[Senate Hearing 110-1032]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 110-1032
PRESIDENT'S PROPOSED EPA BUDGET FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2008
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 7, 2007
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/
congress.senate
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
53-828 PDF WASHINGTON : 2010
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman
MAX BAUCUS, Montana JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland CRAIG L. THOMAS, Wyoming
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
Bettina Poirier, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Andrew Wheeler, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
MARCH 7, 2007
OPENING STATEMENTS
Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California... 1
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma... 4
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank, U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey 6
Vitter, Hon. David, U.S. Senator from the State of Louisiana..... 8
Voinovich, Hon. George, U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio...... 9
Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode
Island......................................................... 11
Craig, Hon. Larry, U.S. Senator from the State of Idaho.......... 12
WITNESSES
Johnson, Stephen , Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Accompanied by: Benjamin H. Grumbles, Assistant
Administrator, Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency......................................................... 13
Prepared statement........................................... 14
Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer......... 19
Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe........ 57
Responses to additional questions from Senator Vitter........ 62
Responses to additional questions from Senator Voinovich..... 66
Responses to additional questions from Senator Cardin........ 68
Responses to additional questions from Senator Carper........ 70
Responses to additional questions from Senator Sanders....... 72
PRESIDENT'S PROPOSED EPA BUDGET FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2008
----------
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:00 p.m. in room
406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, the Hon. Barbara Boxer
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Boxer, Lautenberg, Warner, Baucus,
Voinovich, Alexander, Bond, Cardin, Carper, Craig, Inhofe,
Isakson, Klobuchar, Lieberman, Sanders, Thomas, Vitter, and
Whitehouse.
OPENING STATEMENT OF THE HON. BARBARA BOXER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Senator Boxer. We are going to call the hearing to order
today. We are here today to review the President's proposed
budget for the Environmental Protection Agency for fiscal year
2008.
We are awaiting others, but they will come as they can. It
has been a very hectic day, and everybody is going to read the
record on this, I am sure. We will take 5 minute rounds, and
then the Administrator, we will give you 5 minutes, and then we
will go into questions.
Unfortunately, my view is that the President's proposal
fails to provide EPA with the money it needs to fully protect
the public health and the environment. Budgets are about
priorities, whether we are talking about our own households or
the Federal Government. By chopping hundreds of millions of
dollars out of EPA's funding, this budget sends an unmistakable
message to people who are concerned about our health and a
clean environment, that you are not a high priority.
This budget shortchanges core EPA programs of the resources
they need to clean up toxic waste sites, prevent contamination
from polluting our rivers and lakes, and reduce dangerous air
pollution. Even programs that are specifically designed to
protect our children have been cut.
The American people are going to know about this, because I
am going to tell them. Because if you live near one of the
Nation's most heavily contaminated toxic waste sites, you need
to know the Administration's budget cuts $7 million for those
cleanups. The Nation has 1,240 Superfund sites. One in four
people in the country lives within 4 miles of a Superfund site,
including 10 million of our children. Why on earth would we cut
back on that program?
Human exposure, EPA's words, is not under control at 108
sites. EPA has insufficient information to determine if
exposure is under control at 162 sites. Over the last 6 years,
the annual pace of Superfund cleanups has declined by 50
percent, from more than 80 cleanups per year, to 39. This year,
EPA revised their projected cleanups from 40 to 24. This is a
71 percent decline. Just remember, when Bill Clinton was
President, we had 80 cleanups a year. Now, we are looking at
24.
Based on internal documents, EPA has projected a cleanup
backlog of more than $1 billion in fiscal year 2007. Something
is wrong. The Administration proposes to reduce independent
oversight of cleanups by slashing $6 million from EPA's
Inspector General's funding to audit and analyze how to improve
the Superfund program.
If you want to take your family to enjoy a clean river or
lake, you need to know that this budget asks Congress to cut
almost $400 million to the Clean Water State Revolving Loan
Fund Program, a 37 percent reduction. These funds go to water
treatment projects that stop raw sewage and other pollution
from washing into our Nation's waterways. More funding is
needed, since almost 50 percent of our surface waters fail to
meet, or are at risk of not meeting environmental standards.
Undermining efforts to clean up unhealthy levels of air
pollution, the President's budget would cut research funds
needed to help set health-based air quality standards and to
reduce the emission of toxic chemicals that cause cancer or
reproductive harm. It would slash State and local air quality
management program funding by $35 million. State and local
officials run those programs to help clean up our Nation's air.
When 150 million people live in areas with unhealthy levels of
air pollution. Later in the time I have I am going to show you
some examples of the quality or lack thereof of the air in
parts of polluted California. It says to me we need to support
clean air programs, not cut them.
To have the Environmental Protection Agency agreeing to
these kind of cuts is devastating to the people. The
Environmental Council of the States, representing all 50
environmental protection agencies, says, ``It is disappointing
to see a budget proposal that cuts air programs and water
programs, and has the biggest cut to water infrastructure in
the history of the Agency.''
The President also proposes to combine EPA's Office for
Protecting Children's Health with its Environmental Education
Office. By consolidating the functions of these two offices and
eliminating $8 million in funding for environmental education,
the Administration appears to undermine the purpose of the
Children's Health Office. The reason we set up a separate
Children's Health Office was to give attention to children's
health. When you combine it, you are doing away with it. Let's
call it what it is.
EPA says it will spread out its children's health issues as
one of many considerations addressed by multiple agency
programs. This undermines the mission of the Children's Health
Office. I can't wait to have this issue on the floor of the
United States Senate, because we wanted in a bipartisan way to
single out children's health because of the particular threat
to children posed by environmental pollutants.
Once again, with this budget the Administration takes us
further down the wrong path, cutting dollars necessary to
protect our air, water and communities from toxic pollution. We
have to head in a different direction. The EPA needs to live up
to its name and its mission: the Environmental Protection
Agency, not the Environmental Pollution Agency. EPA's budget
should reflect our shared values, our spiritual values, our
religious values, our commitment to safeguarding the health of
our families and all of God's children.
The budget before us fails to meet this test. It is
shocking to me, some of the initiatives that are in this
budget, and again I say to my friend, Senator Inhofe, who
missed my opening statement I am sure not by design.
Senator Inhofe. No, ma'am.
[Laughter.]
Senator Boxer. We will be having a number of these issues
about the children's health budget, the cuts to the States's
water funds, all of these things will be issues when we get to
the floor.
I am delighted to see Senator Vitter has joined us, so
Senator Inhofe, we welcome your opening statement. We are
keeping it to 5 minutes.
[The prepared statement of Senator Boxer follows:]
Statement of Hon. Barbara Boxer, U.S. Senator from
the State of California
Today we will hear from a group of leading corporations and
environmental groups who have agreed on a roadmap for next steps to
address the global warming challenge.
They have banded together to issue ``A Call for Action'' on global
warming. They have concluded that ``we know enough to act'' on global
warming and that ``Congress needs to enact legislation as quickly as
possible.''
I want to thank these companies for their report and let them know
that I believe it makes an important contribution to helping solve the
global warming problem.
This group includes some of the world's largest corporations, such
as General Electric, Dupont, BP, Caterpillar, Alcoa, and includes key
energy companies such as Duke Power, Florida Power and Light and PG&E,
from my home State of California.
These companies produce products of all types, use fuels of all
types, including coal, and are committed to being profitable for many
years to come. As the Chairman of Duke Power noted on release of the
report, Duke Power is the third largest user of coal in the United
States. Yet all these companies agree that we need to act now to enact
a mandatory program to address global warming.
What is more, they agree on the targets for reduction, both in the
short term and the long term. They agree that we need to stabilize
world wide atmospheric concentrations of CO2 at 450-550
parts per million. Their targets for emissions include reductions of
10-30 percent from today's levels within the next 15 years and a 60
percent to 80 percent reduction from today's levels by 2050.
These targets are consistent with what the scientists are telling
us and they are consistent with the targets set forth in the Sanders
bill, of which I am co-sponsor, as well as other bills introduced in
this Congress.
The companies and groups before us today also make clear that by
acting now, we can help, not hurt our economy. They say that:
``Each year we delay action to control emissions increases the risk
of unavoidable consequences that could necessitate even steeper
reductions in the future, at potentially greater economic cost and
social disruption.''
The U.S. CAP report also makes the point that we need to enact an
economy wide program.
I am very proud of my home State of California, which enacted AB
32, an economy-wide global warming bill. The California law sets a
mandatory cap on carbon pollution, including a 25 percent reduction
from projected levels by 2020 and the California Governor's Executive
Order includes a target to reduce emissions 80 percent from 1990 levels
by 2050.
California is leading the way in combating global warming. And one
of the companies here, Pacific Gas and Electric, has helped enormously
by working hard to help increase California's energy efficiency, which
is one of the highest in the Nation.
I continue to believe we should approach this problem with hope and
not fear. I am an optimist, and I believe we can solve this problem,
and that in doing so, we will be better for it in every way.
The members of the Climate Action Partnership who are here today
agree with this approach. They say that ``In our view, the climate
change challenge, like other challenges our country has confronted in
the past, will create more economic opportunities than risks for the
U.S. economy'' and that ``addressing climate change will require
innovation and products that drive increased energy efficiency,
creating new markets. . . increased U.S. competitiveness, as well as
reduced reliance on energy from foreign sources.''
As business leaders that successfully compete in national and
world-wide markets, they should know.
We must face the challenge of global warming now. It is one of the
great challenges of this generation. With the help groups and
businesses like those in the Climate Action Partnership, this is a
challenge we can and will meet.
I look forward to hearing the witnesses' testimony.
OPENING STATEMENT OF THE HON. JAMES INHOFE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Welcome, Mr. Administrator. We are anxious to hear your
testimony. I think I might find myself in partial agreement
with the last thing that the Chairman said, and some of the
things. What I would not want to happen, since we are talking
about $500 million less than the previous year in this year's
budget, the 2008 budget, is for you to come up with things that
you know in your own mind that Congress isn't going to let you
get by with. This is one of the things that we are, whether it
is the State revolving fund or some of the clean water
programs.
So I would hope that in trying to meet this budget that you
would be looking at it realistically and looking at things, not
just making cuts where you know that it is going to be reversed
during the congressional process.
One place to exercise some budgetary restraint might be in
the voluntary programs EPA has created that have not been
authorized by Congress. Some of these may have laudable goals,
but at a time when the agency is proposing cutting clean water
funding by nearly $400 million, it may not be the time for
administratively created programs.
I raise the same concern about the Agency's international
grants last year. While these programs may not add up to too
much, it is a good starting point. And while I disagree with
your cut to the SRS revolving fund, I am pleased to see that
the Administration has proposed an alternative to fill the gap.
The budget includes lifting the cap on private activity bonds
for water and wastewater infrastructure projects. I look
forward to working with the Administration to see if using the
tax code through private activity bonds would help fill the
infrastructure gap that has given us the shortfall of
appropriated dollars.
I would like to address also a couple of other issues. One
of the obvious issues, Tar Creek. You guys have done a great
job. That is the most devastating of all the Superfund sites.
Finally, after 25 years of failure, we are doing the right
thing. I commend you, DOI, the tribes, the Governor of the
State of Oklahoma and all of us working together. It is a team
effort that can truly be used as a model. It includes all of
the Indian tribes that are involved up there. So I just hope
that we have your commitment to continue that as you have in
the past and see it through.
The agency is in the process of finalizing several policies
that are important to Oklahoma. Last year, you proposed the
changes in the agency's drinking water affordability standard.
As I have mentioned in the past, we have a real crisis in
Oklahoma with regard to the disinfection byproducts rule. Had
the affordability standard accurately reflected the needs, the
small rural towns might not be in a such a dire situation.
Furthermore, the agency will soon promulgate a new rule to
again revise the spill prevention control countermeasure. We
have every expectation that the proposal will address the
issues that have been raised by Oklahoma farmers, as well as
farmers in other States, the Oklahoma Farm Bureau, our
refineries. We pretty took care of the problem that was on the
airports with this spill policy, but we have not been able to
do it. It needs to continue to its conclusion.
In our water systems, going back to the previous point that
I made, we have a total of 1,717 public water systems. Of
these, 1,463 meet the State definition of a small system, which
means the system only serves less than 3,300 people. Only 25
systems in the State serve more than 10,000 people, so we are
very much interested in that in our State of Oklahoma.
My staff has continued to investigate EPA regions and how
they vary in their implementations and rules. You will recall
we had a hearing on that, Madam Chairman. We found that in some
districts, I think region five was a problem, and is working
out to address some of the treatment, the way they operate that
is different from some of the other regions.
And finally, Mr. Administrator, I am deeply interested in
the EPA's implementation of the renewable fuel standard, in
part because I moved that legislation through this committee
while chairman, and also because I am committed to improving
our energy security. On that note, I look forward to working
with you to make sure that the agency takes steps to maximize
fuel supply reliability, and particularly provide flexibility
to small refineries, and at the same time continue our
jurisdiction in this because it is always under fire.
Thank you.
Senator Boxer. Thank you very much, Senator.
We are going to do the early bird rule, but we will go back
and forth. So we are going to go to Senator Lautenberg, and
then Senator Vitter.
Senator, 5 minutes please. Welcome.
[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:]
Statement of Hon. James M. Inhofe, U.S. Senator from
the State of Oklahoma
Madame Chairman, I appreciate you having this hearing today. The
issue of climate change has taken on a larger significance lately. And
the subject of the day is mandatory carbon cap and trade. More and
more, companies that wish to profit on the backs of consumers are
coming out of the woodwork to endorse climate proposals in the hope of
forcing customers to buy their unnecessary products or to penalize
their competitors.
Some companies are coming together in an attempt to profit from
Government intervention where they have failed in the marketplace.
Economists call this rent-seeking. But I think the Wall Street Journal
was right. They are climate profiteers. These companies will gain
market-share against their competitors while the economy flattens and
jobs are sent to China--which in an ironic twist of fate will soon
become the biggest emitter of carbon dioxide on the planet. Madame
Chairman, not all companies have joined the climate profiteers. Most
will be its victims, particularly small businesses that will no longer
be able to compete. But the biggest losers won't be businesses, but
American consumers.
This proposal and others like it may be written in the form of
Government regulatory mandates, but for all practical purposes, it is
really a regressive tax on the American economy, where select powerful
companies profit at the expense of seniors, the working class and the
poor. These groups already pay disproportionately more of their monthly
budget for energy, and this situation will only worsen under proposals
like we see today. Let me be clear--this is the biggest tax hike in
U.S. history.
I am told that the rush to do something about global warming has
gained momentum. But the not so hidden secret is that more and more
serious scientists and political leaders are voicing their discontent
with both the hype and the symbolic approaches that masquerade as
solutions that are designed more to line the pockets of its promoters
than to accomplish anything.
Among scientists, of course, there is Claude Allegre--the French
Socialist, geophysicist, and member of the French and American
academies of science--who has said that warming may be due simply to
natural variation and that this debate appears to be about money. There
is also Nir Shariv, one of Israel's top young astrophysicists, who says
there is no proof of man's contribution rather than natural variation.
And then there are the political leaders. Prime Minister Stephen
Harper reportedly once called the Kyoto accord a ``socialist scheme''
designed to suck money out of rich countries. And just last week, Czech
President Vaclav Klaus made clear his disdain for politics parading for
science when he said ``Global warming is a false myth and every serious
person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N.
panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a
sort of non-government organization of green flavor.''
You don't have to agree with my position on the science to question
the wisdom of the cap and trade approach. These proposals will do
little and cost much. Moreover, as White House spokesman Tony Snow
stated last week, ``there is a carbon cap system in place in Europe, we
are doing a better job of reducing emissions here,'' Snow said.
The simple fact is that we cannot continue to put pressure on
demand for natural gas in this country while we curtail the efforts of
producers to supply it. We cannot demand significant emission
reductions while Senators oppose the construction of new nuclear
facilities. In short, we cannot demand reductions from our fossil fuel
sector unless these demands can be met.
The result can only be further increases and volatility of natural
gas prices, continued and even increased job flight to countries that
don't participate. But the biggest cost will be to consumers, who will
be forced to foot the bill for this climate chicanery. That is why I
have decided to fight for consumers and plan to introduce the
Ratepayer's Protection Act, which will protect consumers in regulated
States from having their rates raised to pay any climate schemes.
Thank you.
OPENING STATEMENT OF THE HON. FRANK LAUTENBERG,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Boxer. Make sure you turn on your mic.
Senator Lautenberg. This is the first time I have been
accused of not being heard enough.
[Laughter.]
Senator Lautenberg. Senator Inhofe thinks I have been heard
too much.
[Laughter.]
Senator Lautenberg. I want to begin with a statement, and
welcome, Administrator Johnson, that you made during a recent
EPA hearing. You said, and I quote you here, ``America's air,
water and land are cleaner today,'' and I remember it vividly
because I didn't quite get the support for that, ``than they
were a generation ago under the Bush administration. This
progress continues.''
Unfortunately, actions speak louder than words. We have to
look at the facts. First, President Bush wants to cut $7
million from the Superfund program. We can't afford that. Ask
the people who live near Superfund sites and they will tell you
that we can't afford to work with less. We have more Superfund
sites in our State than any other State in the Country. Right
now, Superfund is cleaning up fewer and fewer sites and letting
toxic chemicals gather in places where our children play.
Now, in February, Chairman Boxer and I were at a site in
South Plainfield, NJ working to get the Superfund program back
on track. If we want to help that community, we have to have a
budget that advances our goal, not turns its back on it.
Second, President Bush wants to take away yearly $400
million from the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, which keeps
our streams, rivers, lakes and coastal waters safe from
pollutants. New Jersey alone stands to lose $16 million under
the Administration's plan. The health of our waters and our
local economies depends on this and simply cannot afford this
kind of a loss.
Thirdly, President Bush wants to cut more than $35 million
from State and local agencies that enforce the Clean Air Act.
Yet the Clean Air Act is essential in removing from our air the
harmful pollutants that can trigger respiratory illnesses such
as asthma. Small particles alone can cause up to 30,000
premature deaths a year.
So what do we say to those parents of the children with
asthma about that cut? I know what my daughter says to my
oldest grandchild, who is 13, when he goes out to play sports.
The first thing my daughter does is check to see where the
nearest emergency room is. If the weather is bad and the air is
not good and clear, it is a price that we pay in the family.
There are millions of people across the country who will have
the same result as a consequence of these cuts.
Finally, if the science of climate change proves that the
planet is warming, why does the President want to cut funding
for the Federal Global Climate Change program? The EPA needs a
budget that is more than talk. It needs a budget that will
clean up our Superfund sites, keep our water clean, our air
safe to breathe, and reduce global warming, but that is not
what is said by this budget.
I will do my part on this committee to make sure that EPA,
Madam Chairman, has enough resources to act on these goals. I
hope that we will all do that together.
Thank you.
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much.
Senator Vitter.
OPENING STATEMENT OF THE HON. DAVID VITTER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA
Senator Vitter. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank you,
Ranking Member Inhofe.
Mr. Administrator, thank you for being here.
Obviously, the EPA's work is very important to Louisiana,
always has been, but quite frankly post-Katrina and post-Rita,
that has never been more true than it is now. I know you
appreciate that.
I wanted to focus briefly in my opening comments on two
very specific issues. One is the Lake Pontchartrain Basin
Restoration Program. I recently sent you and EPA a letter about
this. As you know, this was a program created in 2000, a bill I
introduced when I was a House member. It was reauthorized in
2006. It sets up a restoration program within the EPA for the
largest watershed in our lake, built around Lake Pontchartrain,
which is the second-largest lake in the U.S. after the Great
Lakes.
I appreciate that the EPA has been very supportive of this
program in the past, and I would ask that you continue that
support. Specifically because of the unusual nature of the
continuing resolution for fiscal year 2007, you all have to
perhaps make many more decisions and have fewer directives from
us than normal. So I would specifically ask that you look at
the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Restoration Program and continue
the type of funding levels from EPA that we have together
forged in the last several years. I look forward to your
analysis of that and response in terms of specifically what you
can do within the continuing resolution for fiscal year 2007.
The second very specific issue I wanted to focus on is
landfills in the greater New Orleans area post-Katrina. For
several months now, I have expressed real concern about a
couple of landfills in particular that have been opened under
emergency regulations by the State DEQ and operated in eastern
New Orleans to help deal with Katrina debris. I have been very
concerned that they do not meet significant enough
environmental standards. They were opened under emergency
authority, and all this was done when there are other landfills
in the area that meet higher standards, and that could accept
all of this flow of waste and debris for the same cost or less.
I have expressed this concern for several months, but
something happened recently which really brought this concern
to a new level. A couple of weeks ago, it was disclosed in the
context of a separate Federal criminal investigation that lo
and behold two people who were close associates to our former
Mayor of New Orleans had hidden financial interests in the
opening and in the operation of one of these landfills, the
other has been closed, the only one still remaining open is the
Old Gentilly landfill. Lo and behold, these two people had
hidden financial interests and they helped get it open and get
it permitted and get the contract with the city.
I think it is of some note one of these two people is going
to jail. He is in the process of going to jail in a separate
Federal criminal matter, and the reason he is going to jail is
because he was making money off another city contract because
of his connections, not because of any work he performed. So
basically, the exact same posture he appears to be in regard to
the landfill deal, he is going to jail with regard to another
deal.
His other associate is not going to jail yet, but he has
been named by the U.S. Attorney and the FBI in that other
investigation as an unindicted co-conspirator, basically
getting paid for his connections, not for any work performed.
The two of them, it has finally been discovered, are in the
middle of this other landfill deal.
Now, I know it is not your job to prosecute criminal cases.
I am not asking you to. What I am suggesting is that this
newest revelation underscores my concern, and I think it adds a
whole lot of credibility and legitimacy to the questions I have
been asking about whether we are doing the right thing
environmentally at this landfill. I think the answer is clearly
not.
It is also I think significant and important that in this
landfill deal, the City of New Orleans actually owns the land.
For owning the land, they retain 100 percent of the
environmental liability in case there are problems in the
future. For all of that, for owning the land, for having all of
the liability, they get a whopping 3 percent of the revenue
under this wonderful deal that the former Mayor's cronies have
cut with the city.
Again, I am not asking you to step into the shoes of the
U.S. Attorney. I am asking you, with this newest revelation, to
look at the environmental details of this landfill because
there are serious concerns about it. I think it is very clear,
given these new revelations, that this deal is about corruption
and greed, not good public policy or good environmental policy.
Thank you very much.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator Vitter.
I want to point out that the committee did go down to New
Orleans. We have seven Senators. We are all very concerned
about this matter that was raised here, as well as other issues
that don't fall under your domain. But this particular matter
of a landfill, we hope you will take a very special look at it.
I just want you to know the full committee is interested in
this, so I hope you will keep the full committee briefed on
this.
Now, Senator Voinovich. Welcome.
OPENING STATEMENT OF THE HON. GEORGE VOINOVICH,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OHIO
Senator Voinovich. Thank you. I am pleased to be here. I
thank you for calling this hearing today.
I would like to thank you, Administrator Johnson, for being
here today to discuss the President's proposed budget for the
EPA. I look forward to spending some time with you to discuss
your presentation. Thank you for serving our country, and I
thank your family for their sacrifice. I appreciate all the
time that you and your team spent with us last year on Clear
Skies, even though we didn't clear the skies.
[Laughter.]
Senator Voinovich. As a former Governor and Mayor, I
respect and know first-hand the enormous challenges that you
have to address when working out a budget proposal. Putting
together a budget is a process that requires responsible
prioritizing and fiscal discipline in order to avoid breaking
the bank, and responding to the orders that you get from OMB.
I want you to know that the next few remarks that I make in
this statement are not aimed at you personally or your team,
because I have no idea of what you went through when you went
to OMB and presented your case. You were probably told, this is
your number; live with it and go back and eat it.
