's recent
    burden reduction rule that allows companies such as Baltimore
    Glass to use the TRI Form A instead of the more complicated
    Form R. To do so, and this is the important thing, they must
    meet very strict eligibility requirements. It is really similar
    to using the 1040EZ instead of the 1040, if you qualify. You
    are still reporting everything, but you get to do it in a
    simpler way.
        To qualify, that decorator, Nancy's company or a company
    like them, must use less than 500 pounds of lead in a year, and
    again, that is use, not release, and the key is they must
    report zero release of lead onsite and offsite. They have to
    report nothing. So this is not a case of losing information.
    This is a case of nothing. She is able to do it on a simpler
    form. Essentially all of the information that the neighbors
    need is what lead is released, like Congressman Shimkus
    referred to earlier, the release. That is what counts.
        Baltimore Glass does exceed the threshold of 100 pounds
    used in a year to enter into the program, and they exceed the
    employee threshold of 10 employees to get into the program, but
    barely, so there they are. They are in the program with major
    companies using the Form R.
        I have spoken with Nancy every year as she has attempted to
    complete the Form R properly, but every year she receives
    notices from EPA that paperwork corrections are needed. These
    changes do no reflect the failure to report color use or
    release. They just reflect paperwork errors. For example, last
    year she received a 13-page notice from EPA that informed her
    she had not identified lead compounds by their correct CAS
    number. This is a small businesswoman who is expected to look
    through these different forms that engineers process to fill
    out a report. Using Form A streamlined the process for Nancy
    since it was used for the 2006 report, and she has to date not
    received any questions from EPA on her last report.
        Remember, again, small business. Time spent on completing
    paperwork is time that Nancy and others like her cannot spend
    on doing things like supervising employees, working with
    customers, and more importantly, looking for new business.
    Glass and ceramic decorators face brutal competition like many
    manufacturers from Chinese decorators. The reality is that
    paperwork burdens add to the cost of doing business by
    absorbing staff time. EPA estimated in the final rule that
    companies would save 15\1/2\ a year of staff time if they
    qualified to use the Form R. That was brought up earlier, and
    that is 2 days worth of work for someone. That may not mean
    much to a large company, but it means a lot, a real lot to a
    small company. Nancy said this, she said this before the EPW
    Committee.
        SGCD and responsible small business owners like Nancy do
    believe that it is important to keep track of any releases that
    might impact their neighborhoods where they live. She lives
    there. Or the environment. That has not changed as a result of
    EPA's new burden reduction rule. If a decorator like Nancy has
    a release, no matter how miniscule or even if it is managed
    offsite, they will be required to use Form R as in the past.
    One and you are back on Form R.
        If a company manages, like Nancy's, its burden production
    process during the year to avoid any release, then you can use
    the Form A. That acts as an incentive to eliminate release, and
    it definitely does. I talk to her every year she is doing the
    paperwork, and it is confusing every year.
        SGCD does commend EPA for listening to our concerns and
    making an effort to reduce the TRI paperwork burden without
    impacting the information that decorators provide to the public
    through the TRI Program. I urge this committee to support such
    paperwork burden reduction efforts which are critical to
    maintaining the competitiveness of business in this country,
    especially small business.
        Thank you, again, for the opportunity to testify.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Bopp follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.062

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.063

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.064

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.065

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.066

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.067

        Mr. Wynn. Thank you, Mr. Bopp.
        Mr. Finkelstein.

        STATEMENT OF ALAN FINKELSTEIN, ASSISTANT FIRE MARSHAL,
         STRONGSVILLE FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES, TRENTON, NJ