I want to make that clear. I am really enraged with this
budget. Okay? I really am. Again, I wasn't there with you to
hear what you had to say to my friend that is the OMB director.
In 2006, this past fiscal year, we suffered a budget
deficit of $248 billion, and that is not taking into account
the funds borrowed from the Social Security trust fund, which
increases the deficit to $434 billion. According to OMB's
numbers, even though we held non-security discretionary
spending to less than 1 percent growth in fiscal year 2007, the
budgets for non-security spending is less than 1 percent. In
other words, we will still suffer from deficits totaling about
a half-trillion dollars in 2007 and 2008.
The meager 1 percent in non-security spending is a symptom
of our political failure to address the real source of
budgetary problems. In your case, according to my numbers, you
are getting a 6.9 percent reduction in your budget, 6.9
percent. Think of it. In refusing to address our entitlements,
and instead placing the burden of fiscal austerity on
discretionary spending means that, you know what, we are eating
our seed corn. We will do little to solve our long-term budget
problems, but we would fail in our responsibility to invest for
the future in education, transportation, and the subject of
today's hearing, our environment.
The truth of the matter is, and nobody wants to say it, we
do need a tax increase or we need tax reform. We can't keep
going. You can't be carrying on a war the way we are in
Afghanistan and Iraq, and see the spending for the 22 agencies
in Homeland Security that have gone up over 300 percent, and
think that you can run the Government of the United States with
this kind of a budget. It is unacceptable. I am concerned, and
I am going to get into just a few of these things because some
of my colleagues are getting into some other ones. The Diesel
Emissions Reduction Act, we worked so hard on it and got it
done in 45 days. It leverages $4 for every $1 we put into it. I
talked to Josh Bolten about this. I have talked to Portman
about it. I said, for God's sake, when you are putting a budget
together, if you can spend $1 and get $4 for it, you ought to
support it. And what did they do? They proposed a $35 million
cut from $50 million last year.
The Great Lakes Legacy Act is another thing. We have been
working on that to try and make that something very special,
and $35 million for 2008. For 2007, the Administration
requested $49.6 million. I know you have worked hard in helping
to improve the Great Lakes and continue to work for Great Lakes
regional collaboration to make the restoration and protection
of the lakes a priority, but I told them last night, they had a
big meeting here in Washington, that you are not going to get
your money. He doesn't have it. We have to figure out how we
get some more money in so that we can do some of the things
that this country should be doing.
As a member of this committee, I have worked hard to bring
attention to the Nation's wastewater infrastructure needs.
Every single year, I have participated in trying to get your
budget up. This year is no exception. The EPA's budget is
woefully inadequate to take care of the Nation's pressing water
and wastewater infrastructure needs. What we have is a ticking
time bomb, ready to blow up, but we continue to ignore our
Nation's needs.
As we on this committee know, billions of dollars have
already been spent and billions more are needed to upgrade the
Nation's aging waste treatment. I have people coming in here,
$426 million to Akron and you have to get it done in 10 years;
Cleveland in northeastern Ohio, $4 billion. The little Mayor of
Fostoria came in and said, I have to spend $30 million and I
have 12,000 people that live in my city. Either you have to
back off with these orders that you are putting out there, or
we have to come up with the money to help these people pay for
this. You can't have it both ways.
The environmental groups that are represented here ought to
know that. Sure, you can jam it to it, but the fact is these
people can't handle it. What we forget about, and some of our
Senators know this, when we really did something about waste
treatment around this country is when we had the 2575 program
in the 1970s. That is when we really did it. Today, that
infrastructure is just falling apart.
So what I would like to say to you is this, is that I know
you have a tough job, but you have to start to think about some
of the things that you are asking people to do, particularly on
the local level. This is a big unfunded mandate, and the guys
over at OMB say, oh that's fine; we will just let them raise
their rates, you know, 400 percent, 500 percent.
These people can't afford that. So you ought to come back
and say, you know what? We are going to give you more time. In
Akron, Ohio, they wanted 30 years; no, you can't do it; you
have to do it in 10 years or 15 years.
Your folks are being unreasonable. If you can't do it, then
come back to us and we will maybe give you some more
flexibility to do the job that we have asked you to do.
Thank you.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator.
We are going back and forth by early bird.
Senator Whitehouse.
OPENING STATEMENT OF THE HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, U.S. SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Chairman.
Hello, Administrator. How are you?
I was pleased to see that the EPA has recently promulgated
some regulations about benzine in gasoline, although I am
concerned that they don't take full effect until 2030, which
seems like a long way off. My understanding is the proposed
regulations do not consider the other aromatics that are added
to gasoline, toluene and xylene. I am wondering what your plans
are to take any action with respect to those; whether you
believe that they are dangerous; and where they rank in your
priorities. Is there any hope of the benzine time frame being
accelerated?
Senator Boxer. We are just making statements now. He can
answer that later. We are doing opening statements.
Senator Whitehouse. My opening statement is that I want to
ask that question.
[Laughter.]
Senator Boxer. Duly noted, Senator.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you.
Senator Boxer. Senator Craig.
OPENING STATEMENT OF THE HON. LARRY CRAIG,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO
Senator Craig. Well, in that case, if I am the last, I will
be brief because I think it is important we get to you, Mr.
Johnson, and also get to our questions.
I think you have heard the frustration that has been
expressed by a variety of my colleagues as it relates to your
budget, and asking constituent compliance in areas where we may
be taking away from them some of the resources that they are
going to need to gain that kind of compliance.
I still have a large Superfund site in my State that we
continue to work toward filling. One of the issues, and you and
I have had that conversation, is a little issue called arsenic
in drinking water, and small communities, and compliance, and
5,000 people, 3,000, 2,000 on a system and requirements that
standards be met. I could dispute the standards. I won't
because they are now the law of the land. But be that as it
may, it is a compliance issue of considerable concern as to how
we get to where we get in reasonable time.
You have shown some flexibility. Everybody wants to get
where we all want to get. At the same time, we have to have
flexibility, cooperation. We are looking for affordability in
so many issues.
Another area that I have worked on, it is my understanding
the agency may be working on proposed rules to help clarify air
emissions reporting requirements for livestock operations. As
you know, I have worked for some time to educate and to clarify
the issue. I am always amazed that there are some that would
like to call out the firemen and the AMTs and the police and
the Federal emergency squads and FEMA because of a dairy farm
in their community, even though they moved in yesterday and the
dairy farm moved in a decade ago.
Reality, though, says, and I believe it, that the Clean Air
Act and the Clean Water Act and a myriad of other Federal and
State environmental laws should continue to apply to
agriculture. There is a threshold, though, that some are trying
to cross, as you know, as it relates to pushing these cathodes
into the Superfund and the Community Right To Know Acts. So
your cooperation in working on that, and obviously we are
gaining ground here in the Congress to support the reality of
what we meant and intended under the original laws. Working
with you is going to be awfully important on that.
I could talk a little bit about Superfund. Now that I am
the Ranking Member on the Superfund and Environmental Health
Subcommittee, we will spend a little more time on that issue.
But lastly, and as important, I understand your spending plan
required by the fiscal year 2007 continuing resolution will be
coming out on the 15th.
I want to make sure that you make available the $11 million
for the National Rural Water Association, so that our circuit
riders on the ground can continue to work with our rural
communities and help ensure compliance in those areas. Those
are tasks that are nearly impossible for our small communities
to meet, and the circuit rider issue serves them well. So I
hope that is going to be the case in the proposal we will see
on the 15th.
Thank you much, Madam Chairman.
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much, Senator Craig.
Administrator Johnson, you have 5 minutes, and please, we
will put your entire statement in the record, which we have,
and we hope you will summarize and get to the salient points.
Thank you.
STATEMENT OF STEPHEN JOHNSON, ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY ACCOMPANIED BY: BENJAMIN H. GRUMBLES,
ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF WATER, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and members of the
committee. I am pleased to be here to discuss the President's
fiscal year 2008 budget request for the Environmental
Protection Agency. The President's $7.2 billion request builds
upon EPA's record of accomplishments and funds its role as our
Nation enters the next phase of environmental progress.
Over our 36 years, EPA has laid a strong foundation to
shift America to a green culture. Our citizens are embracing
the fact that environmental responsibility is everyone's
responsibility. So today, instead of having only 17,000 EPA
employees working to protect the environment, we now have 300
million Americans as environmental partners.
These are exciting times. Our air, water and land are
cleaner today than they were a generation ago. With this
budget, our progress will continue. The evolution of
environmental progress has come in part because we have proven
that a healthy environment and a healthy economy can, in fact,
go hand in hand.
As the economy continues to grow, so do our energy needs.
In order to help meet the President's ambitious clean energy
and air goals, EPA's budget requests over $82 million to
support our Energy Policy Act responsibilities. This includes
$8.4 million to implement the renewable fuel standards and $35
million for grants to cut diesel emissions from trucks and
school buses.
EPA also plays a vital role in advancing the
Administration's aggressive, yet practical strategy for
reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The President has requested
$117.9 million for EPA's climate change programs, including $44
million for the successful Energy Star Program, $5 million for
the Asia Pacific Partnership Initiative, and $4.4 million for
the Methane to Markets Program.
The evolution of environmental progress requires EPA to
work effectively with our State and local partners. The
President's budget builds on this cooperation by providing $2.7
billion to help our partners improve their water quality. We
are also promoting the use of innovative tax-exempt private
activity bonds for capital investments in drinking water and
wastewater projects.
Additionally, collaboration is the key to protecting
America's great water bodies. In order to strengthen the
efforts of EPA and our partners, the President is requesting
$28.8 million for the Chesapeake Bay, $56.8 million for the
Great Lakes, $4.5 million for the Gulf of Mexico, and $1
million for Puget Sound.
At EPA, we are working productively with our partners to
deliver a healthier and more prosperous future. The President's
budget provides $1.2 billion for the Superfund Program to
continue transforming hazardous waste sites back into community
assets.
After highlighting some of our cooperative initiatives, we
must also recognize the necessity of vigorously enforcing our
Nation's environmental laws. The proposed 2008 enforcement
budget, $549.5 million, is the highest enforcement budget ever.
As EPA helps shape America's green culture, we understand
the need to advance environmental science. The President's
commitment to sound science is reflected in his $134 million
request, an increase of $9.4 million to fund human health risk,
clean air, and nanotechnology research.
Finally, I must mention EPA's evolving role from being
guardians of the environment to also guardians of our homeland.
The President has requested $152 million for our homeland
security responsibilities and water security and
decontamination.
While the Nation's environmental progress continues to
evolve, so does EPA's role. This budget will fulfill EPA's
responsibilities of being good stewards of the environment and
good stewards of our Nation's tax dollars. By making smart use
of our resources, we are not only building on our Nation's
environmental accomplishments, we are creating a lasting legacy
for future generations of Americans.
Thank you and I look forward to addressing your questions.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Stephen Johnson follows:]
STATEMENT OF STEPHEN L. JOHNSON, ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY ACCOMPANIED BY BENJAMIN H. GRUMBLES, ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF WATER, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Madam Chairman and members of the committee, I am pleased to be
here today to discuss the fiscal year (FY) 2008 budget request for the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The President has requested $7.2
billion to support the work of EPA and our partners nationwide. This
funding illustrates the Administration's unwavering commitment to
setting high environmental protection standards, while focusing on
results and performance, and achieving the goals outlined in the
President's Management Agenda.
The President's request builds on EPA's long record of
accomplishments and funds its role as America enters into the next
phase of environmental progress. These are exciting times for our
Nation's environment. Since its founding, EPA has laid a strong
foundation of environmental progress. Our air, water and land are
cleaner today than they were just a generation ago, and with this
year's budget, this progress will continue.
While our Nation's environmental results are significant, it is
important to understand how they're being achieved. Over our 36 years,
EPA has laid a strong foundation to shift America into a ``green''
culture. Today, instead of having just 17,000 EPA employees working to
protect the environment, we now have over 300 million Americans as
environmental partners. Americans from all sectors of society--
businesses, communities and individuals--have begun to embrace the fact
that the environment is everyone's responsibility, not just the
responsibility of EPA.
Madam Chairman, the FY 2008 budget will fund our new role in this
next exciting phase of environmental progress.
Our Nation is committed to balancing the budget, and EPA is a proud
partner in this effort. EPA is not only a good steward of our
environment, but it is a good steward of our nation's tax dollars. We
are accountable for spending the taxpayer's money efficiently and
effectively, while focusing on wisely investing in environmental
results.
clean air and global climate change
The FY 2008 President's Budget requests $912 million for the Clean
Air and Global Climate Change goal at EPA. EPA implements this goal
through its national and regional programs that are designed to provide
healthier air for all Americans and protect the stratospheric ozone
layer while also minimizing the risks from radiation releases, reducing
greenhouse gas intensity, and enhancing science and research. In order
to carry out its responsibilities, EPA utilizes programs that include
many common elements, including: setting risk-based priorities;
facilitating regulatory reform and market-based approaches; partnering
with State, tribal, and local Governments, non-governmental
organizations, and industry; promoting energy efficiency; and utilizing
sound science.
The Clean Air Rules are a major component of EPA work under Goal 1
and include a suite of actions that will dramatically improve America's
air quality. Three of the rules specifically address the transport of
pollution across State borders (the Clean Air Interstate Rule, the
Clean Air Mercury Rule, and the Clean Air Nonroad Diesel Rule). These
rules provide national tools to achieve significant improvement in air
quality and the associated benefits of improved health, longevity and
quality of life for all Americans. In FY 2008, EPA will be working with
the States and industry to implement these rules.
In order to address the Nation's growing energy challenges, EPA's
request supports activities associated with the Energy Policy Act of
2005. These activities include the implementation of the Renewable Fuel
Standards that will promote the use of renewable fuels, diversify our
energy sources, and reduce our reliance on oil. EPA's request provides
$35 million to support the new Diesel Emission Reduction Grants program
that is designed to reduce diesel emissions in trucks and school buses
through retrofitting and replacing existing engines. This program will
target projects in areas that don't meet air quality standards to help
ensure improvements occur in areas of the country where the benefits
are needed most.
In FY 2008, EPA's climate protection programs will continue its
Government and industry partnerships to achieve reductions in
greenhouse gas emissions and contribute to the President's goal of
reducing greenhouse gas intensity by 18 percent in 2012. The
President's request for EPA's voluntary partnership climate change
programs and research on technology and science in FY 2008 is $118
million. The request includes $4 million for the Methane to Markets
Partnership which promotes methane recovery and use in landfills, coal
mines and natural gas facilities. In addition, EPA's request provides
$5 million to support the Asia Pacific Partnership-this partnership
supports international efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by
creating new investment opportunities, building local capacity, and
removing barriers to the introduction of more efficient technologies.
EPA's climate partnership and technology research efforts are
components of the Administration's Climate Change Technology Program.
In addition, EPA's Global Change research program coordinates its
efforts and actively contributes to the Administration's Climate Change
Science Program.
clean and safe water
The FY 2008 President's Budget requests $2.7 billion to implement
the Clean and Safe Water goal through programs designed to improve the
quality of surface water and drinking water. EPA will continue to work
with its State, tribal, and local partners to achieve measurable
improvements to the quality and safety of the nation's drinking water
supplies as well as the conditions of rivers, lakes and coastal waters.
The President's request continues the Administration's commitments
to the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds. The
President funds the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) at $688
million, supporting the cumulative capitalization commitment of $6.8
billion for 2004-2011 and enabling the CWSRF to eventually revolve at
an annual level of $3.4 billion. The budget proposes $842 million for
the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF), essentially the same
as the 2007 level. This request keeps the Administration's commitment
of achieving a long-term $1.2 billion revolving level.
EPA has worked with Treasury and other parts of the Administration
to propose expanded use of tax-exempt Private Activity Bonds for
capital investments in drinking water and wastewater projects. The
President's Budget proposes to exempt PABs from the private activity
bond unified State volume cap. PABs are tax-exempt bonds issued by a
State or local Government, the proceeds of which are used by another
entity for a public purpose or by the Government entity itself for
certain public-private partnerships. By removing drinking water and
wastewater bonds from the volume cap, this proposal will provide States
and communities greater access to PABs to help finance their water
infrastructure needs and increase capital investment in the nation's
water infrastructure.
This Water Enterprise Bond proposal would provide an exception to
the unified annual State volume cap on tax-exempt qualified private
activity bonds for exempt facilities for the ``furnishing of water'' or
``sewage facilities.'' To ensure the long-term financial health and
solvency of these drinking water and wastewater systems, communities
using these bonds must have demonstrated a process that will move
towards full-cost pricing for services within 5 years of issuing the
Private Activity Bonds. This will help water systems become self-
financing and minimize the need for future subsidies.
land preservation and restoration
The Agency's FY 2008 budget request to Congress implements the Land
Preservation and Restoration goal through EPA's land program activities
that promote the following themes: Revitalization, Recycling, Waste
Minimization, and Energy Recovery; Emergency Preparedness and Response;
and Homeland Security.
The President's budget provides $1.2 billion for the Superfund
program to continue progress cleaning up the nation's most contaminated
hazardous waste sites. As of the end of FY 2006, cleanup construction
has been completed at 1,006 National Priorities List (NPL) sites. The
Superfund program often completes short-term removal actions to
mitigate immediate health threats at sites prior to completion of
investigations and the start of long-term cleanup construction. EPA has
continued its efforts to efficiently utilize every dollar and resource
available to clean up contaminated sites and to protect human health.
In FY 2006, EPA obligated $390 million of appropriated, State cost-
share, and responsible party funding to conduct ongoing cleanup
construction and post-construction work at Superfund sites that
includes nearly $45 million to begin construction at 18 new Superfund
projects. Based upon the construction schedules, EPA expects to
complete construction of all remedies at 24 sites in FY 2007 and 30
sites in FY 2008. EPA expects to complete construction at 165 sites
during the FY 2007 to FY 2011 time period, the goal established in the
Agency's FY 2006 to FY 2011 Strategic Plan.
In FY 2008, the Agency is requesting $34 million for the
Underground Storage Tank Program to provide assistance to States to
help them meet their new responsibilities, that include: 1) mandatory
inspections every 3 years for all underground storage tanks; 2)
operator training; 3) prohibition of delivery to non-complying
facilities; 4) secondary containment of financial responsibility for
tank manufacturers and installers; 5) various compliance reports; and
6) grant guidelines. The Agency is also submitting new legislative
language to allow States to use alternative mechanisms, such as the
Environment Results Program, to meet the mandatory 3-year inspection
requirement. This proposal provides States with a less costly
alternative to meet the objectives of the Energy Policy Act.
healthy communities and ecosystems
In FY 2008, EPA's Budget carries out the Healthy Communities and
Ecosystems goal via a combination of regulatory, voluntary, and
incentive-based programs. A key component of the Healthy Communities
and Ecosystems goal is to reduce risks to human health and the
environment through community and geographically-based programs.
In FY 2008, $162.2 million was requested for the Brownfields
program to support research efforts with additional assessments,
revolving loan fund, cleanup grants and workforce development programs.
When leveraged with State and local resources, this Brownfield funding
will help assess more than 1,000 properties, clean up more than 60
sites, and address petroleum contamination in more than 40 communities.
EPA focuses on collaborative place-based programs to protect the
great waterbodies--the Chesapeake Bay, the Great Lakes, the Gulf of
Mexico and the Puget Sound.
The Chesapeake Bay is the largest estuary in the United States and
a water resource of tremendous ecological and economic importance. The
greatest success in the last five years has been the water quality
initiative that has resulted in new water quality standards for the
Bay, the adoption of nutrient and sediment allocations for all parts of
the watershed that meet new standards, and tributary-specific pollution
reduction and habitat restoration plans. To continue to carry out these
functions, the FY 2008 President's Budget requests $29 million in FY
2008, an increase of over $2 million from the previous President's
Budget request. Within the request is $8 million for competitive grants
for innovative, cost-effective non-point source watershed projects,
which reduce nutrient and/or sediment discharges to the Bay.
The Great Lakes are the largest system of surface freshwater on
earth, containing 20 percent of the world's surface freshwater and
accounting for 84 percent of the surface freshwater in the United
States. The goal of the Agency's Great Lakes Program is to restore and
maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Great
Lakes Basin Ecosystem. The President's FY 2008 budget commits $57
million towards continuing efforts by EPA's Great Lakes program,
working with State, local, and tribal partners and using the Great
Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy as a guide to protect and restore
the Great Lakes. The Agency will focus on working with partners to
clean up and de-list eight Areas of Concern (AOCs) by 2010, emphasizing
clean up of contaminated sediments under the Great Lakes Legacy Act.
EPA will continue to work towards reducing PCB concentrations in lake
trout and walleye and keeping Great Lakes beaches open and safe for
swimming during the beach season.
The FY 2008 President's Budget Request provides $4.5 million for
the Gulf of Mexico program to support Gulf States and stakeholders in
developing a regional, ecosystem-based framework for restoring and
protecting the Gulf of Mexico.
EPA efforts in the Puget Sound are focused on the Basin's highest
priority environmental challenges: air and water quality. The FY 2008
Budget provides $1 million for restoration activities to improve water
quality and minimize the adverse impacts of rapid development.
Another major focus of the Healthy Communities and Ecosystems goal
is identifying, assessing, and reducing the risks from pesticides. In
FY 2008, EPA will continue identifying and assessing potential risks
from pesticides. In addition, EPA will set priorities for addressing
pesticide risks and promoting innovative and alternative measures of
pest control. EPA will continue to meet its pesticide-related homeland
security responsibilities by identifying and reviewing proposed
pesticides for use against pathogens of greatest concern for crops,
animals, and humans. EPA will continue to work closely with other
Federal agencies and industry to implement its Registration Review
program that will review existing pesticide registrations on a 15-year
cycle to ensure that registered pesticides in the marketplace continue
to be safe for use in accordance with the latest scientific
information.
compliance and environmental stewardship
The EPA's FY 2008 Budget request of $743.8 million for the
Compliance and Environmental Stewardship goal provides funding for
programs that monitor and promote enforcement and compliance with
environmental laws and policies. The Agency will also support
stewardship through direct programs, collaboration and grants for
pollution prevention, pesticide and toxic substance enforcement,
environmental information, and continuing an environmental presence in
Indian country.
In FY 2008, the budget for this goal also provides $56.9 million
for GAP grants, which will build tribal environmental capacity to
assess environmental conditions, utilize available Federal information,
and build an environmental program tailored to tribes' needs. The
grants will develop environmental education and outreach programs,
develop and implement integrated solid waste management plans, and
alert EPA to serious conditions that pose immediate public health and
ecological threats. Through GAP program guidance, EPA emphasizes
outcome-based results.
enforcement
In FY 2008, the proposed total of $549.5 million represents the
highest requested enforcement budget. This request for an increase of
$9.1 million reflects the Administration's strong commitment to the
vigorous enforcement of our nation's environmental laws and ensures
that we will have the resources necessary to maintain a robust and
effective enforcement program.
EPA's enforcement program continues to achieve outstanding
enforcement results with settlements over the past 3 years resulting in
commitments of nearly $20 billion in future pollution controls. As an
outcome of EPA's Superfund enforcement actions in FY 06, parties held
responsible for pollution will invest $391 million to clean up 15
million cubic yards of contaminated soil and approximately 1.3 billion
cubic yards of contaminated groundwater at waste sites. These results
show a strong and vigorous enforcement program that will be attainable
under the FY 2008 Request.
research
EPA conducts research that provides a scientific foundation for the
Agency's actions to protect the air that all Americans breathe. In FY
2008, EPA's air research program will support implementation of the
Clean Air Act, especially the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS). The NAAQS programs will focus on tropospheric ozone,
particulate matter, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides,
and lead. EPA also conducts research to improve understanding of the
risks from other hazardous air pollutants, known as air toxics. EPA is
also one of many Federal agencies that actively contribute to the
Administration's Climate Change Science Program.
Other important areas of research in FY 2008 will include: 1)
development of molecular microarrays for detection of bacterial
pathogens and non-pathogenic microbes in drinking water source waters;
2) epidemiological studies on the illness rates resulting from
untreated groundwater and distribution systems; 3) studies on the
practices, such as blending, for handling significant wet weather
events to identify ``best practices'' for preventing peak wet weather
flows from overwhelming wastewater treatment facilities while
protecting water quality; and 4) providing more efficient monitoring
and diagnostic tools through continued research to develop methods of
using landscape assessments for monitoring and assessing watershed
conditions. These programs will help assess risks and priorities for
ensuring clean water.
EPA is requesting $10.2 million in FY 2008 for nanotechnology
research, which will focus primarily on the potential implications of
manufactured nanomaterials on human health and the environment. The
Agency's efforts are coordinated with other Federal agencies through
the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), which the Administration
has identified as a FY 2008 research and development budget priority.
In FY 2008, EPA's Science to Achieve Results (STAR) program will
continue to fund exploratory grants on the potential implications of
manufactured nanomaterials on the environment and human health, in
collaboration with other Federal agencies.
The Agency also will continue in-house nanotechnology research
initiated in FY 2007. The integrated programs will focus on: 1)
assessing the potential ecological and human health exposures and
effects from nanomaterials likely to be released into the environment;
2) studying the lifecycles of nanomaterials to better understand how
environmental releases may occur; 3) developing methods to detect
releases of nanomaterials; and 4) using nanotechnology to detect,
control, and remediate traditional pollutants.
Recognizing that environmental policy and regulatory decisions will
only be as good as the science upon which they are based, EPA makes
every effort to ensure that its science is of the highest quality and
relevance, thereby providing the basis for sound environmental
decisions and results. EPA uses the Federal Research and Development
(R&D) Investment Criteria of quality, relevance, and performance in its
decision-making processes through: 1) the use of research strategies
and plans; 2) program review and evaluation by the Board of Scientific
Counselors (BOSC) and the Science Advisory Board (SAB); and 3)
independent peer review.
homeland security
Following the cleanup and decontamination efforts after the
terrorist incidents in 2001, the Agency has focused on ensuring we have
the tools and protocols needed to detect and recover quickly from
deliberate incidents. The emphasis for FY 2008 is on several areas
including decontaminating threat agents, protecting our water and food
supplies, and ensuring that trained personnel and key lab capacities
are in place to be drawn upon in the event of an emergency. Part of
these FY 2008 efforts will continue to include activities to implement
a common identification standard for EPA employees and contractors such
as the Smartcard initiative.
EPA has a major role in supporting the protection of the nation's
critical water infrastructure from terrorist threats. In FY 2008, EPA
will continue to support the Water Security Initiative (formerly known
as Water Sentinel) pilot program and water sector-specific agency
responsibilities, including the Water Alliance for Threat Reduction
(WATR), to protect the nation's critical water infrastructure. The FY
2008 budget provides $22 million for the Water Security Initiative to
continue operation at the existing pilot systems and to begin
deployment of the last pilot systems. Ultimately, an expansion of the
number of utilities will serve to promote the adoption of Water
Security within the water sector. Functioning warning systems, among
several utilities of potentially divergent configurations, will afford
a more compelling outcome than just one utility. After start-up of the
remaining pilot systems in 2008, the program will ramp down as EPA
shifts its focus to evaluation of the pilots. EPA will continue support
of each pilot for three years, after which the host cities will assume
maintenance of these systems and over time bring them to full-scale
operation. By the end of FY 2007, EPA will issue interim guidance on
design and consequence management that will enable water utilities to
deploy and test contamination warning systems in their own communities.
In FY 2008, the Agency, in collaboration with our water sector
security stakeholders, will continue our efforts to develop, implement
and initiate tracking of national measures related to homeland security
critical infrastructure protection activities.
In summary, this budget will enable us to carry out the goals and
objectives as set forth in our Strategic Plan, meet challenges through
innovative and collaborative efforts with our State, tribal, and
private entity partners, and focus on accountability and results in
order to maximize environmental benefits. The requested resources will
help us better understand and solve environmental challenges using the
best available science and data, and support the President's focus on
the importance of homeland security while carrying out EPA's mission.
______
Responses by Stephen Johnson to Additional Questions
from Senator Boxer
global change science & technology program
Question 1. Funding for the EPA's Global Change Science &
Technology Program was cut by $548,400 in from the FY06 enacted level
to the President's Budget FY08 (See Appendix). Why was this program
cut?
Response. The President's FY 2008 request includes $17 million for
climate change research at EPA. In FY 2008, EPA's global change
research program will continue to play a major role in the interagency
U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) and focus on developing the
scientific understanding of how climate change will influence air and
water quality, ecosystems, and human health. The program will also
emphasize providing information and decision support tools that enable
policymakers to respond effectively to global change. The budget
reduction planned for FY 2008 will result in approximately one fewer
research grant to study how global change will influence aeroallergens
such as pollen and mold.
Question 2. How do the above cuts exemplify the Bush
administration's and the EPA's commitment to funding Climate Change
science?
Response. The President's FY 2008 budget includes a commitment of
$17 million for climate change research at EPA and, more generally,
over $1.8 billion for the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP).
Together these agencies, with significant contributions from EPA, are
implementing a coordinated strategy to improve our understanding of
climate change and variability and strengthen the science that will be
needed to address climate change.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
intergovernmental panel on climate change (ipcc) report
Question 3. This IPCC report was strongly embraced by the Bush
administration in the same press release, stating:
The report confirms what President Bush has said about the nature
of climate change and it reaffirms the need for continued U.S.
leadership in addressing global climate issues. The report findings
highlight the need for robust climate research and the development of
new technologies to clean our air and deal with global climate change,
while maintaining economic competitiveness.
How do the above cuts fit with the Bush administration's support of
the IPCC report and the need for climate research?
Response. The President's FY 2008 budget includes a commitment of
$17 million for climate change research at EPA and, more than $1.8
billion for the Federal participants of the interagency Climate Change
Science Program which includes 13 agencies and departments. Together
these agencies, with significant contributions from EPA, are
implementing a coordinated strategy to improve our understanding of
climate change and variability and strengthen the science that will be
needed to address climate change.
$29 billion studies
Question 4. On February 8, 2007, in an online forum at the White
House, you are quoted as saying, ``[S]ince 2001, the Bush
administration has invested more than $29 billion to study climate
change science, promote energy-efficient and carbon dioxide-reducing
technologies, and fund tax incentive programs.''
In September 2006, several of my colleagues and I sent a letter to
James Connaughton, Director, White House Council of Environmental
Quality asking questions regarding the $29 billion figure. This letter
is attached. Because we have not received a response from Mr.
Connaughton, we would like you to answer these questions. Please answer
each of the specific questions in the attached letter.
Response. It is our understanding that CEQ is in the process of
responding to the letter. Inasmuch, EPA will defer.
pesticides--lead rule
Question 5. EPA's Budget Justification says that the Agency is
reducing funding to protect people from pesticides in order to fund
work on a rule to reduce risks from lead. It seems clear that EPA needs
more money to do its job of protecting public health.
Describe the amount of money that EPA needs to both complete the
lead rule and promptly review all of the pesticides that need to be
reviewed to ensure their safety by the end of 2008.
Response. EPA has requested $1,000,000 for the completion of the
Lead Renovation and Remodeling (R&R) Rule in 2008. The FY 2008
President's Budget provides sufficient funding to protect human health
and the environment by reviewing pesticides to ensure their safety by
the end of FY 2008, as mandated by FQPA and PRIA.
environmental justice--funding
Question 6. The EPA is charged with ensuring environmental justice
in its decisions and in the programs that it oversees. However, a 2004
EPA Inspector General (IG) report concluded that the Agency had not
``consistently integrated environmental justice into its day-to-day
operations, [and that the Agency had] not established values, goals,
expectations, and performance measurements'' for environmental justice.
A 2006 IG survey ``showed that EPA senior management has not
sufficiently directed program and regional offices to conduct
environmental justice reviews'' in accordance with an executive order
on environmental justice. The IG stated, ``Consequently, the majority
of respondents reported their programs or offices have not performed
environmental justice reviews.'' Clearly, EPA should be doing more--not
less--to ensure environmental justice in its decisions and programs.
However, the budget proposes to cut funding for environmental justice
by more than $1.7 million, a 31 percent cut.
Please describe:
The amount of annual funding that EPA has provided to the National
Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC) since 2001. Please also
describe the level of Federal resources, measured by the number of
fully staffed Full Time Equivalents, devoted to the NEJAC annually
since 2001.
Response. We are pleased to update you on the progress the Agency
has made in addressing the concerns raised by the IG concerning the
environmental justice program at EPA. Recently, we convened the Agency
senior managers to complete the plan for developing and conducting
environmental justice reviews for selected programs and activities. The
Office of the Inspector General accepted the Agency's plan stating that
``we accept the proposed actions and appreciate your constructive
approach to the issues raised in our report.'' Developing and
conducting environmental justice reviews is one component of many that
the Office of Environmental Justice is undertaking to promote the
integration of environmental justice into the day-to-day operations of
the Agency.
As indicated in the IG report, the ultimate goal is to integrate EJ
into the Agency's core programs.
With respect to the budget for the EPA's Environmental Justice
program, the environmental justice base program is being reduced by a
modest 1.0 FTE in the FY 2008 budget request (from the FY 2007
Request). The reduction reflects efficiencies the program has been able
to achieve from reducing the number of NEJAC subcommittees, requiring
less Headquarters coordination and support. The decrease mentioned in
your question refers to the earmark received in FY 2006, but not
requested in FY 2008. As a matter of policy, the Agency does not
sustain Congressional earmarks in its budget request.
Although Congress did not provide an earmark in FY 2007, EPA
increased funding by $850,000 for the environmental justice grant
program.
Staff support and funding for the NEJAC is provided by the Office
of Environmental Justice as part of its mission. There is not a
separate budget line item for the NEJAC activities. The following table
provides funding for the Agency's Environmental Justice program project
between FYs 2001 and 2008. FTE reductions in recent years are largely
associated with a reduction in the number of NEJAC Subcommittees,
requiring less Headquarters coordination and support.
With regards to NEJAC meetings, EPA anticipates there will be three
meetings held in FY 2008.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
environmental justice--pollution prevention
Question 7. EPA's process of reviewing Federal regulatory programs
for pollution prevention opportunities by reducing the use and
production of toxic chemicals as required the by the Pollution
Prevention Act and endorsed by the NEJAC: Please provide a list of
pollution prevention initiatives that seek to reduce the use and
production of toxic chemicals in environmental justice communities that
EPA has implemented since 2001. Please provide a description of
initiative, its current status, and an assessment of its impacts in
reducing the use and production of toxic chemicals.
Response. The Office of Pesticides, Prevention, and Toxics has
taken numerous actions since 2001 to reduce the use and production of
toxic chemicals in environmental justice communities. Examples include:
In 2003, the Agency initiated a new program, Community Action for
a Renewed Environment, or CARE, to assist communities--especially those
with EJ concerns--to better understand risks of, and to utilize
pollution prevention and other approaches to reduce exposure to toxic
chemicals in their communities. This grant and technical assistance
program helps communities build local partnerships to understand risks
from all sources, set priorities, and take voluntary actions to reduce
risks. Cross program, multimedia teams have been organized in the
Agency to work with the CARE. The CARE program is now working with 51
communities in over 25 States.
EPA has also been working with Tribes to address toxic chemicals
concerns on tribal lands:
-EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT)
participates in the Forum for State and Tribal Toxics Actions (FOSTTA),
which has conducted approximately three meeting per year concerning its
Tribal Project. Further, the Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic
Substances has developed and is implementing an OPPTS Tribal Strategic
Plan for Fiscal Years 2004-2008.
-OPPT has also been engaged since FY 2002 with the Tribal Workgroup
of the National Pollution Prevention and Toxics Advisory Committee
(NPPTAC), chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA).
The workgroup identified and framed two broad issues for consideration
by the Committee: Green Buildings on Tribal Lands and Tribal Access to,
and Utilization of, Publicly Available Chemical Hazard and Exposure
Data. The Committee approved and provided to EPA two recommendations
based on these issues. The Agency, in addition to supporting the Tribal
workgroup, has begun to implement both of these recommendations.
-OPPT is also developing a Tribal Green Building and P2
Technologies Guidance Document under a contract with a tribal owned
business. The document seeks to provide information which can be used
to guide decision-making for Tribal Governments in their business and
economic development plans. This document includes a cost/benefit
analysis on green building options and technologies, including rain-
water run-off roofs, green landscaping, green building materials, etc.
A draft of the document is currently being circulated for review among
tribal communities, specifically seeking recommendations on its
applicability in Indian County.
-OPPT is working with the Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) to incorporate green building guidance into the
Indian Housing Block Grants (IHBG) Program and other Tribal programs.
HUD has indicated that they would include green building information on
their website; negotiations on changing their IHBG guidance to include
an emphasis on green buildings are continuing.
-OPPT has initiated discussions with the Indian Health Service
(IHS) to implement greener health care practices in Indian health
clinics and hospitals IHS has begun EMS pilot sites at two facilities-a
hospital and a clinic. IHS has identified additional sites to implement
the EMS program, and has asked OPPT and the Hospitals for a Healthy
Environment (H2E) organization for technical assistance.
To ensure that pollution prevention approaches are considered in
the development of regulations and major Agency actions, EPA's formal
process for initiating and reviewing regulatory actions, known as the
Action Development Process (ADP), includes a specific step to ensure
that pollution prevention approaches are considered at the very
beginning of the regulatory development process. The ADP includes the
creation of a document known as an ``analytic blueprint,'' or ABP, for
guiding the development of a major regulation or Agency action. The
analytic blueprint is meant to specifically address the topic of
pollution prevention (P2), and to examine potential P2 approaches, or
to explain why P2 isn't an appropriate option for the particular
regulatory action under development.
title vi complaints
Question 8. The number of Title VI complaints since 2001 that the
Agency has received based on environmental justice concerns, the number
of complaints investigated, the number of permits reviewed, and the
outcome of such reviews. Please include a description of the type of
investigation and review, and dates for the beginning and completion of
each review process.
Response. Since 2001, the Agency has received 84 complaints based
on environmental justice concerns. Of those 84 complaints, 26
complaints are undergoing jurisdictional review and 8 complaints are
under active investigation. Fifty of the complaints received since 2001
have been closed. Forty-one of the closed complaints were rejected on
jurisdictional grounds. The most frequent grounds for rejection were
untimeliness and lack of a financial assistance recipient. One
complaint was referred to another Federal agency that likely had
jurisdiction. Another complaint was informally resolved by the parties.
EPA's implementing regulations, found at 40 C.F.R. Part 7, state
that it is EPA's policy to seek informal resolution of Title VI
complaints whenever possible. EPA has employed alternative dispute
resolution (ADR) techniques in several of our Title VI cases.
The informal resolution of a complaint has occurred when the
parties (i.e. EPA, complainant, and recipient) involved have reached a
resolution by informal voluntary negotiations.
Seven of the complaints received and reviewed since 2001 were
dismissed after acceptance (see chart below). The withdrawal of a
complaint has occurred when a complainant notifies EPA that it would
like to withdraw their complaint. This withdrawal therefore dismisses
the complaint and renders the case resolved. None of these seven
complaints involved permit reviews.
From 2001 to the present, the Agency has closed a total of 103
complaints alleging discrimination by recipients of EPA assistance.
Fifty-three of those complaints were received by the Agency prior to
2001, and 50 of the complaints were received since 2001.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
inspector general-staff
Question 9. Please describe whether the IG, given the demographics
of the Office, should be hiring and training staff now to ensure that
it maintains its output and expertise as staff retire.
Response. The OIG maintains an ambitious level of technical and
management training, as appropriate for its staff and in compliance
with the rigors of Comptroller General's Government Auditing Standards,
which is certified through an independent peer review. This training,
along with assignments designed to provide staff with developmental
experience, increasing levels of responsibility, and supervisory
opportunities, prepare them for greater challenges to build
organizational competence at all levels. While approximately 11 percent
of the EPA OIG staff are currently eligible for retirement, the OIG has
built a strong core of young managers and has been highly successful in
attracting and developing outstanding candidates when positions are
available. The OIG constantly explores staffing and skill needs in
relation to its strategic goals, specific assignments, and available
resources to consider all options for accomplishing its mission,
through the most efficient blend of permanent staff and specialized
contract services. Within this overarching framework, the OIG plans to
hire 5-10 new trainees each year.
epa enforcementquestion 10. epa proposes to cut $1.3 million for the
superfund program's enforcement budget for forensic support to track
polluters and make them pay. epa also expects a decline in the money it
recovers from polluters for past epa cleanups. epa should not be
cutting enforcement resources at the same time that the agency's budget
proposed to provide fewer funds for cleanups and independent oversight
activities by the inspector general.
Please describe the forensic programs that could have their funding
cut under the proposed budget, including any potential funding cuts for
work that may be done by the National Enforcement Investigations
Center.
Response. The Agency's FY 2008 request for the National Enforcement
Investigations Center (NEIC), EPA's forensics laboratory, is sufficient
to continue providing specialized scientific and technical support for
the nation's most complex enforcement cases across all media. We are
confident that the proposed FY 2008 budget achieves the appropriate
balance between our programs.
Most of the budget changes to the Forensics Support Superfund
program represent a realignment of resources between appropriations and
not a reduction to the program. EPA proposes to transfer resources from
the Superfund appropriation to the Science and Technology appropriation
to reflect a shifting workload between Superfund and non-Superfund
activities. This shift is based on workload data used to establish a
charging methodology for Superfund and non- Superfund activities.
climate change programs--energy star
Question 11. During the Environment and Public Works Committee
hearing on EPA's Budget, you mentioned EPA's Energy Star program
numerous times, mentioning how successful a program it has been.
According to your statement, in 2005 alone, Americans ``saved $12
billion in energy costs'' from the Energy Star program.
The FY 2006 enacted level was $49.5 million for Energy Star while
the President's FY08 Budget requests $43.9 million, a decrease of over
$5.6 million. Why would such a successful program be cut?
Response. The reductions to the Energy Star programs in FY 2007 and
FY 2008 reflect a decrease in Federal investment due to public and
private industry adoption of these programs. For example, the
acceptance of energy efficiency as an industry standard is now seen in
building construction and in the manufacturing of hundreds of
appliances. This decrease also included contract funding that reflects
efficiency gains and shifting priorities.
climate change programs--energy star goals and objectives
Question 12. You also stated that you feel the budget provides
``sufficient funds to be able to meet our fiscal year 2008 goals and
objectives in Energy Star.'' Are the standards for goals and objectives
being lowered to compensate for the decreased funding? Please provide
details on the goals and objectives of the Energy Star for FY08,
specifically noting any changes that have been made to goals from FY07.
Response. EPA still anticipates that ENERGY STAR will meet its
goals of avoiding 33 MMTCE and 40 MMTCE of greenhouse gas emissions in
2007 and 2008. The goal for the Energy Star program includes ongoing
work (that is work funded in previous years). This work is not
dependent on the funding in the current year. The effects of the
funding reduction in FY 2008 will be seen as EPA sets goals for future
years.
climate protection program--s&t
Question 13. Though funding for the EPA Climate Protection Program
Science & Technology program increased by $554,400 in the President's
Budget from FY07 to FY08, from the FY06 enacted level, the President's
FY08 Budget represents a cut of over $5.5 million. (See Appendix) Why
was this program cut?
Response. Reductions from FY 2006 to FY 2008 to the S&T portion of
the Climate Change program reflects a phase down in Federal investment
in hydraulic hybrid technology development as a result of transfer to
private sector of hybrid and clean diesel technologies. The plan to
transfer these technologies will be as follows:
1. Innovations are first evaluated by EPA engineers in the
laboratory.
2. EPA then works with private industry to demonstrate that the
concept evaluated in the laboratory will work in the real world.
Finally, EPA collaborates with industry partners to transfer unique
expertise and know-how about specified technology from EPA engineers to
private industry.
global change science & technology program
Question 14. Funding for the EPA's Global Change Science &
Technology Program was cut by $548,400 in from the FY06 enacted level
to the President's Budget FY08. 3(See Appendix) Why was this program
cut?
Response. The President's FY 2008 request includes $17 million for
climate change research at EPA. In FY 2008, EPA's global change
research program will continue to play a major role in the interagency
U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) and focus on developing the
scientific understanding of how climate change will influence air and
water quality, ecosystems, and human health. The program will also
emphasize providing information and decision support tools that enable
policymakers to respond effectively to global change. The budget
reduction planned for FY 2008 will result in approximately one fewer
research grant to study how global change will influence aeroallergens
such as pollen and mold.
Question 15. How do the above cuts exemplify the Bush
administration's and the EPA's commitment to funding Climate Change
science?
Response. The President's FY 2008 budget includes a commitment of
$17 million for climate change research at EPA and, more generally,
over $1.8 billion for the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP).
Together these agencies, with significant contributions from EPA, are
implementing a coordinated strategy to improve our understanding of
climate change and variability and strengthen the science that will be
needed to address climate change.
intergovernmental panel on climate change (ipcc) report
Question 16. This IPCC report was strongly embraced by the Bush
administration in the same press release, stating:
The report confirms what President Bush has said about the nature
of climate change and it reaffirms the need for continued U.S.
leadership in addressing global climate issues. The report findings
highlight the need for robust climate research and the development of
new technologies to clean our air and deal with global climate change,
while maintaining economic competitiveness.
How do the above cuts fit with the Bush administration's support of
the IPCC report and the need for climate research?
Response. The President's FY 2008 budget includes a commitment of
$17 million for climate change research at EPA and, more than $1.8
billion for the Federal participants of the interagency Climate Change
Science Program which includes 13 agencies and departments. Together
these agencies, with significant contributions from EPA, are
implementing a coordinated strategy to improve our understanding of
climate change and variability and strengthen the science that will be
needed to address climate change.
climate change programs--energy star and small businesses
Question 17. On March 8, 2007 EPA Acting Assistant Administrator
William Wehrum testified regarding the Energy Star Program, before the
Committee on Small Business and entrepreneurship. He noted that ``in
2006, there were more than 130,000 visits to the Energy Star small
business web site.'' This program is needed to serve more than 26
million small businesses as well as other institutions like churches.
Yet EPA is proposing to cut the Energy Star Budget. What is the budget
for the Energy Star Small Business program, and how many exclusive
staff does this expenditure support? What percentage of the overall
Energy Star budget is devoted to small business and how much will the
overall amount decrease under the proposed cut?
Response. The annual EPA budget for ENERGY STAR activities aimed
directly at small businesses and congregations is approximately $1
million. This represents approximately 2 percent of EPA's overall
ENERGY STAR budget. However, in addition to these dedicated resources,
a number of other efforts within the ENERGY STAR program directly
benefit small businesses not including benefits to small businesses
from the Department of Energy, who is a partner with EPA in ENERGY
STAR. EPA efforts include:
Maintaining an up-to-date website on energy efficient products
and other energy saving information.
Implementing outreach campaigns on proper maintenance of heating
and cooling equipment and other energy saving practices.
Technical tool development.
Promotion of energy efficiency to commercial real estate
operators, who are the landlords for many small businesses.
Promotion of ENERGY STAR Commercial Food Service equipment to
thousands of small businesses through the National Restaurant
Association and other organizations.
The ENERGY STAR small business program is supported by two full-
time EPA staff, as well as part-time efforts from a number of
additional EPA staff.
We have not yet considered the FY 2008 budget for support of the
ENERGY STAR small business program, therefore it is not possible to
determine the specific funding level at this time.