        Mr. Finkelstein. Good afternoon. My name is Alan
    Finkelstein, and I would like to thank Chairman Wynn and Mr.
    Shimkus and the subcommittee members for permitting me to come
    in and give testimony for this hearing. I would like to also
    thank Mr. Shimkus for acknowledging my existence before. I
    appreciate the acknowledgement.
        I am here today because I wanted to speak in support of the
    Toxic Right-to-Know Protection Act, H.R. 1055. I want to make
    some clarifications. I am not here on behalf of my fire
    department. I am not here on behalf of the Cuyahoga County
    Local Emergency Planning Committee or any other organization I
    am associated with.
        I also need to make some clarifications. Mr. Shimkus made a
    statement before regarding the fact that first responders don't
    make use or wouldn't make use of the TRI in their response, and
    that is correct. I take credit for making that comment on a
    conference call that was last, made last winter, to which there
    were several replies. It was not my intent for anybody to think
    that first responders would make use of 313 rather than 311 and
    312, which are the extremely hazardous substances, and those
    are required to be reported.
        I have been in the fire service for 25 years, and for the
    last 15 years I have been involved with hazardous materials
    response in planning as well our hazard emergency planning that
    goes on within my city and Cuyahoga County. I have done
    extensive work with the Local Emergency Planning Committee and
    with the U.S. EPA Region 5 as far as getting chemical reporting
    in and working with facilities to help make them safer.
        The toxic release inventory provides us with information
    that we wouldn't ordinarily have. There are some chemicals at
    facilities or materials at facilities that aren't covered under
    any other section of EPCRA. A facility in my jurisdiction has
    copper and manganese in inventory. They are not covered under
    any other section of EPCRA. They don't provide a hazard
    probably as far as release because generally they are not in
    particulate form, however, for the workers they are a hazard
    and for responders they are a hazard if they go into that
    building. We need to make sure that they have the proper
    respiratory protection for themselves.
        As the fire prevention officer for my city, I am
    responsible for the facilities, protecting their workers and
    for staff in general.
        There are a couple of things that I learned when I was in
    my original fire school way back in the dinosaur age, and there
    are two things that stood out for me were that life safety is
    always the first priority for firefighters, and for the
    citizens at large. The second thing is that pre-planning is
    important before an incident happens. Toxic release inventory
    gives us information about facilities that may not be available
    in other sections. It also helps us address things with the
    facility. If they have issues, we can help, also help them out
    as far as their planning goes.
        There are sections of the Clean Air Act, section 112(r),
    which is the risk management plan, and also the Emergency
    Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act which were created to
    help jurisdictions get the information they need for planning
    and response. It was also created to help the citizens get
    information for the facilities in their jurisdictions and which
    they live around. Because of concerns about homeland security,
    a lot of the things, a lot of the information that was
    available is no longer available to citizens except on a case-
    by-case basis. It makes things difficult for them.
        By increasing the reporting threshold from 500 to 5,000
    pounds for most facilities and enabling facilities to use the
    Form A, which doesn't provide any quantitative information
    about what is present at the facilities, it basically just
    tells us that a facility is there. It doesn't give us any
    information. There have been some companies that complained
    that the TRI reporting was overly burdensome and that it was
    expensive. My contention is that the cost of not reporting it
    and having people get injured or killed is a lot more
    expensive.
        Basically as far as the reporting goes, it is the
    responsibility of business to make sure that they are safe. It
    may benefit the facility because they have transparent
    operations. It lets the citizens know that they are being open
    and correcting in what they have out there, and our facilities
    tend to be thinking along those lines.
        One of the side benefits resulting from toxic release
    inventory and the risk management plan being out there is that
    facilities decrease their inventories and change their
    processes so that they can minimize the amounts of chemicals
    they have on site at any one time. We have facilities that are
    required to report 10,000 pounds of ammonia if they have it in
    inventory. They have decreased the size of their tanks down to
    7,000 pounds. So they save money by not having to file the
    reports in certain areas of EPCRA and RMP, and they also save
    on product because they don't need to keep so much on hand.
        The safety is also benefited by having those reductions
    made in the amount that is present and also there are
    inherently safer processes being used. For the small business
    people or the Small Business Administration, I would also like
    to add that if facilities need environmental contractors to
    come in and help them do their paperwork, they are able to do
    so, and it helps the small businesses out.
        The last point I would like to make, I cut it a lot
    shorter. You have the written ones. I wanted to keep it a
    little bit shorter, is that the facilities are generally
    located in areas where there are low-income people who have the
    most risk of health problems because they don't have healthcare
    available to them, and they also have the least political
    voice.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Finkelstein follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.068

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.069

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.070

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.071

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.072

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.073

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.074

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.075

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.076

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.077

        Mr. Wynn. Thank you very much, Mr. Finkelstein. We are
    going to have to be a little tight, because as you can tell,
    there is a vote.
        I want to get Ms. Wittenberg's testimony in before we go to
    the vote.
        Ms. Wittenberg.