$29 billion studies
Question 18. On February 8, 2007, in an online forum at the White
House, you are quoted as saying,''[S]ince 2001, the Bush administration
has invested more than $29 billion to study climate change science,
promote energy-efficient and carbon dioxide-reducing technologies, and
fund tax incentive programs.''
In September 2006, several of my colleagues and I sent a letter to
James Connaughton, Director, White House Council of Environmental
Quality asking questions regarding the $29 billion figure. This letter
is attached. Because we have not received a response from Mr.
Connaughton, we would like you to answer these questions. Please answer
each of the specific questions in the attached letter.
Response. It is our understanding that CEQ is in the process of
responding to the letter. Inasmuch, EPA will defer.
superfund toxic waste cleanup program--npl sites beginning 1993
Question 19. For sites listed under Superfund beginning in 1993
that do not have a Federal Government agency as the potentially
responsible party (i.e. non-federal Superfund sites), please describe:
Whether the site has a final Record of Decision, including the date of
any such document. The expected date for any such document to be
signed, if it has not yet been signed. The amount of cleanup work
already completed at the site and the expected date for completing any
remaining cleanup work at the site, and for all sites that Federal
Superfund money is being used to conduct a cleanup, the expected amount
of money needed to finish construction activities required for cleanup.
Response. The table in Attachment 1 contains data for 215 non-
federal, final National Priorities List (NPL) sites that were added to
the NPL beginning in 1993 and that were not construction complete as of
the end of FY 2006. Please note that:
If a site had a final remedy selected as of the end of FY 2006,
the fiscal year of that decision is indicated in the attachment.
If a site did not have a final remedy selected as of the end of
FY 2006, the latest planned completion date (FY) of any planned Records
of Decision (RODs) is identified in the attached table. This date may
not indicate the expected date of the final remedy decision, as
additional RODs, ROD Amendments, or Explanations of Significant
Difference may be necessary in the future that have not yet been
planned. If no date was provided, then a future decision document
planned completion date does not exist or was not currently available
in the Agency's data system.
Because site-wide cleanup is dependent upon multiple remedial
and/or removal actions at potentially multiple subunits with differing
costs and durations, EPA has not defined a measure to determine the
percentage of total remedial work at a site that has been accomplished.
For sites that have a Final Remedy Selected decision as of the end of
FY 2006, the attached table provides the currently estimated
construction completion date. Note that planning information in the
Agency's data system is dynamic, and estimates change frequently for a
variety of reasons.
The amount of money needed to finish construction activities for
cleanup at sites where Federal Superfund money is being used to conduct
a cleanup is defined in this response as all FY 2007 and subsequent
planned obligations for all Fund-lead construction actions at sites
that are not construction complete as of the end of FY 2006. These
estimates include both appropriated resources as well as resources
recovered from settlements with potentially responsible parties (PRPs)
and State cost share resources. Estimates do not include costs
associated with post-construction or oversight of PRP implementation,
nor costs of construction activities that have not yet been planned,
nor costs associated with remedies that have not yet been selected.
Lack of planning data may be due to several reasons, such as remedy
decisions are still pending, projects are still in the early phases of
design, or EPA is still identifying, or negotiating with, PRPs to
perform the cleanup. Sites where a PRP has the lead for any planned or
ongoing construction (last column of table in Attachment 1) may not
include a cost estimate. However, some of these sites may also have
planned or ongoing Fund-lead construction actions and the cost
estimates for those projects are included.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
superfund sites--short-term cleanups
Question 20. Superfund limits EPA's use of short-term cleanup
actions (i.e. removal actions) to 12 months from the date of the
initial cleanup action or $2,000,000, with certain exceptions. These
limitations ensure that EPA uses its long-term cleanup authorities
(i.e. remedial action), which may have more substantial safeguards than
short-term cleanups. Please describe the: Number and location of short-
term cleanups that EPA has conducted each year since 1996. Number of
times that EPA has exceeded the statutory limitations described above
on removal actions. Beginning and ending date, or the anticipated
ending date, of all removal actions, and the amount of money that EPA
spent on the removal action, or that the Agency anticipates spending on
the removal action.
Response. The Agency short-term clean-up action (removals) sites
quickly address those releases that pose a threat to public health or
welfare or the environment. Yearly, EPA uses its CERCLA removal
response authority, to respond to hundreds of sites which pose
immediate and substantial threats, such as chemical fires and spills,
as well as illegal dumps and abandoned chemical plants.
A removal action is generally short-term and addresses the most
immediate site threats. Due to the nature of these responses and the
unpredictability of the number, location and scope of those actions,
the removal program is generally unable to predict the locality,
duration, or total costs associated with a removal action, at the onset
of the response action.
In response to this question, by July 31, we will provide a listing
of all fund lead removal actions taken since FY 1996. The list will
also contain the requested start and/or completion dates, obligated
funding and any exceptions to CERCLA statutory limitations.
superfund sites--cleanups
Question 21. EPA's listing of new Superfund sites for cleanup has
declined by 33 percent. Between 1995 and 2000, EPA listed an average of
27 sites. Between 2001 and 2006, EPA listed an average of 18 toxic
waste sites each year. Independent experts and the EPA recognize that
there are enough unaddressed toxic waste sites to maintain the historic
pace of listing through the end of this decade. Please provide the
following information on EPA's listing process since 2001:
All sites that EPA has requested a governor's concurrence to list
under Superfund.
Response. EPA does not track its requests for concurrence letters.
The Agency only documents the receipt of concurrence letters since a
site is not listed without such a letter. EPA believes it is important
to have the State concur in the listing to ensure State support for the
cleanup of the site. For a Fund-lead remedial action, the State will
need to sign a Superfund State Contract (SSC) committing to cost-
sharing the construction of the remedy and operating / maintaining the
completed remedy. Since 2001, EPA has received Governor/State
concurrence letters requesting the listing of 115 sites from 32
different States.
Question 22. All sites that EPA has requested a governor's
concurrence to list under Superfund but that EPA has not yet listed,
including the reason for EPA's failure to list the site.
Response. Of the 115 sites for which EPA has received governor/
state concurrence letters since 2001, only 8 have not been proposed to
the NPL. See the table below for the reasons that the eight sites have
not been proposed for listing.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Question 23. All sites that State or local officials have formally
or informally requested EPA to list for cleanup under Superfund.
Response. EPA tracks formal concurrence letters from governors
requesting the listing of sites. Since 2001, EPA has received 115 of
these letters. EPA does not track informal requests for listing.
Question 24. All sites that State or local officials have formally
or informally requested EPA to list for cleanup under Superfund but
that EPA has not yet listed, including the reason for EPA's failure to
list the site.
Response. Of the 115 sites for which EPA has received formal
concurrence letters since 2001, only 8 have not been proposed to the
NPL. See the table above for the reasons that the eight sites have not
been proposed for listing.
national advisory council for environmental policy and technology
(nacept) report
Question 25. A 2004 EPA National Advisory Council for Environmental
Policy and Technology (NACEPT) report found that in 2002 the Agency
began using a new and additional layer of evaluation prior to listing a
site under Superfund. EPA officials told NACEPT that a panel of Agency
officials now considers various factors, including potential Superfund
costs, prior to listing a site. The NACEPT reported stated that this
was the first time that EPA has considered cost as a factor for listing
sites. Please provide information on this process that describes the:
Number of sites submitted to the panel on an annual basis.
Response. EPA considered 44 sites for proposal on the National
Priorities List (NPL) in FY 2003, 16 sites in FY 2004, 21 sites in FY
2005, 22 sites in FY 2006, and 8 sites through March 2007.
Question 26. Number of sites listed on an annual basis since the
panel began reviewing sites for potential listing.
Response. Sites proposed in any particular year may be added to the
NPL in subsequent years. EPA added 20 sites to the NPL in FY 2003, 11
sites in FY 2004, 18 sites in FY 2005, 11 sites in FY 2006, and 5 sites
to date in FY 2007. EPA generally develops rulemakings for NPL listing
twice a year, in March and September.
Question 27. Name, location and contaminants of concern at sites
that were submitted to the panel but that the panel did not recommend
for listing, broken down annually.
Response. The panel does not make decisions or recommendations
about listing sites to the NPL.
Question 28. Current status of sites that EPA decided not to list,
including whether other State or Federal programs are actively cleaning
up contamination at the site, including the name of the program
currently conducting such cleanup activities.
superfund alternative approach
Question 29. EPA's Use of the Superfund Alternative Site Process,
signed by Chairman Boxer, Senator Clinton, Senator Baucus, Senator
Lautenberg, and Senator Cardin. EPA describes its ``Superfund
Alternative'' program as being designed to steer toxic waste sites away
from being listed for cleanup under Superfund, even though they would
normally qualify for listing. Please provide the following information
on this program. A list of sites included within the program, including
the number of sites added to the program annually, as well as each
site's name, location (city and State), contaminants of concern, and
the name of the party responsible for cleaning up the contamination at
the site.
Response. The Superfund Alternative (SA) approach is consistent
with EPA Superfund's mission and practices by providing one more
enforcement option for securing cleanup commitments from private
parties in appropriate circumstances. This approach may be appropriate
at sites that meet the following criteria:
require long-term response (i.e. remedial action [RA]),
are eligible for, but not listed on, the National Priorities List
(NPL), and
a viable potentially responsible party (PRP) is willing to
perform the RA.
EPA does not require EPA regions to negotiate SA agreements nor
does it have any targets for using the SA approach. To date, EPA has
identified 22 sites that are actively using the SA approach.
Specifically, these are non-NPL sites where an agreement with a PRP has
been finalized since publication of the guidance in June 2002. Please
see Attachment A for detailed information on the 22 sites.
In addition, a PRP-lead RA has begun at 3 of the 22 sites. These
sites (and PRPs) are:
Weyerhaeuser Co. Plymouth Wood Treating Plant (Region 4; PRP:
Weyerhaeuser Co.);
Highway 71-72 (Region 6; PRP: Canadian Oxy Offshore Production
Co.); and
Kennecott (South Zone) (Region 8; PRPs: Kennecott Utah Copper
Corp.).
Question 30. The number of sites eliminated from the program,
including the year a site was eliminated, the reason for the site being
eliminated, the name of the cleanup program that the site went into, if
any, and any follow-up activity by EPA on the site.
Response. The SA approach is not a stand-alone ``program''; rather,
it is a settlement approach for use in appropriate circumstances. Sites
are not ``eliminated from the [SA] program'' nor does EPA track the
sites where a Region anticipated using the SA approach and then decided
to pursue a different approach. However, EPA evaluated the data on
sites with the SA ``flag'' in the Comprehensive Environmental Response
Compensation and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) as of February
2005 and found that there were a number of sites for which the SA flag
should be removed. There were many reasons why these sites should not
be flagged as SA, including, but not limited to, placement on the NPL
listing path, plans to be addressed by the State, or were removal-only
sites.
Question 31. The amount of money that EPA has spent on this program
and on each site within the program annually.
Response. The SA approach is not a ``program'' along the lines of
the removal or remedial programs. It is a settlement approach available
for use in appropriate circumstances to help achieve the over-arching
cleanup program's goals. Sites that currently have an SA agreement most
likely had site screening and characterization activities that were
initially paid for with Superfund money, but that are cost recoverable
from the PRP. Some sites also had removal actions that were funded by
Superfund; those funds are also cost-recoverable. The table in
Attachment A has information on site expenditures.
Question 32. The source of EPA funds spent at these sites,
including whether the Agency could have used these funds for cleanup
activities at listed Superfund sites.
Response. EPA has spent appropriated funds at theses sites. In some
instances, EPA has supplemented this appropriated funding with PRP
settlement resources (please see the table in Attachment A). Prior to
entering an agreement with a PRP to do work at any site, EPA uses
Superfund money to perform activities such as site screening and
characterization, and PRP searches. All such expenditures are cost
recoverable. A majority of the SA agreements to date are for Remedial
Investigation and Feasibility Studies (RI/FS). Work under SA agreements
is funded by the PRP.
The SA approach uses settlement authority to secure PRP-lead
cleanups at sites that are eligible to be placed on the NPL. As PRPs
pay for the work, the approach does not divert resources from other
cleanup activities.
Question 33. The types of activities conducted by EPA personnel at
each site.
Response. EPA personnel perform the same types of tasks at SA sites
as at other Superfund sites. Activities include site screening and
characterization, potentially responsible party searches, negotiations,
and oversight.
Question 34. The date that cleanup work began at the site.
Response. Please see the table in Attachment A.
Question 35.The extent of cleanup work completed at the site.
Response. Please see the table in Attachment A.
Question 36. The date that construction needed for all cleanup
activities is expected to be completed.
Response. EPA typically uses the planned construction completion
date to estimate when all construction needed for cleanup activities
will be completed. Since the programmatic measure of construction
completions is only applied for Superfund sites listed as final or
deleted on the NPL, information on planned construction completion
dates for SA sites is not readily available.
Question 37. Any critique of the program provided by EPA's
Inspector General, State or local officials, or EPA personnel, and the
steps that the Agency took to make any changes to the program
recommended by such individuals.
Response. There are four reports that have reviewed the SA
approach:
1. June 2007 Office of Inspector General (OIG) Report--EPA Needs to
Take More Action in Implementing Alternative Approaches to Superfund
Cleanups (Report No. 2007-P-00026).
A report on the SA approach by EPA's OIG was released on June 7,
2007.
2. 2007 Internal Superfund Evaluation.
An internal evaluation of the SA approach, undertaken jointly by
OECA and OSWER, will also be released soon (expect summer 2007). This
internal evaluation examined if the approach was being implemented
consistent with the SA approach guidance.
3. The April 2004 120-Day Study.
An internal review of the Superfund program culminated in an April
2004 report. The report included a few recommendations that addressed
the SA approach. A copy of this report can be found at http://
www.epa.gov/superfund/action/120day/pdfs/study/120daystudy.pdf. Since
that time, the Revised Superfund Alternative Site (SAS) Guidance was
finalized and a sample General Notice Letter was developed for Regions
to send to potentially responsible parties at sites where the SA
approach is being considered.
4. April 2004 Superfund Subcommittee of the National Advisory
Council on Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Final Report
The NACEPT report recommended that EPA's SA approach should
remain a small pilot program until significantly more input is received
from a broad range of perspectives. A copy of this report can be found
at http://www.epa.gov/oswer/docs/naceptdocs/NACEPTsuperfund-Final-
Report.pdf.
Partly in response to the NACEPT recommendation, in June 2004 EPA
announced an 18-month pilot of the SA approach. As stated above, EPA
Superfund's subsequent internal evaluation examined if the approach was
being implemented consistent with the SA approach guidance.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
sfsite--libby, my
Question 38. EPA's Inspector General (lG) issued a report on
December 5, 2006 that contained ``significant issues'' that are
``critical to a successful cleanup'' of asbestos at the Libby Superfund
site in Montana. The IG concluded EPA had ``not completed a toxicity
assessment of amphibiole asbestos necessary to determine the safe level
of human exposure; therefore, EPA cannot be sure that the Libby cleanup
sufficiently reduces the risk that humans may become ill or, if ill
already, get worse.'' The Agency failed to conduct an assessment
because ``EPA did not approve the budget request and. . . [the Office
of Solid Waste and Emergency Response] believed that they could obtain
the information they needed to determine the toxicity of Libby asbestos
based on other epidemiology studies. . . '' However, the IG disagreed
with EPA's characterization of and reliance on epidemiology work as a
substitute for a toxicological assessment. The IG also found that EPA's
public information documents, ``Living with Vermiculate'' and
``Asbestos in Your Home'' are ``inconsistent about safety concerns.''
The IG recommended that the EPA ``[f]und and execute a
comprehensive amphibole asbestos toxicity assessment. . . [that
includes] the effects of asbestos exposure on children. . . [and that
the Agency] review and correct any statements that cannot be supported
in any documentation mailed or made available to Libby residents
regarding the safety of living with or handling asbestos until EPA
confirms those facts through a toxicity assessment.''
Please describe:
a. The status of EPA's implementation of the IG's recommendations,
including the status of any funding request for a toxicity assessment,
and
b. Whether EPA failed to approve the budget request for a toxicity
assessment due to a lack of funds.
Response. In response to the IG report, EPA agreed to immediately
review and revise materials provided to Libby residents regarding the
safety of living with or handling asbestos. EPA had already
discontinued use of the fact sheets dealing with what to do if you
encounter vermiculite, including the fact sheet, ``Living with
Vermiculite''. Our overall message remains consistent--asbestos repair
and removal should be performed by a trained professional. The advice
in this document is being updated, and EPA will continue to work to
ensure our communications with the public are clear and consistent.
To ensure that EPA has all the information it needs to support a
baseline risk assessment for Libby, in January 2007, EPA convened a
group of more than 30 scientists from EPA, the Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) and the National Toxicology
Program to identify data gaps and recommend additional studies. The
meeting was hosted by EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD)
National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory (NHEERL)
in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. The scientists also
considered information from the Libby Technical Assistance Group.
Based on the recommendations developed from the January 2007
meeting, the EPA has identified and is implementing a comprehensive
program of 12 studies to support the development of the Libby toxicity
assessment. The description of these studies and the FY 2007 approved
budget and projected funding needs for FY2008 are attached. Additional
funding is anticipated for fiscal year 2009 to complete the studies.
Detailed work plans are currently being developed and will include
consultation with other agencies (e.g., the ATSDR, National Institute
for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), and the National Toxicology
Program (NTP)) and external peer reviews.
The toxicity studies are anticipated to be completed by September
30, 2009; however, this date is tentative pending the completion of the
detailed work plans. Results from the toxicity studies will be used to
complete the baseline risk assessment, including the comprehensive
toxicity assessment, by September 30, 2010.
The Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response has approved a
budget of $2,581,750 in fiscal year 2007 for the Libby Action Plan.
Additional funding is anticipated in fiscal years 2008 and 2009 to
complete the studies.
With regard to the funding of the budget request mentioned in the
IG report, EPA believes that the OIG may have been referring to a
specific toxicological study of noncancer effects using rats. EPA
decided to initiate the evaluation of epidemiological data which is
soon going to be available for external peer review.
summary of toxicity assessment support studies
a) Region 8/ORD National Center for Environmental Assessment
(NCEA), Libby Amphibole Reference Concentration (LARC) Development.
Region 8 is developing a site-specific Reference Concentration (RfC,
the non-cancer toxicity value) for Libby Amphibole based primarily on
epidemiological information from the Marysville, OH cohort who were
exposed to Libby Amphibole. NCEA will assist by evaluating options for
quantitative analysis of the Marysville, Ohio cohort including
additional statistical support. Additionally, a human dosimetry model,
constructed by ORD's National Health and Environmental Effects Research
Laboratory (NHEERL), will be used to predict internal dose and will be
integrated into the site-specific RfC. This site-specific product will
be subject to external peer review. NCEA will provide assistance with
the peer review process.
b) NCEA, Libby Amphibole Cancer Assessment. NCEA will conduct a
cancer assessment specifically for Libby Amphibole for the Integrated
Risk Information System (IRIS). As with all IRIS assessments, available
studies (epidemiologic and animal toxicity) will be considered, as well
as models both for dosimetry and risk assessment. This effort will go
through Agency and Interagency review as a standard assessment for the
EPA's IRIS.
c) United States Geological Survey (USGS), Preparation of Libby
Testing Material. USGS will collect, prepare, and thoroughly
characterize material from the Libby mine (under an Interagency
Agreement with Region 8). This material will be used in the NHEERL
laboratory animal toxicity studies and the analytical method studies.
d) Region 8, Fiber Size Distribution in Libby Vermiculite. Region 8
will verify the fiber size distribution of Libby Amphibole fibers
entrained from Libby vermiculite. This work is necessary to support the
site-specific RfC in development.
e) NHEERL, Dosimetry Model Development and Simulation Studies.
NHEERL will develop a dosimetry model using existing data and available
equations for deposition and clearance based on general fiber
dimensions. This model will allow for estimation of internal tissue
dose (lung burden) in a generic sense but will need to be updated with
Libby Amphibole-specific data. A dosimetry model will allow
quantitative prediction of internal dose across species to facilitate
improved understanding of the exposure-response in humans.
f) NHEERL, In Vitro Dissolution Assays. NHEERL will evaluate key
physicochemical parameters of clearance mechanisms to refine the
dosimetry model predictions of retained dose. The study is designed to
make use of a vast existing NHEERL database on the dissolution and
potency of asbestos and other similar fibers.
g) NHEERL, In Vitro Toxicity Endpoints. NHEERL will evaluate
potential key events and endpoints (e.g., cytotoxicity, oxidative
burden, genotoxicity) for known asbestos samples of Libby Amphibole and
other better studied fibers.
h) NHEERL, Comparative Toxicology in Mice and Rats. NHEERL will
conduct animal studies to determine the relative potency of Libby
Amphibole compared to other types of asbestos; evaluate non-respiratory
endpoints; and evaluate the potential for an increased susceptibility
for children by examining, in utero (infantile) and early lifetime
dosing vs. adult animal treatment. These studies will be applied to the
dosimetry model.
i) NHEERL, Inhalation Toxicology in Rats. NHEERL, through a
contract with the Hamner Institutes for Health Science, will conduct a
90-day inhalation study (followed by various holding times) in the rat
to examine a variety of toxicological endpoints. This study will also
examine the relationship between duration of exposure and the nature
and persistence of effects. The study will provide key data for the
dosimetry model as well as long-term effects.
j) Region 8/NCEA, New Epidemiologic Information from Libby Montana
Cohort. Region 8 and NCEA will review recently available WR Grace
information concerning historical worker asbestos exposures and
associated asbestos-related abnormalities (pleural plaques, diffuse
pleural thickening, asbestosis). This information will be included in
the ongoing and future National Institute of Occupational Safety and
Health (NIOSH) cohort updates and may include extended morbidity
investigation of former WR Grace workers to evaluate the exposure-
response relationship; review and incorporate NIOSH mortality
information; and evaluate biomarker data. Additionally, lung tissue
collection will be pursued to improve the understanding of Libby
Amphibole exposure and lung fiber deposition dosimetry and to support
exposure-response modeling.
k) Region 8/NCEA, New Epidemiologic Information from Other Cohorts.
Region 8 and NCEA will work with NIOSH and the Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) to develop epidemiologic
information from other cohorts exposed to Libby Amphibole.
l) OSWER, Interim Risk Methodology for Quantification of Cancer
Risk from Inhalation Exposure to Asbestos. OSWER is developing a
methodology for estimating the risk of lung cancer and mesothelioma
from inhalation exposure to different forms of asbestos. This
methodology combines data from epidemiological exposure response
studies with surrogate estimates of exposure (based on Transmission
Electron Microscopy, or TEM) that characterizes both the fiber type and
dimensions. Use of this draft interim risk assessment methodology will
allow for estimates of risks of these effects for a variety of complex
mixtures of asbestos materials. A consultation with the EPA Science
Advisory Board on the models is planned for FY 2007.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
superfund cleanup--troy, mt
Asbestos contamination affects areas throughout the Libby Superfund
site. One such area is Troy, Montana. In 2006, EPA stated that it
planned to cleanup Troy High School and then cleanup the residential
and commercial areas of Troy. Please provide a description of EPA's
cleanup activities in the Libby Superfund site, including but not
limited to Troy, which describes:
Question 39a. The status of any EPA investigations or cleanup
efforts involving areas where children may regularly visit or live.
Response. EPA completed a Time Critical Removal Action at the Troy
High School during the summer of 2006, after suspected Vermiculite
Attic Insulation was noted in the school. EPA initiated a comprehensive
Troy Asbestos Property Evaluation (TAPE) effort within the City of Troy
(OU 7) during the spring of 2007. This is being conducted in
coordination with the State of Montana. One purpose of the evaluation
is to conduct a comprehensive sampling and analysis program to
determine the nature and extent of contamination of residential and
public areas within Troy.
EPA estimates that approximately 1430 residences and commercial
properties in the city of Libby, MT may require response actions. As of
the end of May 2007, EPA has completed response actions at 828 of those
properties.
The status of investigations and response activity for the rest of
the Libby Superfund Site is presented in EPA's written testimony for
the public hearing held by the Committee in Libby on April 5, 2007.
Question 39b. The number of residences and commercial buildings
that need to be cleaned up,
Response. This number cannot be finalized for Troy until the TAPE
is complete, specifically the sampling and analysis of specific
properties to determine if contamination is present. At present, EPA
expects to sample approximately 1200 residential properties. The EPA
expects that the evaluation process will take about 2 years. Because
the sampling and analysis of properties have just begun, at this time
we have no definitive estimate of the number of properties requiring
response actions for cleanup of Libby asbestos contamination in Troy.
In Libby, the estimated number of remaining properties that may
require response action is approximately 602. The final number of
properties that may require a response action is dependent on ongoing
investigations and future Records of Decision.
Question 39c. EPA's timeline for completing necessary cleanups,
including Agency records that pose several possible timelines based on
potential funding levels and other factors,
Response. A timeline for completing the necessary response actions
for residences in the City of Troy can not be determined at this time.
Working with the State of Montana, the EPA has to complete its TAPE
process. This will give EPA the number of residences that need to be
cleaned up. EPA estimates that it will take approximately 2 years to
complete the TAPE process.
EPA expects to complete the remaining removal actions for Libby
properties at the rate of approximately 160 per year. Ongoing remedial
investigations will be used to determine future remedial actions and
their timelines. We are researching our records (both hardcopy and
electronic) to determine if other possible timelines were considered.
We expect to have this search completed by August 31, 2007.
Question 39d. The anticipated costs of completing these cleanups,
and
Response. The EPA is still working to identify the total number of
properties in the city of Troy that may or will need to be cleaned up.
We do not have an accurate estimate. Between 2004 and 2006 in the town
of Libby, EPA conducted between 170 and 225 removal actions per year at
a variety of commercial, residential and public properties through out
various areas within the Libby Superfund site, budgeting $17M annually.
The costs for completing all response actions at the site,
including Troy, can not be determined until all of the Records of
Decision are completed, which is tentatively planned for 2011.
Question 39e. All EPA records, including any memoranda, email,
meeting notes, telephone logs or other EPA records that describe actual
or potential funding shortfalls since 2005 for cleanup work at the
Libby Superfund site, including but not limited to investigation,
characterization, and cleanup activities.
Response. We are currently researching our records (both hardcopy
and electronic) to identify all EPA Superfund records that may be
responsive to this request. We expect to have this search completed by
August 31, 2007.
pesticides
Question 40. The budget proposes to cut more than $7 million in
funding that EPA needs to analyze and reduce the risks from pesticides.
EPA's Congressional Justification document admits that reducing this
funding may ``delay'' EPA's review of pesticide safety and impact the
use of ``safer alternatives.'' Describe the amount of money that EPA
would need to promptly review all of the pesticides that need to be
reviewed to ensure their safety by the end of 2009.
Response. The FY 2008 President's Budget provides sufficient
funding to evaluate, assess and review new pesticides before they reach
the market and ensures that pesticides already in commerce are safe.
The $7 million in reduced funding was distributed across the core
pesticide program activities that are a result of streamlining and
consolidating administrative management functions that maximize
efficiency.
pesticides--lead rule
Question 41. EPA's Budget Justification says that the Agency is
reducing funding to protect people from pesticides in order to fund
work on a rule to reduce risks from lead. It seems clear that EPA needs
more money to do its job of protecting public health.
Describe the amount of money that EPA needs to both complete the
lead rule and promptly review all of the pesticides that need to be
reviewed to ensure their safety by the end of 2008.
Response. EPA has requested $1,000,000 for the completion of the
Lead Renovation and Remodeling (R&R) Rule in 2008. The FY 2008
President's Budget provides sufficient funding to protect human health
and the environment by reviewing pesticides to ensure their safety by
the end of FY 2008, as mandated by FQPA and PRIA.
toxic chemicals regulation
Question 42. Polychlorinated biphenyls are known to cause cancer
and other harmful health impacts. EPA's Congressional Justification
document states, ``Resources are not included in the FY 2008 budget for
a major PCB rulemaking.'' Which ``major PCB rulemaking'' is EPA
delaying because of this budget? Provide written details of this
rulemaking, including the types of risks the upcoming regulation is
focused on addressing and EPA's timeline for the completing the needed
rulemaking. Please provide any EPA records, including any memoranda,
email, meeting notes, telephone logs or other EPA records that describe
concerned raised by Agency staff or other individuals or institutions
over the delay or potential delay of this rulemaking.
Response. In the FY 2008 Annual Plan proposal to Congress, EPA
wrote that ``Resources are not included in the FY 2008 budget for a
major PCB rulemaking.'' At various times, EPA has considered the need
to revise the current PCB regulations. EPA included this statement in
the Annual Plan proposal to make it clear that we do not intend to
undertake a major rule in FY 2008 as part of the transfer of the
disposal and remediation portions of the PCB program from the Office of
Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances (OPPTS) to the Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER). This does not preclude
rulemaking, if desirable, in FY 2009 and beyond.
Effective October 1, 2007, the Agency expects to transfer the
management of the PCB cleanup and disposal program to OSWER from OPPTS.
OSWER is the office within EPA that manages cleanup and disposal
activities related to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act,
Superfund and land revitalization. The transfer will group together
similar activities in one office leading to greater overall
efficiencies in EPA's cleanup and disposal activities. This transfer
was referenced in the President's FY 2008 Annual Plan proposal to
Congress.
To facilitate this transfer, effective October 1, 2007, EPA will
publish a procedural rule to move the administration of the PCB cleanup
and disposal program from OPPTS to OSWER. It is anticipated that OSWER
will implement the TSCA PCB regulations as they currently exist, and
that there is no need to change the PCB cleanup and disposal
regulations immediately before or after the transfer. As stated above,
any future changes to the PCB cleanup and disposal regulations, if
found to be desirable, would not occur until after fiscal year 2008.
With regard to historical considerations of possible regulatory
activities, in May 2004, the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group
(USWAG) nominated the TSCA PCB remediation waste regulations for reform
in a letter to OMB. In 2005, EPA consulted with USWAG and also held a
public meeting to solicit input on this issue from stakeholders. The
Agency submitted a response to OMB in September 2005. The Agency
discussed the need to streamline the PCB regulations, in order to
address, in particular, the differing provisions, which USWAG nominated
for reform, relating to disposal requirements for PCB remediation waste
at concentrations of less than 50 parts per million.
As a result of the transfer within EPA, we will explore how to gain
efficiencies in the PCB remediation and disposal program through closer
coordination with the hazardous waste programs, and we will certainly
consider whether regulatory changes are appropriate. Stakeholders have
not raised any concerns with the current approach to address their
issues or the consideration of future regulatory activity.
It should be noted that OPPTS will retain management of PCB use and
manufacturing issues.
endocrine disruptors
Question 43. Endocrine disrupting chemicals can affect health--
including babies--at very low levels. The 1996 Food Quality Protection
Act required EPA to implement an endocrine disruptor testing program by
1999. However, EPA has so far failed to meet Congress's deadline. In
2005, EPA's Board of Science Counselors recommended that the Agency
hire more people to work on endocrine disruptors. EPA's Science
Advisory Board recommended more funding for such work in 2006. But,
EPA's 2007 and 2008 budget proposes to cut funding to this program. The
2008 Congressional Justification document acknowledges the slow pace of
action in language justifying the budget cut by saying, ``This decrease
reflects the historic pace of program research and a shift to other
priority areas in the Agency. The cut may postpone the validation of
mammal assays, interlaboratory trials and initial screening of the
first set of potential endocrine-disrupting chemicals.''
Please describe the amount of money that EPA needs to complete
validation for endocrine disruptor screening and testing, and to
completely implement the screening and testing program by the end of
2008.
Response. Money does not constrain full implementation of the
program by the end of 2008. EPA anticipates initiating screening of
approximately 73 pesticide chemicals using the Tier 1 battery in 2008.
Depending on data generated in Tier 1, Tier 2 tests will be required,
which will provide the Agency with a more definitive assessment of a
chemical's endocrine effects as well as dose-response information
needed for risk assessment. With the exception of the mammalian 2-
generation tests (which the Agency considers validated), the other Tier
2 tests targeting fish and wildlife are still undergoing development
and validation as required by the Food Quality Protection Act.
The validation process includes several steps, including test
development, optimization, inter-laboratory comparisons, and finally
peer review. This process takes time and must proceed sequentially
because results from one study are used to formulate the design of the
next study. Based on current laboratory progress, it is anticipated
that the remaining Tier 2 assays will complete validation in the FY
2009/2010 timeframe. The President's budget request for FY 2008
supports this timeframe.
environmental justice--funding
Question 44. The EPA is charged with ensuring environmental justice
in its decisions and in the programs that it oversees. However, a 2004
EPA Inspector General (IG) report concluded that the Agency had not
``consistently integrated environmental justice into its day-to-day
operations, [and that the Agency had] not established values, goals,
expectations, and performance measurements'' for environmental justice.
A 2006 IG survey ``showed that EPA senior management has not
sufficiently directed program and regional offices to conduct
environmental justice reviews'' in accordance with an executive order
on environmental justice. The IG stated, ``Consequently, the majority
of respondents reported their programs or offices have not performed
environmental justice reviews.'' Clearly, EPA should be doing more--not
less--to ensure environmental justice in its decisions and programs.
However, the budget proposes to cut funding for environmental justice
by more than $1.7 million, a 31 percent cut.
Please describe:
The amount of annual funding that EPA has provided to the National
Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC) since 2001. Please also
describe the level of Federal resources, measured by the number of
fully staffed Full Time Equivalents, devoted to the NEJAC annually
since 2001.
Response. We are pleased to update you on the progress the Agency
has made in addressing the concerns raised by the IG concerning the
environmental justice program at EPA. Recently, we convened the Agency
senior managers to complete the plan for developing and conducting
environmental justice reviews for selected programs and activities. The
Office of the Inspector General accepted the Agency's plan stating that
``we accept the proposed actions and appreciate your constructive
approach to the issues raised in our report.'' Developing and
conducting environmental justice reviews is one component of many that
the Office of Environmental Justice is undertaking to promote the
integration of environmental justice into the day-to-day operations of
the Agency.
As indicated in the IG report, the ultimate goal is to integrate EJ
into the Agency's core programs.
With respect to the budget for the EPA's Environmental Justice
program, the environmental justice base program is being reduced by a
modest 1.0 FTE in the FY 2008 budget request (from the FY 2007
Request). The reduction reflects efficiencies the program has been able
to achieve from reducing the number of NEJAC subcommittees, requiring
less Headquarters coordination and support. The decrease mentioned in
your question refers to the earmark received in FY 2006, but not
requested in FY 2008. As a matter of policy, the Agency does not
sustain Congressional earmarks in its budget request.
Although Congress did not provide an earmark in FY 2007, EPA
increased funding by $850,000 for the environmental justice grant
program.
Staff support and funding for the NEJAC is provided by the Office
of Environmental Justice as part of its mission. There is not a
separate budget line item for the NEJAC activities. The following table
provides funding for the Agency's Environmental Justice program project
between FYs 2001 and 2008. FTE reductions in recent years are largely
associated with a reduction in the number of NEJAC Subcommittees,
requiring less Headquarters coordination and support.
With regards to NEJAC meetings, EPA anticipates there will be three
meetings held in FY 2008.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
environmental justice--pollution prevention
EPA's process of reviewing Federal regulatory programs for
pollution prevention opportunities by reducing the use and production
of toxic chemicals as required the by the Pollution Prevention Act and
endorsed by the NEJAC: Please provide a list of pollution prevention
initiatives that seek to reduce the use and production of toxic
chemicals in environmental justice communities that EPA has implemented
since 2001. Please provide a description of initiative, its current
status, and an assessment of its impacts in reducing the use and
production of toxic chemicals.
Question 45. The Office of Pesticides, Prevention, and Toxics has
taken numerous actions since 2001 to reduce the use and production of
toxic chemicals in environmental justice communities. Examples include:
In 2003, the Agency initiated a new program, Community Action for
a Renewed Environment, or CARE, to assist communities--especially those
with EJ concerns--to better understand risks of, and to utilize
pollution prevention and other approaches to reduce exposure to toxic
chemicals in their communities. This grant and technical assistance
program helps communities build local partnerships to understand risks
from all sources, set priorities, and take voluntary actions to reduce
risks. Cross program, multimedia teams have been organized in the
Agency to work with the CARE. The CARE program is now working with 51
communities in over 25 States.
EPA has also been working with Tribes to address toxic chemicals
concerns on tribal lands:
-EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT)
participates in the Forum for State and Tribal Toxics Actions (FOSTTA),
which has conducted approximately three meeting per year concerning its
Tribal Project. Further, the Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic
Substances has developed and is implementing an OPPTS Tribal Strategic
Plan for Fiscal Years 2004-2008.
-OPPT has also been engaged since FY 2002 with the Tribal Workgroup
of the National Pollution Prevention and Toxics Advisory Committee
(NPPTAC), chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA).
The workgroup identified and framed two broad issues for consideration
by the Committee: Green Buildings on Tribal Lands and Tribal Access to,
and Utilization of, Publicly Available Chemical Hazard and Exposure
Data. The Committee approved and provided to EPA two recommendations
based on these issues. The Agency, in addition to supporting the Tribal
workgroup, has begun to implement both of these recommendations.
-OPPT is also developing a Tribal Green Building and P2
Technologies Guidance Document under a contract with a tribal owned
business. The document seeks to provide information which can be used
to guide decision-making for Tribal Governments in their business and
economic development plans. This document includes a cost/benefit
analysis on green building options and technologies, including rain-
water run-off roofs, green landscaping, green building materials, etc.
A draft of the document is currently being circulated for review among
tribal communities, specifically seeking recommendations on its
applicability in Indian County.
-OPPT is working with the Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) to incorporate green building guidance into the
Indian Housing Block Grants (IHBG) Program and other Tribal programs.
HUD has indicated that they would include green building information on
their website; negotiations on changing their IHBG guidance to include
an emphasis on green buildings are continuing.
-OPPT has initiated discussions with the Indian Health Service
(IHS) to implement greener health care practices in Indian health
clinics and hospitals IHS has begun EMS pilot sites at two facilities -
a hospital and a clinic. IHS has identified additional sites to
implement the EMS program, and has asked OPPT and the Hospitals for a
Healthy Environment (H2E) organization for technical assistance.
To ensure that pollution prevention approaches are considered in
the development of regulations and major Agency actions, EPA's formal
process for initiating and reviewing regulatory actions, known as the
Action Development Process (ADP), includes a specific step to ensure
that pollution prevention approaches are considered at the very
beginning of the regulatory development process. The ADP includes the
creation of a document known as an ``analytic blueprint,'' or ABP, for
guiding the development of a major regulation or Agency action. The
analytic blueprint is meant to specifically address the topic of
pollution prevention (P2), and to examine potential
P2 approaches, or to explain why P2 isn't an
appropriate option for the particular regulatory action under
development.
title vi complaints
Question 46. The number of Title VI complaints since 2001 that the
Agency has received based on environmental justice concerns, the number
of complaints investigated, the number of permits reviewed, and the
outcome of such reviews. Please include a description of the type of
investigation and review, and dates for the beginning and completion of
each review process.
Response. Since 2001, the Agency has received 84 complaints based
on environmental justice concerns. Of those 84 complaints, 26
complaints are undergoing jurisdictional review and eight complaints
are under active investigation. Fifty of the complaints received since
2001 have been closed. Forty-one of the closed complaints were rejected
on jurisdictional grounds. The most frequent grounds for rejection were
untimeliness and lack of a financial assistance recipient. One
complaint was referred to another Federal agency that likely had
jurisdiction. Another complaint was informally resolved by the parties.
EPA's implementing regulations, found at 40 C.F.R. Part 7, state
that it is EPA's policy to seek informal resolution of Title VI
complaints whenever possible. EPA has employed alternative dispute
resolution (ADR) techniques in several of our Title VI cases.
The informal resolution of a complaint has occurred when the
parties (i.e. EPA, complainant, and recipient) involved have reached a
resolution by informal voluntary negotiations.
Seven of the complaints received and reviewed since 2001 were
dismissed after acceptance (see chart below). The withdrawal of a
complaint has occurred when a complainant notifies EPA that it would
like to withdraw their complaint. This withdrawal therefore dismisses
the complaint and renders the case resolved. None of these seven
complaints involved permit reviews.
From 2001 to the present, the Agency has closed a total of 103
complaints alleging discrimination by recipients of EPA assistance.
Fifty-three of those complaints were received by the Agency prior to
2001, and 50 of the complaints were received since 2001.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
children's health--staffing levels
Question 47. EPA's budget proposes to consolidate EPA's Office of
Children's Health Protection and the Office of Environmental Education,
while reducing funding for the new, combined office. The Agency also
proposes to undercut the original purpose of the Office of Children's
Health Protection by diffusing its responsibilities to other EPA
offices.
Please describe the actual or anticipated staffing levels, measured
in staffed Full-Time Equivalents, for the Office of Environmental
Education for 2005 and 2006, the Office of Children's Health Protection
for 2005 and 2006, and the staffing levels for environmental education
activities and Children's Health Protection activities, respectively in
2007 and 2008.
Response. The Office of Children's Health Protection and Office
Environmental Education were combined as a result of a reorganization
in 2006.
The organizational entity that was the Office of Children's Health
Protection is currently the Child and Aging Health Protection Division
(CAHPD) in the new office. The CAHPD FTE level for FY 2007 is 12.9 FTE.
The proposed FTE level for FY 2008 is 13.9. The FTE for the
Environmental Education Program was 19.7 (10 of which were 1 FTE per
Region) for fiscal years 2005, 2006, and 2007. The Agency is not
requesting any FTE or dollar resources for Environmental Education in
the President's FY 2008 budget.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
children's health protection advisory committee
The EPA established the Children's Health Protection Advisory
Committee in 1997 to bring together representatives from industry,
pediatric medicine, economists, community and environmental
organizations, science and academia, nursing, Federal, State, local,
and tribal Governments, and others to work on children's health issues.
The Committee is part of EPA's Office of Children's Health Protection,
and it provides EPA with expert advice on children's environmental
health issues, including the evaluation of EPA standards,
communications and outreach, and science.
Question 48. In the past, EPA has requested the Committee review
and provide recommendations for re-evaluating EPA standards to ensure
they protect children's health. However, in recent years EPA has issued
regulations and guidance documents that fail to address issues raised
by the Committee. Please describe:
1) The process that EPA uses to consult with the Committee:
Response. The Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee
(CHPAC) is chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA).
The Committee is managed by the Office of Children's Health Protection
and Environmental Education, and is a valued resource for the entire
Agency on issues relating to children's environmental health. The CHPAC
often meets with Agency leaders and staff to discuss areas of concern.
The full Committee meets approximately three times a year, with
numerous conference calls and email between meetings. The Committee has
also formed a variety of working groups, both standing workgroups (e.g.
Emerging Chemicals of Concern workgroup) and short-term workgroups
addressing specific issues. The topics that the Committee take up may
come from specific requests from EPA, be driven by upcoming Agency
actions such as development of rules that affect children, or they may
be initiated by the Committee.
2) The Committee's recommendations:
Response. The CHPAC recommendations are provided to the Agency via
letters to the Administrator. All of the recommendations as well as the
Agency responses are available on the Agency's website at:
http://yosemite.epa.gov/ochp/ochpweb.nsf/content/whatwe--
advisory.htm.
3) Whether EPA has implemented any of the Committee's
recommendations:
Response. Many, but not all of the CHPAC's recommendations have
been implemented. As an advisory committee, the Agency welcomes the
advice and insights of the Committee. However the CHPAC is only one of
many groups whose recommendations the Agency uses and EPA must weigh
those recommendations with many other considerations when making
decisions.
For example, in response to the committee's December 2002 letter to
Administrator Whitman on Smart Growth Efforts and children's
environmental health, the Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation's
Smart Growth Office incorporated children's environmental health into
its smart growth grants and has recently announced a request for
proposals for reducing environmental and health impacts of school
siting.
4) The reason for EPA's refusal to consult with or implement the
Committee recommendations on the following decisions by the Agency:
a. Merging the Office of Environmental Education and Children's
Health Protection, including budgetary and staffing decisions,
b. The Preliminary Remediation Goal for Perchlorate,
c. The National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate
Matter,
d. The National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Ozone,
e. The National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Lead,
f. The Agency's actions to address mercury air emissions since
2001,
g. The Voluntary Children's Chemical Evaluation Program,
h. The need to address children's environmental health concerns
from global warming,
i. The need to address children's environmental health concerns
from pesticides, and
j. The need to protect children from potentially dangerous
exposures to toxic substances, including but not limited to
polybrominated diphenyl ethers. Please limit response to this question
to the years, 2001 through 2007.
Response. Again, there is never been a refusal by EPA to consult
with or consider the recommendations of CHPAC. The recommendations of
the committee must be considered and weighed against other, often
competing opinions on how these various programs are to be managed. The
Agency did consult with the Committee on several of the referenced
topics, including perchlorate, mercury air emissions, the Voluntary
Children's Chemical Evaluation program. All of the recommendations made
by CHPAC, as well as the responses by the Agency, are available on
website cited above.
inspector general--staff
Question 49. Please describe whether the IG, given the demographics
of the Office, should be hiring and training staff now to ensure that
it maintains its output and expertise as staff retire.
Response. The OIG maintains an ambitious level of technical and
management training, as appropriate for its staff and in compliance
with the rigors of Comptroller General's Government Auditing Standards,
which is certified through an independent peer review. This training,
along with assignments designed to provide staff with developmental
experience, increasing levels of responsibility, and supervisory
opportunities, prepare them for greater challenges to build
organizational competence at all levels. While approximately 11 percent
of the EPA OIG staff are currently eligible for retirement, the OIG has
built a strong core of young managers and has been highly successful in
attracting and developing outstanding candidates when positions are
available. The OIG constantly explores staffing and skill needs in
relation to its strategic goals, specific assignments, and available
resources to consider all options for accomplishing its mission,
through the most efficient blend of permanent staff and specialized
contract services. Within this overarching framework, the OIG plans to
hire 5-10 new trainees each year.
epa enforcement
Question 50. EPA proposes to cut $1.3 million for the Superfund
program's enforcement budget for forensic support to track polluters
and make them pay. EPA also expects a decline in the money it recovers
from polluters for past EPA cleanups. EPA should not be cutting
enforcement resources at the same time that the Agency's budget
proposed to provide fewer funds for cleanups and independent oversight
activities by the Inspector General.
Please describe the forensic programs that could have their funding
cut under the proposed budget, including any potential funding cuts for
work that may be done by the National Enforcement Investigations
Center.
Response. The Agency's FY 2008 request for the National Enforcement
Investigations Center (NEIC), EPA's forensics laboratory, is sufficient
to continue providing specialized scientific and technical support for
the nation's most complex enforcement cases across all media. We are
confident that the proposed FY 2008 budget achieves the appropriate
balance between our programs.