      STATEMENT OF NANCY WITTENBERG, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, NEW
       JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, TRENTON, NJ

        Ms. Wittenberg. Thank you. I will keep it short. I
    optimistically wrote good morning. Good afternoon now. I will
    learn my lesson. My name is Nancy Wittenberg. I am the
    assistant commissioner of environmental regulation for the New
    Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.
        New Jersey has got a unique perspective on the TRI issue.
    We have combined implementation of several laws in New Jersey,
    including our own Worker and Community Right-to-Know Law, our
    own Pollution Prevention Act, and the Federal Emergency
    Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act. The burden reduction
    didn't impact New Jersey. We combined our forms into one form,
    so regardless of what EPA did, facilities in New Jersey that
    would be required to submit any form, be it A or R, to DEP have
    to submit to us a different form, which is called a Release and
    Pollution Prevention Report.
        It is much like the Form R, but maybe it is a little easier
    to do because we have never had any complaints from small
    business. I checked. I went online, I worked through the form
    myself. We have pretty much simplified it down as best we
    could.
        What we did sort of to make the point today was we looked
    back over the data we have gotten over the years compared to
    what we wouldn't have gotten if we had been subject to the
    burden reduction in the State and just to throw out some of the
    numbers quickly that we came up with is that we do a trends
    report, which is perhaps one of the best things we get out of
    our TRI data. And in my submitted testimony is the link to get
    that. We would have missed out on knowing about over a million
    pounds of cancer-causing compounds used in the State of New
    Jersey. That includes 21,000 pounds of waste arsenic. All of
    our arsenic data would be lost to us if that reporting level
    changed. One hundred, twenty-two thousand, four hundred and
    sixty-five pounds of styrene, 175,000 pounds of chromium, 44
    different carcinogen data would have been lost to us
    completely. Six-thousand, seven hundred and seventy-three
    pounds of production-related waste for PBTs over just the last
    4 years, 30 municipalities in New Jersey wouldn't have had any
    of their facilities report at all. So we would have lost a
    significant amount of data.
        In terms of EJ, we looked at two urban areas in New Jersey:
    Linden and Camden. Just over the past 2 years if we had been
    subject to burden reduction, in Camden four facilities would
    not have to report at all, and every facility in Camden is
    right next door to where a lot of people live. In Linden six
    facilities would not have had to report at all, and each of
    these facilities use PBTs including lead as well as
    carcinogens. So that would be a significant loss to those
    communities to know about the use of those substances.
        Clearly, New Jersey has seen the benefits of having this
    data, and we went back and looked at what we wouldn't have had
    should this change impacted us. So we are very supportive. My
    testimony has much more information. I am keeping it short.
        Thanks.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Wittenberg follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.078