Most of the budget changes to the Forensics Support Superfund
program represent a realignment of resources between appropriations and
not a reduction to the program. EPA proposes to transfer resources from
the Superfund appropriation to the Science and Technology appropriation
to reflect a shifting workload between Superfund and non-Superfund
activities. This shift is based on workload data used to establish a
charging methodology for Superfund and non- Superfund activities.
epa laboratory funding cuts
Question 51. EPA's laboratories play a vitally important role in
ensuring the Agency appropriately safeguards public health and
facilitating enforcement actions against polluters that violate such
protections. A March 30, 2006 EPA Science Advisory Board report
concluded, ``Between 2004 and the [budget] proposal for 2007, the
inflation adjusted budget for EPA's Office of Research and Development
has declined by just over 16 percent. . . The erosion of research and
development remains a serious impediment to the Agency's ability to
meet its mission of protecting human health and the environment through
science based initiatives. . . It is the opinion of the Board that
EPA's research and development resources are grossly inadequate to
address the scientific complexities of the Nation's environmental
protection needs.''
1. A June, 2006 memo from EPA's Chief Financial Officer directs EPA
staff to ``consolidate'' laboratories by developing ``a plan for
reducing the Agency's laboratory physical infrastructure costs by a
minimum of 10 percent by 2009 and another 10 percent by 2011.'' The
memo also directs Assistant Administrators to identify long-time, high-
level employees for early retirement.
2. Please provide a written status update on the Agency's plans or
actions to consolidate or reduce laboratory space or to reduce staff or
freeze the hiring of new staff in the Office of Research and
Development. Please include any draft or finalized reports that
describe the steps that the Agency may take or has already taken to
consolidate or to reduce staff in the Office of Research and
Development.
Response. As part of the FY 2008 budget process, the Office of
Research and Development (ORD) was asked to work with the National
Program Offices (NPOs) and 10 Regional offices to develop a plan to
implement a study of the Agency's laboratory infrastructure
requirements, capabilities, and operations. Similar studies have been
carried out by the Agency in the past, with the most recent
comprehensive laboratory study completed in July 1994. The goal of this
review is to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of EPA's
laboratory network (i.e., 39 laboratories in 30 cities) in order to
ensure our ability to meet the environmental challenges of the future.
This review will not result in the creation or closure of laboratories
during the Administrator's tenure.
In the near term, the study will focus on identifying efficiency
and effectiveness opportunities at individual laboratories. Workgroups
are working to more clearly frame and determine the scope of the
laboratory infrastructure review and encourage each laboratory to
brainstorm efficiency and cost saving measures. Savings and efficiency
data are currently being requested from all the Agency's laboratories.
A report from the near term study is anticipated in September of 2007.
For the long term study, the Agency plans to engage an outside
expert panel that will assess and evaluate the ability of EPA's
laboratory network to address the Agency's mission over the next 10
years. Efforts are underway to identify options for working with an
outside expert panel.
In addition to the laboratory study, we have begun an effort to
analyze administrative service delivery and identify ORD-wide
organizational alignment options and implementation approaches to
achieve efficiencies in administrative support costs.
We have not instituted a formal hiring freeze.
Question 52. Please provide a written description of each EPA
laboratory's annual funding level and the amount of staff resources,
measured in staffed Full-Time Equivalent, for 2004 through 2008.
Response. See following pages.
Illegible response received however, the submitted document may be
found in Committee files.
concentrated animal feeding operations
Question 53. EPA plans to exempt pollution releases from
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations from Superfund's reporting
requirements. In 2005, EPA said that these facilities ``can have a
negative impact on nearby residents, particularly with respect to. . .
odors and other nuisance problems. . . [and] that concerns have been
raised recently regarding the possible health impacts from [these
facilities'] emissions.'' EPA entered into a settlement agreement with
2,568 facilities that agreed to help determine how much air pollution
they emit and to certify that they are complying with Superfund and
other public health laws.
Exempting these facilities from pollution reporting requirements
could reduce needed data on the nation's largest source of ammonia.
Ammonia emissions contribute to the formation of smog and particulate
matter pollution. Pollution from these facilities also facilitates the
deposition of nitrogen into water bodies, which contributes to water
quality problems.
1. The EPA's Office of Inspector General (IG) reported in February
2007 that the Agency will not meet its goal of cleaning up the
Chesapeake Bay by 2010, potentially due to continuing nitrogen
deposition from regional sources. The IG recommended that EPA ``use the
results of animal feeding operations emissions monitoring studies to
determine what actions and strategies are warranted to address nitrogen
deposition to the Bay from such operations.'' The IG noted that ``EPA
concurred'' with this recommendation. Please describe whether exempting
concentrated animal feeding operations from Superfund reporting could
reduce or delay the creation of data on ammonia emissions nationwide by
impacting the number of facilities that are working with EPA or other
agencies to determine their levels of emissions and to certify that
they are complying with all other public health laws.
Response. EPA's promulgation of an exemption from Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)
section 103 and Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-know Act
(EPCRA) section 304 notification requirements for releases to the air
of ammonia and hydrogen sulfide from animal waste (manure) at animal
agricultural operations will not reduce or delay the creation of data
on ammonia emissions nationwide under the terms of the air compliance
agreement. Any possible exemption will not impact the number of
facilities that are working with EPA or other agencies to determine
their levels of emissions. Facilities that chose to participate in the
air compliance agreement with EPA are legally bound to the conditions
in the agreement.
coal combustion waste
Question 54. Each year, more than 120 million tons of waste is
produced in the United States from the burning of coal. In 2000, EPA
committed to creating regulatory safeguards to protect public health
when this waste is disposed of in surface impoundments, landfills, and
mines. In 2006, the National Research Council acknowledged that
disposal of this waste had in many cases ``caused considerable
environmental damage. ``The Council concluded ``that the presence of
high contaminant levels in many [coal combustion residue] leachates may
create human health and ecological concerns...'' Please describe the
actions that EPA has undertaken to develop national regulations and the
anticipated date for the Agency's issuance of the proposed protections,
and
Response. EPA's primary efforts since the Regulatory Determination
have been associated with development of additional information on the
disposal of coal combustion wastes (CCWs) in landfills, surface
impoundments, and mine lands.
To inform the public of this information on landfills and surface
impoundments and its availability for their consideration, EPA is
planning to issue a Notice of Data Availability (NODA) next month. The
NODA will make the following information available for public review
and comment:
Joint U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and EPA report entitled,
Coal Combustion Waste Management at Landfills and Surface Impoundments,
1994-2004;
Revisions to the Risk Assessment conducted by EPA on the
management of CCW in landfills and surface impoundments; and
An update to EPA's damage case assessment.
The NODA also will make additional information available for
public comment. Specifically, a rulemaking petition submitted by
citizens' groups and two possible approaches to address coal combustion
wastes: one prepared by the electric utility industry and the other
prepared by citizens' groups. The Agency is seeking public comment on
how, if at all, this additional information should affect the Agency's
decisions as it continues to follow-up on its Regulatory Determination
for CCW disposed of in landfills and surface impoundments.
On the question of mine lands, EPA has been working with the
Office of Surface Mining (OSM). OSM issued an Advanced Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking on March 14, 2007. The comment period for the
Advanced Notice closes on June 13, 2007.
Question 55. Please describe the meetings that EPA personnel have
had
on this issue with other Federal agencies, including but not
limited to the Office of Management and Budget, and stakeholders,
including but not limited to the Utilities Solid Waste Activities
Group.
Response. Following the Regulatory Determination of May 2000, the
Agency had a series of public meetings; meetings with the utilities
industry to discuss their voluntary action plan; interaction with DOE
to scope and then conduct a study on CCW management practices; meetings
with OSM to coordinate and define the respective agencies'
responsibilities in the wake of the National Academies of Sciences
(NAS) report recommendations on minefilling of CCW; and meetings with
citizen groups to discuss their concerns about CCW disposal. In
addition, since the draft NODA was submitted to OMB for review, there
have been conference calls to discuss OMB's review comments and
proposed revisions. The substantive meetings are discussed in greater
detail below.
The Interstate Mining Compact Commission (IMMC) conducted four
meetings concerning the Mine Placement of Coal Combustion Waste among
State and tribal mining regulators, Department of Interior and EPA
representatives in order to collect and analyze technical and
regulatory information related to minefilling of coal combustion waste.
These meetings took place on the following dates:
May 15 - 16, 2001
November 14 - 15, 2001
April 15 - 16, 2002
October 29 - 30, 2002
Subsequent to the 2000 regulatory determination, EPA held a series
of public meetings, attended by citizen groups, industry, and State
representatives. These meetings provided opportunities for citizens,
States, and industry to express views about coal combustion waste
disposal practices. The meetings allowed stakeholders to express their
concerns about damage cases associated with CCW management practices,
and on the beneficial uses of coal combustion byproducts. Specifically:
A stakeholders' meeting took place at EPA headquarters in
Washington, DC on May 19-20, 2003, to address Minefill Practices for
Coal Combustion Residues. The meeting was attended by representatives
from citizen and environmental interest groups, industry, States, and
other Federal agencies.
Public meetings took place in Texas, Indiana and Pennsylvania (two
meetings), on the following dates (Note: These public meetings were
held specifically at the request of citizen's groups who wanted EPA to
hear the concerns of citizens in various parts of the country):
March 23, 2004 - Pennsylvania
April 13, 2004 - Texas
April 22, 2004 - Indiana
May 5, 2004 - Pennsylvania
Two meetings took place between citizen groups and EPA's Assistant
Administrator for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. In
May 2003, there was a meeting of citizen groups with Marianne Horinko
and on October 26, 2006 there was a meeting with Susan Bodine. The
latter meeting was preceded by a meeting between the citizen groups and
OSM representatives, where OSW staff and management also participated,
to discuss their view on the rulemaking of CCW placement in mines.
In the development of the joint DOE/EPA report, between October
2004 and July 2006, there were about half-a-dozen meetings between EPA
and DOE to scope the study, discuss its implementation, guide the
contractor in its preparation and revision, and prepare a charge for
peer review. The peer review process involved the following external
experts:
Keith Belton of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB);
Lisa Evans of the Clean Air Task Force (CATF);
Tim Lohner, Donna Hill and Elizabeth Aldridge of the Utility
Water Act Group (UWAG); and
K. Nelson, B. Docto, J. Myrom and R. Thompson of the Association
of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials (ASTSWMO).
With regard to the USWAG's voluntary plan, there were several
meetings with the representatives of USWAG. Between 2003 and 2005,
there were about half-a-dozen meetings between USWAG and EPA Office of
Solid Waste (OSW) staff. EPA also met with a State official and had
telephone conversations, email exchanges and written correspondence
with citizen groups regarding this matter. In addition, USWAG
representatives came in to discuss their voluntary plan, meeting once
with each of the following Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
(OSWER) Assistant Administrators (AAs): Marianne Horinko, Tom Dunne,
and Susan Bodine.
On March 1, 2006, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) issued a
report on the placement of CCWs in coal mines. The work by the NAS was
funded by EPA and involved public meetings which included
representatives from industry, citizen groups, and states. OSW staffers
and first line supervisors also met with the NAS and were present
during many of the meetings NAS held during the development of the
report. Since the report was issued, EPA has been working with OSM to
better address minefilling in coal mines. The meetings took place as
follows:
July 26, 2006, OSM and EPA met with Interstate Mining Compact
Commission representatives to hear IMCC comments on NAS minefill report
Aug. 17, 2006, EPA and OSM staff met at OSM to discuss plans to
coordinate the OSM ANPR and EPA NODA
Jan 11, 2007, EPA staff and OSM staff met at OSM to discuss
progress on the OSM ANPR and EPA NODA; and
February 28, 2007, National Mining Association Meeting to discuss
ongoing OSW activities regarding CCW disposal and Mine Placement.
Teleconferences with OMB and other agencies focused on two
products: the joint DOE/EPA report on CCW management practices, in the
context of which there were two teleconference meetings in early 2006
to discuss the first draft report and its revision. The second series
of teleconference meetings has been associated with OMB's interagency
review of the CCW NODA and its auxiliary documents. The three
teleconferences to discuss the NODA took place as follows:
April 13, 2007
April 26, 2007
May 9, 2007.
__________
Reponses by Stephen Johnson to Additional Questions
from Senator Inhofe
air--pm standard
Question 1. Administrator, last year, we heard testimony from a
member of the Clean Air Science Advisory Committee, who essentially
supported your decision for selecting a particular lower daily fine PM
standard as part of the periodic national ambient air quality standards
review. Please tell us why, in your discretion and judgment as
Administrator, you selected that standard?
Response. EPA places great importance on the advice of the Clean
Air Science Advisory Committee (CASAC). With regard to the 24-hour
PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), EPA
revised the level of the standard to 35 g/m3, which was within the
range recommended by CASAC (30-35 g/m3). The preamble for the final
rule discussed in detail the rationale for the Administrator's final
decision (71 FR 61144). Specifically, section II.F.1 discussed the
selection of the level of the 24-hour PM2.5 standard (71 FR
61168 to 61172).
In summary, EPA's final decision relied on an evidence-based
approach that considered the much expanded body of evidence from short-
term exposure PM2.5 studies as the principal basis for
selecting the level of the 24-hour standard, with such standard aimed
at protecting against health effects associated with short-term
exposures to PM2.5. Based on the information presented in
the PM Staff Paper and Criteria Document and in supporting analyses,
EPA observed an overall pattern of statistically significant
associations reported in studies of short-term exposure to
PM2.5 across a wide range of 24-hour average 98th percentile
values. More specifically, EPA observed a strong predominance of
studies with 98th percentile values down to about 39 g/m3 reporting
statistically significant associations with mortality, hospital
admissions, and respiratory symptoms. Within the range of 24-hour
average 98th percentile PM2.5 concentrations of about 35 to
30 g/m3, EPA no longer observed this strong predominance of
statistically significant results. Rather, within this range, one study
reported statistically significant results, while other studies
reported mixed results in which some associations, reported in the
study, were statistically significant and others were not. Other
studies reported associations that were not statistically significant.
Further, EPA concluded that the very limited number of studies in
which the 98th percentile values were below this range do not provide a
basis for reaching conclusions about associations at such levels. Thus,
in our view, this body of evidence provided confidence that
statistically significant associations are occurring down close to this
range, and it provided a clear basis for
concluding that this range represents a range of reasonable values
for a 24-hour standard level.
It was further noted that focusing on the range of 35 to 30 g/m3
was consistent with the interpretation of the evidence held by most
CASAC Panel members as reflected in their recommendation to select a
24-hour PM2.5 standard level within this range. EPA
recognized, however, the separate point that most CASAC Panel members
favored the range of 35 to 30 g/m3 for the 24-hour PM2.5
standard in concert with an annual standard set in the range of 14 to
13 g/m3, as discussed in section II.F.2 of the preamble to the final
rule (see 71 FR 61172 to 61177).
EPA viewed the quantitative risk assessment as providing supporting
evidence for the conclusion that there was a need to revise the current
suite of PM2.5 standards, but judged that it did not provide
an appropriate basis to determine which specific quantitative revisions
were appropriate.
EPA carefully considered comments from CASAC and others, received
during the public comment period, for the proposed decision and decided
to set the level of the primary 24-hour PM2.5 standard, as
proposed, at 35 g/m3. In our judgment, based on the currently available
evidence, a standard set at this level will protect public health with
an adequate margin of safety from serious health effects, including
premature mortality and hospital admissions for cardiorespiratory
causes that are likely causally associated with short-term exposure to
PM2.5. A standard set at a higher level would not likely
result in improvements in air quality in areas across the country in
which short-term exposure to PM2.5 can reasonably be
expected to be associated with serious health effects. A standard set
at a lower level would only result in significant further public health
protection if, in fact, there is a continuum of health risks down to
the lower end of the ranges of air quality observed in the key
epidemiologic studies and if the reported associations are, in fact,
causally related to PM2.5 at those lower levels. Based on
the pattern of results observed in the available evidence, EPA is not
prepared to make those assumptions.
On balance, EPA does not believe that a lower standard is necessary
to provide the requisite degree of public health protection. This
judgment appropriately considered the requirement for a standard that
is neither more nor less stringent than necessary for this purpose and
recognized that the Clean Air Act does not require that primary
standards be set at a zero-risk level, but rather at a level that
reduces risk sufficiently so as to protect public health with an
adequate margin of safety.
children's health
Question 2. Administrator Johnson, can you please clarify for the
Committee what changes EPA has made to the Office on Children's Health?
Is there still such an office?
Response. The Office of Children's Health Protection, which was
established in 1997, was merged into a new Office of Children's Health
Protection and Environmental Education as a result of a 2006
reorganization. The organizational entity that was the Office of
Children's Health Protection is currently the Child and Aging Health
Protection Division in the new office.
human health risk assessment
Question 3. This budget includes an increase for Human Health Risk
Assessment. Last year, the GAO issued a report, upon my request,
regarding risk assessment practices at EPA in which it was recommended
that EPA ``enhance early planning of each risk assessment'' and
``identify and communicate data needs to the public and private
research community.'' I would like your commitment that some of the
increase be dedicated to ensuring a more open, transparent, and
participatory risk assessment process at EPA and that EPA seek out,
early in the process, information and data from academia, researchers,
other Federal agencies, environmental groups, industry and any other
interested parties, as recommended by the GAO. Will you make that
commitment?
Response. Yes. EPA commits to dedicating some of the proposed
budget increase to ensuring a more open, transparent, and participatory
risk assessment process and to seeking out, early in the process,
information from academic researchers, other Federal agencies,
environmental groups, industry and other interested parties. EPA has
initiated a series of enhancements and activities with those objectives
in mind. For example, EPA contracted for expert consultations with the
National Academy of Sciences on issues affecting risk assessment, such
as interpretation of data from studies in animals. These panels have
included input from scientists working in the public and private
research communities. This kind of outreach to academic, public and
private sector researchers ensures open, transparent, and broad
participation in the evaluation of scientific evidence.
epa libraries
At an Environment and Public Works Committee hearing held on
February 6, 2007, I highlighted some items that EPA needs to weed from
its library collection. I also referred to a substantial decline in the
numbers of people actually walking into any of the EPA network of
libraries in Washington, DC and throughout the country such as three
people walking into the EPA Regional library in Dallas per month over
the past three years, 20 people walking into the EPA Regional library
in Kansas City over a seven month period last year, reportedly most
people walking into the EPA Regional library in Chicago were simply
looking for direction to other offices, and that at the library here in
Washington, EPA's own employees use has dropped 71 percent over the
past two years simply because more of the information the public or EPA
employees use is now online. However, it is necessary to clarify some
remaining issues from the February 6 hearing.
Question 4. EPA maintains large amount of scientific and
environmental information. What information does not continue to be
available to EPA employees or the public online, through interlibrary
loan, or otherwise upon the request of EPA employees or the public?
Response. The Agency does not believe any information has been lost
through our process to transform EPA's libraries. Materials held by
libraries in the EPA Library Network continue to be available to EPA
employees and the public. Digitized EPA documents can be accessed via
National Environmental Publications Internet Site (NEPIS) http://
epa.gov/ncepihom/, and hardcopy materials will continue to be
accessible through interlibrary loans via any of the 57,000 libraries
in the US and abroad which participate in the Online Computer Library
Center (OCLC). EPA continues to offer core library services to all
employees.
epa libraries-library plans
At the February 6 hearing, you were asked to respond to a few
emails, that you had not had the opportunity to review, the majority
had received from EPA employees critical of EPA's library plan. To
clarify two more specific issues raised:
Question 5. Is the Regional library located in Atlanta closed, and
what library services remain available at the Region 4 library?
Response. The Region 4 library in Atlanta, GA. is open. Library
services (interlibrary loans and reference/research) are being provided
to Region 4 staff by the onsite library contractor staff and
supplemented by the OARM Cincinnati Library, which is one of the
Centers of Excellence in the EPA Library Network. In addition, Region 4
staff have full access to the online services (OLS, NEPIS, and Desktop
Library) provided by the EPA Library Network
Question 6. You were also asked about the closing of the EPA lab
library at Fort Meade. However, is it not true at this particular
``library'' is simply a 10ft. by 20ft. reference room, and all
reference information remains available through the Region 3 library?
Response. The Ft. Meade Library collection remains intact and
onsite in this small reference room, and is available to Ft. Meade
staff on a walk-in/self-service basis. However, all EPA staff in Ft.
Meade and Region 3 are being provided with core library services, such
as research and document delivery, by the Region 3 Library staff in
Philadelphia.
laboratory infrasturcture review
Question 7. We understand that the Agency is conducting a
Laboratory Infrastructure Review. This review is of great interest to
me because EPA has a lab in Ada, Oklahoma called the Kerr Lab. I
believe they do excellent work and have become a vital part of Ada. Can
you tell the Committee more about the review?
Response. As part of the FY 2008 budget process, the Office of
Research and Development (ORD) was asked to work with the National
Program Offices (NPOs) and 10 Regional offices to develop a plan to
implement a study of the Agency's laboratory infrastructure
requirements, capabilities, and operations. Similar studies have been
carried out by the Agency in the past, with the most recent
comprehensive laboratory study completed in July 1994. The goal of this
review is to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of EPA's
laboratory network (i.e., 39 laboratories in 30 cities) in order to
ensure our ability to meet the environmental challenges of the future.
This review will not result in the creation or closure of laboratories
during the Administrator's tenure.
In the near term, the study will focus on identifying efficiency
and effectiveness opportunities at individual laboratories. Workgroups
are working to more clearly frame and determine the scope of the
laboratory infrastructure review and encourage each laboratory to
brainstorm efficiency and cost saving measures. Savings and efficiency
data are currently being requested from all the Agency's laboratories.
A report from the near term study is anticipated in September of 2007.
For the long term study, the Agency plans to engage an outside
expert panel that will assess and evaluate the ability of EPA's
laboratory network to address the Agency's mission over the next 10
years. Efforts are underway to identify options for working with an
outside expert panel.
clean water funding
Question 8. I appreciate EPA's effort to reduce some of the burden
from the Clean Water106 account through its recent proposed rule to
create a State incentive fund. However, I have significant concerns
about the proposal. The answer to the financial pressures on the
program is not just raising fees but providing other incentives and
most importantly reducing the regulatory burden on the States and the
permittees. There is much more than can be done without requiring
States to tax municipal Governments in order to pay for mandates
imposed by the Federal Government. I would like to work with you and
your staff on finding other solutions to the financial pressures on the
106 account. I have a few questions about the proposal:
Why did you settle on requiring States to tax municipal Governments
as the only option to relieve these financial pressures?
Response. The permit fee incentive program is not a tax on
municipal Governments, it is a voluntary program; no State is mandated
to change its business practices to retain Section 106 base funding. A
modest incentive pool will be created from Section 106 grant fund
increases. The President's FY 2008 Budget provides an increase in 106
funds to ensure that the incentive pool does not reduce States 106 base
funding. In developing our FY 2007 Operating Plan, we also ensured 106
funds increased sufficiently to protect base funding. It is not EPA's
intention to reduce 106 funding as a result of increased State NPDES
revenues.
Encouraging States to use strong business practices, including the
leveraging of all available revenue streams, is consistent with the
Agency's approach to sustainable infrastructure management. EPA
continually emphasizes the four pillars of water infrastructure--Better
Management of Water and Wastewater Utilities, Rates that Reflect the
Full Cost Pricing of Services, Efficient Water Use, and Watershed
Approaches to Protection. The establishment of a permit fee program
incentive is just one of a number of actions the Agency is taking to
promote sustainability.
States will need to meet designated thresholds based on the
percentage of permit program costs recovered through permit fee
collections in order to receive funding through this incentive program.
EPA has taken several steps to ensure that base funding is protected.
These include: creating the incentive pool only from new funding;
limiting the incentive pool to approximately $5.2 million;
redistributing unearned incentive funds through the existing
distribution formula; and maintaining the current formula ceilings on
incentive program increases (no State may receive a one-year increase
of more than 50 percent of its previous year's allocation).
Question 9. What other options were considered before you published
your proposed rule?
Response. During the development of this rule, EPA took steps to
engage the States, including soliciting input on other options beyond
financial incentives to reduce program burdens. States identified the
reduction of reporting and regulatory flexibility as alternatives.