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.079

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.080

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.081

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.082

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.083

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.084

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.085

        Mr. Wynn. Thank you very much. Short but effective.
        I want to thank all the witnesses. Unfortunately, we do
    have a vote on. We have two votes, a 15-minute and a 5-minute,
    so I think it is safe to say that we probably wouldn't be back
    before, about 25 minutes if you want to take a break, get a
    sandwich, or something like that. We will be back, we will have
    questions following that. Thank you.
         The subcommittee stands in recess.
        [Recess.]
        Mr. Wynn. They will probably be drifting in. If someone
    sees them, just let them know. In the meantime, I think what I
    would like to do is go ahead and start. I know Mr. Bopp has
    another engagement. I just have a couple of quick questions
    that I will start with.
        The Chair recognizes himself for questions.
        Mr. Bopp, I am sympathetic to small businesses, but I want
    to cover a couple things. One, we are talking about electronic
    filing for the most part I think.
        Second, you mentioned lead a number of times. Does your
    client deal with other chemicals in her processes, or is she
    primarily concerned about reporting on lead?
        Mr. Bopp. It is really just lead.
        Mr. Wynn. OK. So basically we have a situation of
    electronic filing with one chemical, and isn't it true to
    phrase this other question, isn't it true that basically once
    you, after the first year, your basic data, name, address,
    location, type of chemical, all is pretty much set. You just
    touch the button.
        Mr. Bopp. Right.
        Mr. Wynn. So is it reasonable to say that it is less
    burdensome in subsequent years than it is in the first year?
        Mr. Bopp. It would seem so. For her, though, and I wish she
    were here because she could answer this a heck of a lot better
    than me, but she still files the paper forms. So, again, this
    is someone who actually complains frequently about being forced
    into the electronic forms. So she still does the paper forms. A
    lot of the time that is spent is in tracking the lead use and
    the colors because every color has a different percentage of
    lead.
        So, and, again, from her experience, like I have said,
    every single year she has gotten something back from EPA saying
    that something she has done is not correct. Again, there are no
    releases there, but this is, again, a very small company.
    Obviously they are computerized, who isn't, but she is not very
    comfortable with working on the web, and again, I wish she were
    here, because she would say exactly that, and she often really
    gets wound up over things like that.
        Mr. Wynn. Are there any other witnesses, do any other
    witnesses want to make a comment on the small business problem?
    I think Ms. Wittenberg----
        Ms. Wittenberg. The only thing I would say is that from New
    Jersey's perspective and we have been doing this a long time,
    and it is a State program, so we provide as much assistance as
    we can, we have never had a complaint from small business about
    burden, about cost. I checked every office we had to make sure
    that, over the years, we have a small business assistance
    office.
        As I said, our forms are on-line, it is mandatory
    electronic. The form is set up to be pretty user friendly, but
    it has not been an issue for the small businesses in our State
    anyway to date to do the reporting.
        Mr. Wynn. Thank you. Mr. Shelton, I appreciate your
    testimony, and I know you said there are instances, and I am
    aware of instances in which the environmental justice issue has
    really caused hardship. I was wondering if you could help us
    put a human face on this if you might relate one of the
    situations that the NAACP has encountered.
        Mr. Shelton. Thank you very much. We visited the small town
    of Gainesville, GA, very close to a rather large production
    facility. If you walked into this local community, what you see
    is some very pristine, working class homes on a street that
    slopes down to a very, very nice public playground at the
    bottom of this very nice and pristine community. Just past the
    playground you see a drainage ditch and just on the other side
    of that you see a rather large facility.
        That large facility has a number of smokestacks that pour
    out toxins and so forth into the air. Interestingly enough, it
    was the facility that actually paid for that very, very nice
    playground and the great part and the great area that we had a
    chance to visit.
        We walked through the community and actually stopped by
    each door on a one-block, both sides of the street, and stopped
    at each house in which a member of the community actually had
    some form of cancer. What we found as we moved through the
    streets and put a black ribbon on the steps, on the railing of
    each of the houses that actually got through stopping by many
    to visit to find out in many cases that more than one member of
    the family actually has some kind of cancer. We stopped and
    visited one young man, 30 years of age, living with his mother,
    his sister, and all three had some type of cancer. Mother had a
    form of throat cancer, he had a form of a lung cancer, his
    sister had a form of ovarian cancer, but this seemed to go on
    on both sides of the street and throughout this entire city
    block. As we got to the block after laying these black ribbons,
    we turned around and looked back, and quite frankly, Mr.
    Chairman, we were stunned and shocked to see that nearly every
    house on this street, 20 houses on each side of the street,
    almost every house had a black ribbon in front of it. It was
    shocking to see how pollutants like this actually destabilized
    the entire families and for that matter entire communities.
        Mr. Wynn. Thank you very much. That has been the
    observation that many of us have been able to make in
    conversations in different parts of the country, and I
    appreciate you sharing that with us.
        At this time I am going to relinquish the balance of my
    time to my ranking member, Mr. Shimkus.
        Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr.----
        Mr. Wynn. Excuse me. I would like to relinquish my time and
    recognize for a full 5 minutes. You didn't see that coming. A