While much more work will need to be done by the States and EPA to
develop viable options for regulatory flexibility, EPA currently is
engaged in discussions with the States regarding opportunities to
reduce reporting requirements.
Question 10. Do you plan to finalize the rule and why?
Response. The Agency held a public meeting in February 2007. In
addition, EPA extended the comment period an additional 60 days
(through May 5, 2007) to allow additional opportunity for comments.
After considering the comments, EPA expects to issue a final rule.
Through the use of fees, States may generate revenue streams, other
than taxpayer general revenues, to support water quality program
implementation. Maintaining sustainable programs enables both EPA and
the States to achieve our environmental goals.
perchlorate
Question 11. You explained during the hearing that EPA has enough
data on the presence of perchlorate in drinking water and so as to
avoid any future delays, you opted not to include perchlorate on the
UCMR2 which will not be completed until 2011. If you have enough
drinking water data, what other data does EPA need? Is there evidence
that people are being exposed to perchlorate from sources other than
water? Why is that information important to your decision whether or
not to establish and MCL under the Safe Drinking Water Act for
perchlorate?
Response. EPA believes more data are needed to fully characterize
perchlorate exposure to determine whether regulating perchlorate in
drinking water presents a meaningful opportunity for health risk
reduction in accordance with Section 1412(b)(1)(A) of the Safe Drinking
Water Act (SDWA). EPA believes that currently available data show that
food may be an important source of human exposure to perchlorate. EPA
believes that current data are not adequate to estimate perchlorate
exposure from food versus drinking water. EPA continues to work with
both the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention to obtain data regarding human exposure to
perchlorate from food.
asia-pacific partnership
Question 12. EPA has budgeted $5 million for the Asia Pacific
Partnership. As I understand it, through technology transfers and
information sharing, this partnership will work with other major
developed and developing nations in the Asia-pacific and through
technology transfers and information sharing -foster energy growth
within the context of reduced air pollution and even greenhouse gases.
Is this correct?
Response. Yes. EPA is working with the other U.S. Government
agencies to support six of the eight technical Task Forces under the
Asia Pacific Partnership (APP). In each case, EPA is building on
expertise developed through it's public private partnerships, such as
ENERGY STAR and our domestic methane and industry programs, and is
focused on sharing our experience and technologies internationally. We
expect that these efforts will lead to reductions in greenhouse gas
emissions, improvements in air quality, as well as economic and energy
benefits.
regional enforcement
Question 13. Region 9 has been misusing an MOA between the Corps
and the EPA regarding Aquatic Resources of National Importance (ARNI).
This abuse has been stopped but, in the future, how can you prevent a
Region from misusing their authorities? Further, how can you ensue that
similarly situated businesses are treated similarly across the nation?
Response. In order to address potential concerns with
implementation of the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), EPA issued a
memorandum in October 2006 requiring improved coordination between
Regions and Headquarters on actions taken under the MOA. Pursuant to
the memorandum, EPA Regional offices must provide Headquarter staff
with a copy of all 404(q) letters prior to issuance pursuant to the
provisions of Part IV of the Section 404(q) MOA. Headquarters review is
intended to ensure that the MOA is being used in a predictable,
transparent, and consistent manner nationwide. We believe this process
has improved the use of the MOA in providing greater certainty and
predictability for the regulated community. We expect to extend this
coordination between Headquarters and the Regions for as long as is
necessary to ensure these improvements continue.
regional enforcement-region 9
Question 14. As you know, by design, the EPA is divided into ten
different regions to implement and enforce our environmental laws.
Regions often abuse this design to advance their own agendas. Region 9,
for example, is notorious for trying to manage the Region as if they
only answer to the San Francisco liberals where it is located.
What will you do to ensure that States like Arizona and New Mexico,
which are in Region 9 and have much different environmental concerns
and solutions than San Francisco, are not penalized because they are
overseen by an office with little understanding of their needs?
Response. EPA is committed to ensuring compliance with the nation's
environmental laws and to improving public health and the environment.
The Agency's goal is fair and consistent enforcement of Federal
environmental laws as balanced with the flexibility to respond to
region and State-specific environmental problems.
To ensure EPA Regional Offices conduct consistent oversight of
States, and that States are consistently implementing environmental
enforcement programs, OECA has implemented the State Review Framework
(SRF).
The SRF is a tool developed in collaboration with the Environmental
Council of the States (ECOS) to promote consistency and a level playing
field for the regulated community. The Framework was developed in 2003
and piloted in 10 States. A FY 2004 evaluation validated the basic
foundation and protocols of the Framework. Based on the results of the
evaluation, the Framework was revised and, since June 2005, is being
implemented in all States.
The process of evaluating all States for the first time under the
Framework will be complete by the end of FY 2007. Upon completion,
another evaluation will be performed to identify whether the Framework
was successful in improving the level of consistency in enforcement
programs across States and in the regional oversight of State programs.
This evaluation is expected to lead to additional improvements in the
SRF before initiating the next round of reviews.
lead renovation, repair, and painting program proposed rule
Question 15. Early last year EPA proposed the Lead Renovation,
Repair, and Painting Program rule with the goal of reducing exposure to
lead hazards created by renovation, repair, and painting activities
that disturb lead-based paint. EPA has demonstrated that disturbing
lead-based paint can generate large amounts of lead dust. However, the
clearance test requirement in the proposed rule would seemingly impose
liability for any lead paint regardless of its origin solely on the
professional conducting the home remodeling work. How will EPA consider
this imposition of liability in the proposed rule and still ensure that
trained professionals conduct remodeling work and avoid the health
hazards contemplated in the proposed rule?
Response. EPA conducted extensive outreach with the renovation
community prior to the publication of the Renovation, Repair, and
Painting Program proposed regulation. During public meetings in 1998
and 1999, as well as during the SBREFA panel process, contractors
pointed out that, if post-renovation dust clearance sampling were
required, the contractors would have to protect themselves by
collecting pre-renovation dust samples, to ensure that they would not
be held liable for pre-existing hazards. To address this concern, EPA's
proposal includes an innovative cleaning verification process rather
than dust clearance sampling. The proposed cleaning verification
process involves wiping surfaces with disposable cleaning cloths and
comparing them to a cleaning verification card.
On the one hand, while not quantitative, EPA studies indicate that
in the great majority of cases when following this protocol, a
contractor would achieve the level required to pass dust clearance
sampling. On the other hand, the cleaning verification protocol puts
reasonable limits on the amount of cleaning required of the renovator.
On balance, EPA believes that this cleaning protocol is a safe,
reliable and effective system of ensuring that renovation activities do
not result in an increased risk of exposure to lead-based paint hazards
created by renovation activities while at the same time not increasing
renovators' liability for the removal of all lead-based paint hazards.
Again, EPA believes that adherence to this post-renovation cleaning
verification protocol, in combination with the proposed training,
containment, and cleaning requirements, is a safe, reliable and
effective system of ensuring that renovation activities do not result
in an increased risk of exposure to lead-based paint hazards. Further,
the Agency believes that contractors will embrace these practices
because they should be easy to implement, and because consumers will
appreciate the results and come to expect a clean work area following
all renovation activities.
__________
Responses by Stephen Johnson to Additional Questions
from Senator Vitter
landfills--old gentilly
Question 1. In regard to hurricane debris at the Old Gentilly
Landfill, at what point will standard requirements for disposing of
asbestos containing material be required as outlined by RCRA?
Response. There are no specific requirements for disposal of
asbestos containing material in the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act. Rather, disposal is regulated under the Clean Air Act National
Emissions Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) regulations.
Following the devastation from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) allowed the option
for landfills receiving clean-up debris to apply for a permit to
``enhance'' specific cells within the landfills to receive Regulated
Asbestos Containing Waste material from residential clean-up only.
These LDEQ permitted ``enhanced'' cells must meet all the requirements
in the Louisiana Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(LESHAP) asbestos landfill section, as well as the EPA's NESHAP
asbestos landfill requirements section at 40 CFR 61.150.
landfills--mississippi river gulf outlet (mrgo) levee
Question 2. Who has the liability if Old Gentilly Landfill does
undermine the MRGO levee as suggested by the FEMA study and all the
national experts who have reviewed the situation?
Response. The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is the
lead Federal agency on the safety of the MRGO levee. On November 15,
2006, EPA's Region 6 Office facilitated a meeting that included the
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ), the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, USACE, the Louisiana Environmental Action
Network, and several consultants. The purpose of this meeting was to
discuss levee stability issues. It was agreed that USACE would work
with LDEQ on the issue. The USACE has stated that it will conduct an
analysis to assure stability of the MRGO levee.
landfills--national environmental policy act (nepa) alternative
arrangements
Question 3. NEPA alternative arrangements are being developed for
activities related to levees. Why are there no NEPA alternative
arrangements for debris disposal?
Response. Debris disposal is being undertaken under the Stafford
Act, which waives the applicability of National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA). In contrast, levee construction will take place under the
authorities of the US Corps of Engineers. The NEPA alternative measures
for activities related to levees are designed and intended to allow
early and expedited consideration of segregable portions of levee
improvements so that construction work can commence on such portions
without awaiting completion of NEPA review on entire levee systems.
Those alternative arrangements have been approved by the President's
Council on Environmental Quality.
Question 4. At what point will the agencies evaluate the
consequences of debris disposal with a rigorous alternative analysis
such as a NEPA or an IT analysis for activities in Louisiana?
Response. The Louisiana public trust doctrine, a.k.a., IT Doctrine,
arises under the Louisiana Constitution. Its application to emergency
debris disposal actions undertaken or authorized by State agencies is a
matter of State law on which EPA has no particular expertise.
EPA's Region 6 office is aware of no Federal agency planning to
evaluate the consequences of debris disposal with a rigorous
alternative analysis such as a NEPA analysis.
landfills--hurricane debris
Question 5. For hurricane debris should agencies use emergency
powers to dispose of waste in environmentally-less preferable
alternatives when other alternatives exist?
Response. EPA has the authority under 42 USC Section 6973, in
general, to respond to solid waste releases that may present an
imminent and substantial endangerment to human health or the
environment. In an appropriate case, when all of the elements of
liability and the existence of an endangerment can be demonstrated, EPA
may exercise this or other Federal authorities to abate an
endangerment. Such action would have to be protective of human health
and the environment. As a general matter, States regulate non-hazardous
solid wastes under their own standards. Federal regulations set minimum
performance standards for municipal solid waste (including household
wastes), but these are implemented by approved State programs. States
generally regulate non-hazardous construction and demolition debris
under their State standards. EPA is coordinating with the Louisiana
Department of Environmental Quality, the US Corps of Engineers and the
Federal Emergency Management Authority to ensure that the environmental
safeguards are set in place to enable the proper disposal of hurricane
debris.
landfills--debris removal
Question 6. Compare the use and bounds of emergency powers as
applies to the waiver of State and Federal environmental laws for
debris removal in the following situations: Katrina and Rita in
Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and September 11th in New York. Which
laws governing debris removal were waived, to what extent, and for how
long?
Response. EPA did not offer any waivers of Federal or State law for
debris removal in response to the collapse of the World Trade Center,
or Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. However, on October 21, 2005, February
3, 2006, February 24, 2006, and April 28, 2006, EPA issued No Action
Assurance letters to provide flexibility under the Federal asbestos
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants program to
address the widespread devastation from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
The No Action Assurances dealing with demolition practices were
extended on February 2, 2007, February 23, 2007, and March 9, 2007 to
be effective through September 30, 2007. These actions allow Louisiana
and Mississippi to move forward more expeditiously with certain
residential demolition and disposal activities, while still protecting
public health and the environment.
The No Action Assurances provide flexibility to:
allow limited residential demolition to proceed without
inspections and asbestos removal prior to demolition, as long as
emission control practices remain in place,
allow the State or local Government to issue demolition orders
for groups of residences, and
evaluate possible regulatory flexibility for burning or grinding
of residential demolition debris prior to disposal.
landfills--new orleans
Question 7. How much debris, and of what types, is estimated to
remain in Louisiana?
Response. The United States Army Corps of Engineers and the
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) maintains this
data and would have the best estimates of the quantity and type of
waste remaining.
Question 8. What is the current capacity of area landfills for
debris disposal in New Orleans?
Response. Information of the current capacity of New Orleans area
landfills may be available from LDEQ.
landfills--type iii landfills
Question 9. List the standard requirements and procedures for
permitting a Type III landfill and compare to the requirements and
procedures followed for the Gentilly Type III landfill.
Response. While Federal law addresses solid waste management
generally, and EPA approves State municipal solid waste programs, the
permitting and direct regulation of solid waste landfills are primarily
State responsibilities to be conducted pursuant to State law.
Consequently, the requirements and procedures for permitting landfills
vary from State to State.
The Gentilly landfill is a Type III solid waste landfill pursuant
to Louisiana's solid waste regulations and laws. As a result, EPA's
Region 6 office did not participate in the Gentilly permit application
process.
Question 10. Address all aspects of the permitting and operating
process including: public involvement; permit requirements including
design requirements, landfill operations and financial assurances; and
all other potentially applicable permits such as water discharge.
Response. In terms of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) discharge permitting requirements, Louisiana Department
of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) has a general permit to authorize
discharges from Construction and Debris landfills. This permit expired
in August 2006, but has been administratively continued; landfills that
were covered under this permit prior to its expiration remain covered.
In the meantime, a new permit has undergone public notice and should be
reissued soon.
New landfills that started operations after the hurricane have
been operating under LDEQ's emergency order, which requires that they
meet the general permit requirements. Some of these facilities have
already terminated operations and no further NPDES coverage is needed.
Facilities that remain in operation are required to seek coverage under
the soon-to-be-reissued landfill general permit.
We are advised that LDEQ will be issuing individual permits to
some facilities, like the Gentilly Landfill. For facilities that have
ceased operations but have not been officially closed by LDEQ's Solid
Waste Permitting Section, Multi-Sector General Permit coverage is
required until the time that official closure is approved.
In terms of CWA Section 404 permitting requirements, the U. S. Army
Corps of Engineers is the permitting authority. However, it is our
understanding that the Gentilly Landfill did not require a Section 404
permit.
Question 11. For the Gentilly Type III landfill, list the original
date the process or permit requirement was proposed, any changes that
were made to the process or requirement, and the date the process or
requirement was completed.
Response. In 2002, the City of New Orleans submitted an application
to the LDEQ for a Type III landfill. After an opportunity for review
and public comment, LDEQ issued the permit in December 2004.
Groundwater monitoring and geotechnical monitoring is being performed
at the Gentilly site; the State does not usually require this
monitoring at Type III landfills. The old landfill predated the current
State rules that established Type I, II and III landfills.
Question 12. Also provide the same comparison for the closure
process and monitoring requirements for a standard Type I landfill and
for the process as originally proposed, any changes that were made, and
the actual arrangements and completion date of the activity for the
Gentilly Type I landfill.
Response. In Louisiana, a Type I landfill is used for disposing of
industrial solid wastes. A Type III landfill is used for disposing or
processing of construction/demolition debris or woodwaste, composting
organic waste to produce a usable material, or separating recyclable
wastes (a separation facility). The LDEQ reported that the old Gentilly
landfill was not a Type I landfill. For more details regarding the
permit conditions for the Gentilly landfill, please contact the LDEQ.
landfills--chef menteur landfill
Question 13. How will closure on the Chef Menteur landfill proceed?
Response. The closure plan for the Chef Menteur site is currently
being reviewed by the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
(LDEQ). Once a closure plan is approved, LDEQ will be responsible for
monitoring the closure. EPA will provide technical assistance upon
request by LDEQ.
landfills--national environmental policy act (nepa) analysis
Question 14. Do you believe that a NEPA analysis should be required
for debris disposal when Federal funds are paying for all work after
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita? If so, why has this not applied to certain
landfills in the New Orleans area?
Response. Debris removal actions funded or undertaken under Section
407 of the Stafford Act are excluded by Section 316 of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) from review. Presumably, this
represents a Congressional determination that such actions should be
performed without the delays inherent in NEPA review.
landfills--chef menteur landfill closure
Question 15. The closure of the Chef Menteur landfill is a first
step; however, dangerous waste is potentially being stored there and a
threat to the community and environment. What steps will EPA take to
ensure the testing, protection and clean closure of this waste field?
Response. States have the primary responsibility to implement the
regulations for the disposal of solid waste. Thus, the closure plan for
the Chef Menteur site is currently being reviewed by the Louisiana
Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ). Once a closure plan is
approved, LDEQ will be responsible for monitoring the closure. EPA has
no direct responsibility to ensure the testing, protection and clean
closure of this waste field.
Question 16. Can you explain what other steps and enforcement
actions the EPA has taken to address these problems?
Response. Upon request by LDEQ, EPA will provide technical
assistance.
post katrina npdes section 402 permits
Question 17. What is the status of Section 402 (point source
pollution) permits on the various landfills being used for hurricane
debris?
Response. The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ)
has issued a general permit to authorize discharges from construction
and debris landfills. The permit expired on August 2006, and was
administratively continued. Landfills that were covered under this
permit prior to the expiration remain covered. New landfills that
started operation after the general permit expired have been operating
under an emergency order issued by the LDEQ. This order requires
facilities to meet the same requirements that are in the expired
landfill general permit. LDEQ will be issuing individual permits to
some facilities.
Facilities that have terminated operations, installed a final
cover, and have been officially closed by LDEQ no longer need coverage
under the permit. Facilities that have ceased operations (including a
final cover), but have not been officially closed by the LDEQ are
required to be covered by a general permit for industrial storm water
discharges until official closure is approved. A new draft permit has
undergone public notice and should be reissued soon.
In Mississippi, emergency landfills used for disposal of debris
from Hurricane Katrina are not allowed to discharge contaminated storm
water, and hence, and NPDES permit is not required. The Mississippi
Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) worked with local
Governments in the coastal counties and approved 13 temporary emergency
disposal sites in addition to 6 permitted landfill sites that existed
prior to the hurricane. All but one debris disposal site have been
closed.
MDEQ implemented a number of policies to manage the debris to
protect groundwater quality, wetlands and nearby surface water quality.
In addition, the State worked to segregate improper wastes from debris.
MDEQ worked with FEMA to install a groundwater monitoring system at
each of the 13 emergency disposal sites.
rural water funding
Question 18. With over 1,800 rural water systems in Louisiana,
funding for rural water assistance is very important to me. After
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, Louisiana Rural Water Association assisted
700+ water systems in ensuring that safe drinking water was provided to
the affected communities in a short period of time. These communities
would not have been able recover if it would not have been for rural
water.
Small communities in Louisiana rely on rural water assistance to
comply with the EPA rules and regulations, and for maintaining the
required training (which rural water provides for free.) For complying
with the complex regulations at the local level, rural water provides
assistance to help small communities comply. There is no one else in
the State offering this assistance, and as far as the small communities
are concerned, this is very helpful and a beneficial use of EPA
spending at the local level. Rural water represents less than one
percent of the EPA's environmental programs management spending that
was provided to EPA in the Continuing Resolution. It is $11.0 million
for rural water's 3 environmental initiatives (source water protection,
ground water protection, and training and technical assistance).
Would you comment on what the EPA thinks about the importance of
rural water funding and the value in what the National Rural Water
Association does for providing assistance at the local level?
Response. EPA agrees that small drinking water systems require
training and technical assistance to ensure that they are able to
comply with standards under the Safe Drinking Water Act. We are aware
that, in many States, technical assistance providers (including State
Rural Water affiliates) play an important role in supporting small
public water systems. States can use 2 percent of their Drinking Water
State Revolving (DWSRF) fund allotment within the State and Tribal
Assistance Grants (STAG) appropriation to provide technical assistance
to small systems. Since the program began, the State of Louisiana has
reserved 1.2 percent for small system technical assistance. In FY 2006,
more than $156,000 was expended in technical assistance to small
systems. The State also expended more than $360,000 for other DWSRF
set-aside activities that benefit small systems.
In addition, the Agency's FY 2007 Enacted Operating Plan includes
$8.0 million for competitive grants to support technical assistance for
rural water systems.
__________
Responces by Stephen Johnson to Additional Questions
from Senator Voinovich
great lakes--interagency task force
Question 1. Under the President's 2004 Great Lakes Executive Order,
the EPA was designated as the lead agency of the Great Lakes Federal
Interagency Task Force. The Interagency Task Force includes 9 cabinet
departments as well as the Council on Environmental Quality. However,
there have been 2 Federal actions in the last few months that have
undermined the purposes of this Interagency Task Force. The first
action was the proposal by the U.S. Coast Guard to establish live-fire
testing areas throughout the Lakes, and the second action was the order
from the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)
which suspended the interstate movement of certain species of Great
Lakes fish. It is my understanding that neither the Coast Guard nor
APHIS consulted with the Interagency Task Force before acting. How does
the EPA intend to address this problem in the future?
Response. The Interagency Task Force (IATF), through the efforts of
the Regional Working Group (RWG), is actively coordinating and
discussing issues such as these. Whenever possible and appropriate, the
IATF/RWG discusses such issues in advance. As the chair of the
Interagency Task Force, EPA will continue to work as part of the IATF/
RWG to improve Federal coordination, and to implement all requirements
of Executive Order 13340 on the Great Lakes.
water infrastructure
Question 2. How do you expect cities like Akron, Cleveland,
Columbus, Cincinnati-who are under enforcement actions from the EPA--to
spend millions of dollars for water infrastructure upgrades when the
Administration proposes to cut funding for the Clean Water SRF program?
Response. In 2004, the President's budget presented a long-term
plan to address national water infrastructure needs which included an
extension of Federal funding of the Clean Water State Revolving Fund
(SRF) through 2011. The Administration continues to reinforce this
Federal commitment to provide $6.8 billion over 2004-2011 so that the
Clean Water SRFs will provide an average $3.4 billion a year in
financial assistance over the long term.
For nearly 20 years the Clean Water SRF has played a significant
role in helping to finance wastewater infrastructure. Over this time
period, EPA has provided more than $24 billion to help capitalize the
State-operated programs. By combining the Federal funds with State
monies and recycled loan repayments, Clean Water SRFs have been able to
fund $61 billion in crucial water quality projects. As intended by
Congress, the revolving nature of the programs has established the
Clean Water SRFs as self-sustaining entities that will continue to be
an important source of funding long into the future.
While the Clean Water SRF is now and will continue to be a critical
tool, it was never intended to be the only source of funds for
addressing the nation's wastewater infrastructure needs. The nation's
success in addressing our wastewater infrastructure needs will also
depend on contributions of other financing vehicles, rates that reflect
the full cost of services, and sustainable practices that reduce the
costs and lessen the burden on the utility sector. EPA's Sustainable
Infrastructure Strategy, developed in collaboration with communities,
utilities, and other stakeholders, represents a suite of approaches
that are an important part of the solution to the infrastructure needs
of communities like Akron, Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati. These
program areas focus on the means by which we can reduce: 1) the demands
placed on infrastructure, 2) the need for new infrastructure, and 3)
the total cost of maintaining infrastructure over the long term.
To provide additional opportunities to communities for financing
needed wastewater infrastructure, Congress should enact the
Administration's FY 2008 Water Enterprise Bond proposal, which would
provide an exception to the unified annual State volume cap on tax-
exempt qualified private activity bonds for wastewater and drinking
water projects. To ensure the long-term financial health and solvency
of these drinking water and wastewater systems, communities using these
bonds must have demonstrated a process that will move toward full-cost
pricing for services within five years of issuing the Private Activity
Bonds. Consequently, this proposal will attract more private capital to
meet the infrastructure needs of these sectors, help water and
wastewater systems become self-financing, and minimize the need for
future subsidies.
water infrastructure--affordability
Question 3. Two years ago, the EPA announced that affordability is
an issue for communities facing the costs of significant capital
improvements, why has EPA enforcement failed to consider affordability
issues in their approach to achieving compliance?