    full 5 minutes for questioning to Mr. Shimkus.
        Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        A lot of the statements that are made in the second panel
    talks about the community not knowing, having information, the
    right-to-know. I don't disagree with any of that.
        If we could change the definition so that release really,
    so that TRI isn't toxic release, because we know as you heard
    in the, you all sat in the first panel, that it really is toxic
    use, management, and release inventory, no one here would have
    a problem with that, would they?
        Why don't you just, Mr. Shelton?
        Mr. Shelton. It doesn't matter to us what you call it.
        Mr. Shimkus. Right.
        Mr. Shelton. The importance that----
        Mr. Shimkus. Yes. I think there is a problem with what you
    call it, because you by definition tell business and this form
    says you are releasing toxics, where many times they are not.
    They may be good stewards, so if we could just change the
    terminology and still get the same information, you wouldn't
    have a problem with that.
        Mr. Shelton. As long as all the data is collected at the
    same levels quite frankly. As a matter of fact, we would then
    begin to push you further to collect even more data.
    Nonetheless, as long as the data is collected don't care a
    whole lot about what you call it as long as you continue to
    collect that data.
        Mr. Shimkus. OK. Mr. Bopp.
        Mr. Bopp. No. I think that is a very good idea, because,
    again, people look at that----
        Mr. Shimkus. Mr. Finkelstein.
        Mr. Finkelstein. I concur. I think that that is the ideal
    way to go.
        Mr. Shimkus. Ms. Wittenberg.
        Ms. Wittenberg. Not a problem.
        Mr. Shimkus. Not a problem. Great. Thank you.
        I do have unanimous consent to have inserted into the
    record of this hearing a letter supporting analysis submitted
    both, to both of us and dated today from the Business Network
    for Environmental Justice on H.R. 1103. I understand from staff
    that this information was transmitted to your staff yesterday,
    and we were told at the staff level that the majority would
    have no objection to its inclusion.
        Ms. Solis [presiding]. Without objection.
        Mr. Shimkus. Thank you.
        Ms. Solis. It will be entered into the record.
        Mr. Shimkus. And then Mr. Bopp, thanks for staying. I think
    it is important.
        Your fellow, and remember, those of us who really, and we
    are trying to talk about small business. I have problems with
    that definition, what is it, 500, 250?
        Mr. Bopp. Yes.
        Mr. Shimkus. But most of us in rural America, small
    business is small business. It is 30 employees or less. Small
    business creates 50 percent of all new jobs in America.
        Mr. Bopp. Uh-huh.
        Mr. Shimkus. Are those Mom and Pops that create new jobs.
    So your testimony is important, and I appreciate you coming
    here, and I appreciate you staying.
        Obviously, your fellow panelists has overwhelmingly
    questioned the EPA's TRI burden reduction proposal. They keep
    pointing to overwhelming amount of comments against this rule.
    Why is this burden reduction so important?
        Mr. Bopp. Again, the thing I keep coming back to is for
    these small businesses it is zero releasers who are getting
    reduction. Companies in the glass and ceramic industry face
    real, real, real tough competition from overseas. Every 2-day
    period, which is what the savings would be that it saved, is
    valuable. It is helpful, and again, to report nothing. If you
    are reporting something, our, to use the case of Nancy once
    again, she lives in the neighborhood. She is the last one who
    is going to want to have dumping in her neighborhood.
        So to make it simpler for her, to save her time to just
    make things better for business without losing any release
    information, I don't see how that is bad.
        Mr. Shimkus. Would any of your members or other fellow
    small businesses be except from reporting under the new rule?
        Mr. Bopp. No. It is, you are either on the Form R or the
    Form A. If you release anything at all, you are back on the
    Form R, and one pound transmitted offsite, you are back on Form
    R.
        Mr. Shimkus. Is the TRI, hopefully TUMRI, if we can change
    that, is TRI the only environmental health or product safety
    rule that you need to follow?
        Mr. Bopp. Not at all. Starting with the final product FDA
    has heavily regulated the use of metals on tableware for years.
    OSHA rules take precedence for worker exposure possibly in
    these situations, various States have different rules. As you
    can imagine, when there is lead in the consumer product, FDA
    has regulated this tightly for 35 years. It is sort of, it is
    like leaded crystal. Lead is there. It is, if there is no lead,
    there is no leaded crystal. That doesn't mean it is dangerous
    in that form.
        So it is highly regulated already.
        Mr. Shimkus. And are Nancy's mugs and the paint on them
    regulated by anyone else or in any other way? Probably the same
    question.
        Mr. Bopp. Same question basically. Yes. Those agencies
    basically, again, for products using lead, they are heavily,
    heavily, heavily regulated.
        Mr. Shimkus. And Dr. Bullard and Mr. Bravo, the question I
    asked before you returned was if reporting is all the same,
    would you be supportive of changing the TRI phrase to TUMRI,
    that is my new lobbying, which would be the toxic use,
    management, and release inventory?
        The other panelists, I don't want to sway you, they all
    said they wouldn't have a problem. I am--could be an amendment,
    so would you have, if everything else stayed the same, we just
    changed, release, and added, use, management, and release.
        Mr. Bullard. Well, Congressman, I would not have a problem
    with changing that as long as everything stayed the same.
        Mr. Shimkus. OK.
        Mr. Bullard. We have lots of names for facilities and
    reporting requirements like sanitary landfill.
        Mr. Shimkus. Yes. I just want to get clarify. I am just
    trying to bring clarity here.
        Mr. Bravo.
        Mr. Bravo. Yes. Likewise what Dr. Bullard is saying. I
    wouldn't have a problem with that, but there is something to be
    said about names.
        Mr. Shimkus. Yes. That is right. And I am just, I thank
    you. I went over my time. Yield back.
        Ms. Solis. OK. Then I guess I am the closing person here,
    but I have a lot of questions.
        Mr. Bopp, you mentioned that there is a burden that is
    shared by small businesses, and you say in the application
    process and applying for this information.
        What is the real cost, though, of compiling that
    information that they have to by law do anyway? It doesn't mean
    that they are going to be left without having to do that, so
    can you give me an idea of what that is, that they currently
    have to do anyway?
        Mr. Bopp. Absolutely. Yes. Nancy, I believe she even said
    in the EPW testimony back in February estimates without having
    formally done anything that about 130 hours go into calculating
    the colors used during the year by all employees, because,
    again, if you are decorating 20 different types of mugs a day
    with multiple colors, you have to track each color. Each color
    has a different amount of lead, and so----
        Ms. Solis. But she is still going to be required under law
    to do that anyway.
        Mr. Bopp. She still has to do that. Absolutely.
        Ms. Solis. So, that is not really what we are talking about
    here. We are talking about in this proposal by EPA is to reduce
    the information so all you are going to, all we are really
    talking about is that one application and which to me sounds de
    minimus in some sense.
        Mr. Bopp. According to EPA it is 15\1/2\ hours. So if Nancy
    were here, and I will speak for her, that is 2 whole days when
    she could be doing something else.
        Ms. Solis. Right. And I understand that.
        Mr. Bopp. So, and, again, it is, I think the key thing here
    is in this case for lead to be on that simpler form she has to
    be reporting zero release onsite and offsite. So I don't see
    how being on a simpler form, that is the key thing we are
    reporting here.
        Ms. Solis. Well, she also makes a choice by running her
    business that contains that kind of contaminants. So those are
    choices that business people make. So everyone in our society
    we usually agree that everyone pays under the law.
        Mr. Bopp. Oh, absolutely.
        Ms. Solis. So that is what is happening here.
        So, anyway, my other question is for Dr. Bullard. Thank you
    so much for coming and Mr. Bravo and all the panelists
    obviously, but I wanted to ask you with respect to the comment
    that was made earlier by Ms. O'Neill, what you feel about the
    fact that just 1 percentage of less information is going to be
    made available.
        What does that mean for communities of color and
    underrepresented areas?
        Mr. Bullard. I think it is important to understand that 1
    percent across the board may not seem like a large number for
    the kinds of releases that we are talking about or the number
    of facilities, but if you are talking about communities that
    are already overburdened, communities that already have more
    than their ``fair share'' of types of emitting facilities, you
    are not talking about a level playing field.
        Ms. Solis. So maybe what you, I am trying to understand. So
    I am looking in my own district where we have maybe in the city
    of Industry, near my district, you have several different
    industry-run organizations that have heavy, heavy
    concentrations of pollutants, whether it is paint, whether it
    is battery acid and arsenic and what have you. And if you are,
    you are taking some people off that list, it doesn't mean that
    it lessens the toxicity in the air or the water.
        And I guess that is what I am trying to understand is, in
    your opinion is that what would happen? We are not taking away
    the facility. The facility is still going to be there.
        Mr. Bullard. Right. The facility will still be there.
    Again, when you talk about one facility that may produce a
    small amount of pollution, it may, the toxicity level for that
    one facility may be such that it creates a huge health problem,
    health threat in those communities that are already
    overburdened and saturated.
        Ms. Solis. And so my concern, too, is that OMB asked EPA to
    work towards a national figure instead of looking at the
    localities that we have been hearing today from our witness
    from Mr. Chairman, and that is why I think when people somehow
    disregard the importance of environmental justice, that we are
    trying to somehow capture why it is important to have an equal
    playing field, because so many times we are not looked at
    adequately. And I know that is the case right now in my
    district. I have three Superfund sites, and we have high levels
    of contaminants, perchlorate in our water, which is another
    discussion that we have had before.
        And we have, this is, there is no scientific evidence yet,
    but I wish we could collaborate and have HHS here at another
    time to collaborate the data for incidents of diseases as well
    as high asthma rates, high incidence of epilepsy, cancer, and
    what have you. In an area where I grew up nearby a battery
    recycling plant where acid, arsenic was produced and disposed
    of, our water has been contaminated.
        Thank goodness for local jurisdictions in our State of
    California because we have Proposition 65, which requires
    notification. And most people will read a flyer that you will
    get in the mail, but they won't even understand what that
    means, and it means to be aware of, that there are some maybe
    ambient particular matter that is there in the air. We have
    found neighborhoods adjacent to where I live, where I grew up
    where there are cancer clusters; ovarian, all kinds, uterine.
    All kinds of different types of cancers, and it is rather
    alarming to me to know that this isn't just going on in my part
    of town, that it continues to happen.
         My time is up.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back to you.
        Mr. Wynn [presiding]. I want to thank the vice-chair for
    giving me a little break there and particularly, again, for her
    leadership throughout on this issue.
        If there are no other questions at this time, I believe
    that concludes our business with these witnesses. We have no
    further witnesses today. Thank you again for your patience and
    for your testimony.
        I would like to remind Members that you may submit
    additional questions for the record to be answered by the
    relevant witnesses. The questions should be submitted to the
    committee clerk in the electronic form within the next 10 days.
    The clerk will notify your offices of procedures.
        And without objection thank you, again, and the
    subcommittee stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 2:10 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
        [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.086

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.087

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.088

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.089

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.090

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.091

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.092

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.093

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.094

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.095

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.096

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.097

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.098

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.099

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.100

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.101

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.102

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.103

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.104

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.105

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.106

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.107

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.108

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.109

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.110

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.111

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.112

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.113

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.114

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.115

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.116

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.117

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.118

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.119

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.197

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.198

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.120

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.121

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.122

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.123

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.124

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.125

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.126

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.127

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.128

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.129

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.130

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.131

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.132

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.133

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.134

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.135

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.136

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.137

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.138

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.139

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.140

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.141

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.142

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.143

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.144

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.145

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.146

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.147

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.148

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.149

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.150

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.151

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.152

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.153

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.154

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.155

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.156

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.157

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.158

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.159

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.160

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.161

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.162

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.203

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.204

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.205

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.206

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.207

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.163

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.164

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.165

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.166

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.167

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.168

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.169

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.170

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.171

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.172

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.173

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.174

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.175

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.176

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.177

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.178

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.179

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.180

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.181

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.182

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.183

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.184

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.185

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.186

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.187

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.188

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.189

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.190

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.191

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.192

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.193

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.194

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.195

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.196

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.208

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.209

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.210

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.211

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.212

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.213

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.214

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.215

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.216

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.217

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.218

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.219

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.220

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.221

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.222