Response. EPA has always included affordability issues in the
consideration of timing of expenditures for municipalities needing to
make significant capital improvements in order to comply with
environmental laws. Both CSO (Combined Sewer Overflow) and SSO
(Sanitary Sewer Overflow) enforcement cases frequently require remedies
with significant capital improvements. The Agency's approach for
evaluating such affordability issues in the context of municipal
wastewater compliance costs is specifically addressed in the 1997
``Combined Sewer Overflows-Guidance for Financial Capability Assessment
and Schedule Development.'' This Guidance addresses how to determine
the financial capability of a municipality and how to adjust the
implementation schedule in situations where the CSO control measures
will result in a high financial burden.
In addition, the Enforcement Management System guidance for Clean
Water Act violations directs that schedules of compliance which require
addressing significant capital investments should take into account the
financial capabilities of the specific municipality. (The Enforcement
Management System, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(Clean Water Act), ``Chapter X: Setting Priorities for Addressing
Discharges from Separate Sanitary Sewers,'' page 2). EPA has and will
continue to apply these concepts to adjust the length of implementation
schedules in the CSO and SSO judicial and administrative enforcement
actions taken by the Agency.
water infrastructure--sso enforcement
Question 4. Why has the EPA allowed the Regional EPA offices to
initiate SSO enforcement when there are no national SSO regulations,
policy or standard?
Response. There are a number of Agency policy statements that
articulate the Agency's longstanding position that Sanitary Sewer
Overflows (SSOs) are illegal and that enforcement to address SSOs is
appropriate. In 1989, EPA published the ``National Combined Sewer
Overflow Control Strategy,'' in which the Agency unequivocally stated
that ``[d]ischarges from separate sanitary sewer systems with less than
secondary treatment are prohibited.'' 54 Fed Reg. 37.370 (EPA Sept. 8,
1989).
In a March 7, 1995 policy statement issued by Steven A. Herman,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance, and Robert Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator, Office of
Water, entitled ``Enforcement Efforts Addressing Sanitary Sewer
Overflows,'' the Agency reiterated this position and the need to
continue SSO enforcement. This policy statement provides that: ``SSO
discharges to waters of the United States are prohibited by the Clean
Water Act.'' In addition, the policy statement addressed the question
of what EPA should do regarding enforcement of SSO violations in light
of a then ongoing SSO Federal Advisory Committee that was assisting in
the developing of a proposed SSO rule. The policy statement declared:
``The EPA believes that a delay in enforcement is unwarranted because
of the seriousness of many of these discharges to public health and
water quality.'' In 1996, EPA revised ``The Enforcement Management
System, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (Clean Water
Act)'' by adding ``Chapter X: Setting Priorities for Addressing
Discharges from Separate Sanitary Sewers.'' This policy provides
guidance on when and how to use enforcement actions to address SSO
violations.
More recently, in an April 10, 2005 document entitled ``Guidelines
for Federal Enforcement in CSO/SSO Cases'' developed jointly with the
Environmental Council of States, the Agency reiterated that
``[c]ombined sewer overflows (CSOs) and sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs)
are national environmental problems with significant environmental
impacts.'' This document enumerated circumstances in which Federal
enforcement would be appropriate to address CSO and SSO violations, and
it encouraged EPA regions to work with States with approved NPDES
programs whenever possible to leverage limited Federal and State
resources.
EPA has continued to bring enforcement actions for SSOs to the
extent that they constitute unauthorized discharges to waters of the
United States or violations of permit conditions for proper operation
and maintenance, in violation of Section 301 of the Act, or to the
extent that they are presenting an imminent and substantial
endangerment under Section 504 of the Act. The vast majority of
judicial actions for SSOs have been brought jointly with approved
States.
__________
Responses by Stephen Johnson to Additional Questions
from Senator Cardin
chesapeake bay
Question 1. In October 2005, the Government Accountability Office
(GAO) issued a report entitled: Chesapeake Bay Program: Improved
Strategies Are Needed to Better Assess, Report and Manage Restoration
Progress. The GAO report found, among other things, that the Chesapeake
Bay Program did not have a comprehensive, coordinated implementation
strategy to meet the goals of the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement. Does EPA
now have a comprehensive, coordinated implementation strategy?
Response. The Chesapeake Bay Program Strategic Implementation Plan
is in the final stages of development, with completion expected by the
end of 2007. The Chesapeake Bay Program partnership completed outlining
the overall framework, unifying five strategic focus areas--restoring
healthy waters, restoring healthy habitats, ecosystem-based fisheries
management, Bay friendly watershed management, and fostering Chesapeake
Stewardship. At the same time, the leads for each strategic focus areas
are working together to ensure coordination throughout the strategic
focus areas. Fine-tuning of the strategy is underway, including
identification of specific geographic focus areas in which
complementary restoration efforts will be leveraged. The first draft of
the strategies for each of the focus areas is expected in July, 2007.
Descriptions of these focus areas and connections between them can be
found at www.chesapeakebay.net/strategicimplementation.htm.
The Strategic Implementation Plan (SIP) is integrating all of the
Bay Program's activities into a realistic plan that targets resources
to ensure that the most effective and realistic work plans are
developed and implemented. Annual targets, outputs, and outcomes will
be included in the SIP, which is organized into the five strategic
areas, or pillars, based on the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement. With the
SIP, the Program is changing the existing extensive tracking of
restoration actions into a planning/tracking/and feedback system. Each
year, as part of the SIP process, the program will provide annual
reports that show yearly goals and progress made. Annual review and
assessment of the effectiveness of the restoration partners' activities
will help the program modify its priorities and activities based on the
feedback loop between targets and results.
chesapeake bay--pollution
Question 2. Pollution associated with the rapid population growth
in the watershed, now more than 170,000 new residents annually, is
actually increasing. What tools can EPA use to address this pollution
sector?
Response. Human population growth long will continue to be a major
driving force behind a wide range of challenging air, land, and water
pollution problems in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. For example, while
human population in the watershed increased by 8 percent between 1990
and 2000, the area of the watershed covered by impervious surface
increased by 41 percent. As the population increases, urban stormwater
is the only sector from which pollutant loads to the Bay are
increasing. These loads constitute less than 30 percent of the total
nutrient and sediment loads to the Bay; however, their continual
increase puts at risk the overall effort to reduce and cap total loads.
To address these problems, EPA makes use of the full range of
pollution control tools through the Clean Air, Clean Water and Safe
Drinking Water Acts. In addition, the Chesapeake Bay Program partner
States have designed management practices to achieve the reductions
needed, relying on both regulatory and voluntary efforts.
The States' primary Federal regulatory program for achieving load
reductions in the urban sector is the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer
Systems (MS4) and construction sites stormwater component of EPA's
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). In addition,
States' efforts to meet regulatory total maximum daily load (TMDL)
allocations can also be applied to help achieve urban sector goals for
restoring the Bay. To date, however, neither MS4 permitting nor local
TMDL programs have yet evolved sufficiently to fully support achieving
Bay restoration goals. A key missing piece, the ability to allocate Bay
nutrient and sediment load reduction requirements to the local level--
at a geographic scale appropriate for use in MS4 permitting and TMDLs,
will be available in 2008.
To complement the NPDES regulatory tools, collaborative Chesapeake
Bay Program partner efforts recently led to establishing Stormwater and
New Development Task Group. Chesapeake Executive Council Directive 04-2
tasked the partners with developing a prevention and preservation-
oriented approach to stormwater from new development. The Task Group is
in the process of developing a set of guiding principles for effective
local stormwater management, likely to include a policy of first
attempting to maintain pre-development site hydrology, or second,
employing offsets elsewhere to achieve no net increase' in nutrient and
sediment loads from new development. Through the collaborative efforts
EPA will continue to build upon the best available technical
information and regulatory approaches to design and implement
collective solutions to the Bay watershed's stormwater pollution
problems.
chesapeake bay--chesapeake small watershed grants program
Question 3. The Chesapeake Small Watersheds grants program is
authorized in Section 117 of the Clean Water Act. Since 1999, money has
been appropriated annually, totaling more than $17 million, to fund
more than 500 grants. Grantees have leveraged more than $45 million in
additional funds to restore 4,500 acres of wetlands, 300 miles of
forested stream buffers, and similar projects. In FY06 we appropriated
$2 million for this program. In the FY 2007 Operating Plan, what is the
funding level that you are proposing?
Response. The FY 2007 Operating Plan does not provide funding for
the Chesapeake Bay Small Watershed grants program. The total FY 07
enacted budget for the Chesapeake Bay Program is $26.8 Million. This
includes $6 million for competitive grants for innovative, cost
effective non-point source watershed projects, which reduce nutrient
and/or sediment discharges to the Bay. The Federal cost share will not
exceed 50 percent.
chesapeake bay--nonpoint source projects
Question 4. Page 951 of the Appendix to the President's budget
submission states `` . . . the President's Budget provides $6 million
for the Chesapeake Bay Small Watersheds Grant Program to implement
innovative and cost-effective nonpoint source projects, which reduce
nutrient discharges to the Bay.'' However, the Congressional
Justification notes that the budget provides $8 million for ``. . .
competitive grants for innovative, cost-effective non-point source
watershed projects which reduce nutrient and/or sediment discharges to
the Bay. The Federal cost share will not exceed 50 percent.'' Please
explain why these descriptions and amounts differ and clarify the
Administration's intent.
Response. The EPA's Congressional Justification contains the final
version of the Administration's budget submission for the Chesapeake
Bay Program. The FY 2008 budget provides for $8.0 million for
competitive grants for innovative, cost-effective non-point source
watershed projects which reduce nutrient and/or sediment discharges to
the Bay. The Federal cost share will not exceed 50 percent.
rural water programs
Question 5. The National Rural Water Association is operating under
a contract with EPA that expires next year. EPA was provided funding
for this type of activity in the FY 2007 funding bill approved last
month by the Congress. Is there any consideration by EPA not to
continue the rural water contract through the rest of fiscal year 2007?
Response. In the past, appropriations committee report language has
earmarked and EPA has awarded noncompetitive grants to the National
Rural Water Association (NRWA). In adhering with the FY 2007 Continuing
Resolution (P.L. 110-5, Sec. 112), EPA has not funded this earmark in
FY 2007. In addition to funds already available under the Drinking
Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) set-aside, the Agency's FY 2007
Enacted Operating Plan includes $8.0 million for competitive grants to
support technical assistance for rural water systems.
EPA is aware that in many States, technical assistance providers
(including State Rural Water affiliates) play an important role in
supporting small public water systems. As mentioned above, States can
also use 2 percent of their Drinking Water State Revolving (DWSRF) fund
allotment within the State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG)
appropriation to provide technical assistance to small systems. Since
the program began, Maryland has reserved 1.8 percent for small system
technical assistance. In FY 2006, the State of Maryland expended more
than $183,000 for technical assistance to small systems. In addition,
the State also expended more than $479,000 for other DWSRF set-aside
activities that benefit small systems.
environmental education
Question 6. It is my understanding that the Fiscal 2008 budget
request terminates funding for EPA's environmental education program. I
am a strong proponent of environmental education. In EPA's report
Everyday Choices: Opportunities for Environmental Stewardship, the
agency refers to environmental education as ``an integral partnership''
with environmental stewardship. Given this recognition of the benefits
of environmental education to your Agency's mission, what is the
rationale for not requesting funds for this program in Fiscal 2008?
Response. The Agency believes that environmental education is an
integral part of its programs and mission and thus does not require a
separate EPA program. Additionally, many States, local Governments and
private organizations have developed their own environmental education
programs.
leaking underground storage tanks
Question 7. Last month, the GAO released a report that noted it is
going to take $12 billion to cleanup just half of the remaining Leaking
Underground Storage Tank sites in the U.S. Despite the fact that there
is currently a $3 billion trust fund specifically dedicated to these
cleanups, the EPA FY08 budget only calls for $72 million. In Maryland
there have been more than 10,000 confirmed releases, and more than 900
of them require at least some public funding. In light of the new
information about the need, do you think that EPA should reevaluate
this request and ask Congress to consider adding more money?
Response. EPA commends GAO for a thorough analysis and sound
recommendations. Most of the $12 billion cleanup cost referred to in
the GAO report will be borne by State financial assurance funds that
were established by some States to help tank owners meet the financial
assurance obligations of Subtitle I of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA). These funds are capitalized by State gas taxes and
fees paid by tank owners and, in 2005, received approximately $1.4
billion in revenue while paying out $1.032 billion.
In States, such as Maryland, which rely on private insurance
instead of a State fund, most cleanup costs will be borne by private
insurance and tank owners. EPA generally agrees with most of GAO's
recommendations and will work to carry them out as appropriate. The $72
million requested from the Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST)
Trust Fund in the FY 2008 President's Budget, which includes
cooperative agreements with States, will enable EPA, States, and tribes
to complete approximately 13,000 cleanups in FY 2008.
Between September 30, 1988, and March 31, 2007, there were more
than 10,000 cumulative confirmed releases in Maryland. Each year
Maryland has, on average, received more than $1 million from EPA to
achieve LUST cleanups. As a result, cleanups have been initiated at
more than 98 percent of the sites with confirmed releases and completed
at 92 percent, leaving a backlog of approximately 800 releases
remaining to be cleaned up. Under the FY 2008 President's Budget,
continued progress will be made to clean up LUST releases in Maryland.
We are committed to evaluating program progress and program needs.
__________
Responses by Stephen Johnson to Additional Questions
from Senator Carper
smart growth program
Question 1. The EPA's Office of Smart is providing technical
assistance to Sussex County, Delaware, about ways to pursue growth
options that will lower the environmental impact of this growth and
reduce the infrastructure costs of this development. This is a fast
growing county--growing by 12.7 percent between 2000 and 2005--that is
looking for ways to accommodate that growth and still maintain its
character. The Office of Smart Growth is able to offer this assistance
in spite of a small budget and a staff of only 16 people. How many
positions do you plant to cut? And which projects and technical
assistance will be jeopardized as a result?
Response. The FY 2008 President's budget calls for a reduction of
10 FTE in regulatory innovation programs within the National Center of
Environmental Innovation. The Smart Growth program would be reduced by
4.0 FTE, however extramural funding will increase slightly. In
addition, Brownfields extramural resources used to support the Smart
Growth program will be scaled back from $554.8K to $0. In the absence
of the extramural funds, the Brownfields FTE will be working on policy
analysis and outreach activities to improve the economic and regulatory
environment for brownfield redevelopment.
With the reduced budget, the Agency will scale back its Smart
Growth technical assistance programs, its Smart Growth awards, and its
funding for Safe Routes to School and School Siting projects. In
addition, the Agency will continue to support, at a reduced level, the
Smart Growth program's information and education efforts.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
rural water
Question 2. The rural water associations have received a small
earmark in the spending bill that funds EPA for years to help small
communities protect their drinking water and comply with Federal
mandates. For example, the Delaware Rural Water Association recently
provided technical assistance to the City of Seaford when serious
flooding resulted in problems with the wastewater treatment facility.
This is another example of a program that takes a little bit of funding
a long way. Please describe how you plan to address this issue in your
FY07 funding?
Response. In the past, appropriations committee report language has
earmarked and EPA has awarded noncompetitive grants to the National
Rural Water Association (NRWA). In adhering with the FY 2007 Continuing
Resolution (P.L. 110-5, Sec. 112) EPA has not funded this earmark in FY
2007. In addition to funds already available under the Drinking Water
State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) set-aside, the Agency's FY 2007 Enacted
Operating Plan includes $8.0 million for competitive grants to support
technical assistance for rural water systems.
EPA is aware that in many States, technical assistance providers
(including State Rural Water affiliates) play an important role in
supporting small public water systems. As mentioned above, States can
also use 2 percent of their Drinking Water State Revolving (DWSRF) fund
allotment within the State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG)
appropriation to provide technical assistance to small systems. Since
the program began, Delaware has reserved 2.0 percent for small system
technical assistance. In FY 2006, the State of Delaware expended more
than $124,000 for technical assistance to small systems. In addition,
the State also expended more than $450,000 for other DWSRF set-aside
activities that benefit small systems.
dera fy07 appropriations
Question 3. The Diesel Emissions Reductions Act (``DERA'') was
enacted 18 months ago as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. When
will the regulations giving effect to DERA be issued? Do you intend to
fund DERA at $49.5 million as proposed by the President in his FY07
budget?
Response. Because, the provisions of the Energy Policy Act provide
the necessary basis for implementing the Diesel Emission Reduction
Program, EPA does not believe that it is necessary to issue any new
regulations.
The FY 2007 reduction to the Diesel Emission Reduction Program,
funding levels for almost all of our key programs within the STAG
account were set by the bill language and cannot be altered. In the
case of DERA, the 2006 Appropriations Law provides funding for diesel
in STAG as follows: ``$7,000,000 for making cost-shared grants for
school bus retrofit and replacement projects that reduce diesel
emissions.''
The President's FY 2007 budget proposed to change the legislative
language so that there was an increase that corresponded with the
Energy Policy Act of 2005. (``$49,500,000 for grants under sections
791-797 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.'') However, because the Clean
School Bus Initiative language was written into the law in 2006 and
picked up without change in the continuing resolution, we are unable to
provide funding out of STAG under the broader Title VII authority.
dera fy08 appropriations
Question 4. The President has proposed $35 million in his FY08
budget proposal for DERA. Why did the President reduce his request from
the $49.5 million proposed last year?
Response. The FY 2008 President's Budget Request reduction to the
Diesel Emissions Reductions Program will continue to achieve
significant reductions in PM emission levels and continue support for
the Clean Diesel grants program. EPA estimates that the $35 million for
National Clean Diesel Campaign grants will leverage at least an
additional $72 million in funding assistance and reduce PM by
approximately 5,040 tons.
Programs similar to the Diesel Grants have been adopted in
California and Texas and are expected to achieve similar results.
__________
Responses by Stephen Johnson to Additional Questions
from Senator Sanders
lake champlain
Question 1. As you know, the Environmental Protection Agency has
been directly involved in working to clean up and protect Lake
Champlain in New York and Vermont for more than 15 years, as authorized
by the Lake Champlain Special Designations Act of 1991, which was
reauthorized in 2002. For many years there has been a Lake Champlain
line item in the EPA budget, typically proposed at about $950,000 and
funded by Congress at $2.5 to $3 million, well under the authorized
level of $5 million. Will the EPA provide between $2.5 and $3 million
again in FY 2007, as clearly authorized and intended by Congress, so
that we do not lose ground as we work towards a cleaner, healthier Lake
Champlain?
Response. EPA submitted an Operating Plan for FY 2007 to Congress
on March 15, based on the Continuing Resolution passed by Congress in
February. The Agency used the FY 2007 President's Budget as the basis
to build the Operating Plan for the Environmental Programs and
Management (EPM) appropriation because this base reflects more recent
policy choices. This includes funding for Lake Champlain. The Agency
provided increases above this base for several areas where Congress
increased EPA's base funding in FY 2006. Activities supporting Lake
Champlain received such an increase; the Operating Plan includes an
additional $500 thousand above the FY 2007 President's Budget,
providing a total of $1.4 million for Lake Champlain. The Agency will
award the Lake Champlain grants in consultation with the Lake Champlain
Basin Program in accordance with the relevant statutes (section 120 of
the Clean Water Act), appropriate Agency policy, and Congressional
directives.
rural water programs
Question 2. Rural water programs are operating under a contract
with EPA that expires next year. Our Vermont systems, as well as
thousands of other systems across the country, need the rural water
programs to continue. Will EPA fulfill its obligation to continue
funding of these programs through the rest of fiscal year 2007?
Response. In the past, appropriations committee report language has
earmarked and EPA has awarded noncompetitive grants to the National
Rural Water Association (NRWA). In adhering with the FY 2007 Continuing
Resolution (P.L. 110-5, Sec 112), EPA has not funded this earmark in FY
2007. In addition to funds already available under the Drinking Water
State Revolving
Fund (DWSRF) set-aside, the Agency's FY 2007 Enacted Operating Plan
includes $8.0 million for competitive grants to support technical
assistance for rural water systems.
EPA is aware that in many States, technical assistance providers
(including State Rural Water affiliates) play an important role in
supporting small public water systems. As mentioned above, States can
also use 2 percent of their Drinking Water State Revolving (DWSRF) fund
allotment within the State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG)
appropriation to provide technical assistance to small systems. Since
the program began, Vermont has reserved 2.0 percent for small system
technical assistance. In FY 2006, the State of Vermont spent more than
$138,000 for technical assistance to small systems. In addition, the
State also expended more than $150,000 for other DWSRF set-aside
activities that benefit small systems.
Mr. Johnson, so often I get frustrated with your
presentations because they are very eloquent, and then you get
behind it and the reality doesn't match the words. Nothing
could be more true for me than today. Your words were great.
Your budget hurts the environment.
Let me be specific. You are cutting this budget by 4
percent. You are reducing clean water funding for the clean
water State revolving loan fund by 37 percent. You are cutting
the Superfund by $7 million. You are cutting $35 million that
helps fund the State and local air quality management programs,
and my people are up in arms about it. You have decided to do
away with the Children's Health Office. Your brownfields
budget, and brownfields was the most bipartisan thing we ever
did up here because, guess what, it has payback. You can use
land that has been polluted. We authorized $250 million a year,
but you asked for $112 million, leaving $87 million
unrequested.
You cut environmental justice efforts by $1.7 million. For
toxic chemical regulation, it looks like you are making cuts
there. Global warming and all the talk about how great the
President is doing, he is cutting $1.7 million from that
effort. Environmental protection on the U.S.-Mexico border,
which is very important to the western States, a cut of more
than $40 million.
So talk is cheap. You can say whatever you want. I have the
numbers, and the American people are going to have to know that
when we bring this to the floor of the Senate.
Now, I am going to show my colleagues something that, if
this doesn't shock you, I don't know what will. I got visited
yesterday by the South Coast Air Quality Management Board. They
told me about what is happening with air quality and how things
have stalled out; and how they need help; and why they are so
shocked you are cutting a program that helps them. I think
Senator Voinovich alluded to that with water districts. This is
air districts.
This is a filter, a pure white filter from an air quality
monitor. This is how they monitor the air. They place these at
various sites. This is how it starts, pure white. The monitor I
am going to show you is a filter from an air quality monitor in
a school. The monitor is located at a local elementary school
near a high school. The school is also nearby the Port of Los
Angeles and Long Beach and near a major highway.
The filter, pure white, was inserted into the monitor and
was in the monitor for 24 hours, my friends. The monitor
processed as much air as a human could breathe in three-and-a-
half-months, so whatever you see here isn't breathed in a 24-
hour period, it is breathed in a three-and-a-half-month period.
I am going to show you this. This is from the Hudson School.
The black collar represents the toxic air that the students
in the local schools and the local residents breathe. It is
primarily caused by diesel exhaust, a known carcinogen, as well
as particulate matter PM-10. This isn't even the
worst sample ever found at the school.
So what this filter shows, and this came to me yesterday,
young schoolchildren and others that breathe this air are
exposed to toxic pollution consistently. The EPA does not
provide sufficient regulation to control the emissions that
contributed to this pollution, mainly from trains, ships and
trucks burning diesel fuel, and that the help that you were
giving to the local districts has now been cut.
So I think, again, actions speak louder than words. The
numbers speak louder than your words. And so I just need to ask
you how you could make this rosy scenario presentation to us,
knowing all the facts that I just said, coming to us with these
cuts. You are not saying, you know, I had a little fight with
OMB, but they said I had to take these cuts. You know, then I
would say fine, you stood up for the environment.
Instead, you come up here as the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency. You have told me how much you
are excited and want to help clean up the environment, and you
just make this rosy scenario speech and don't even address the
fact that maybe you lost out on some of these fights. And if
you didn't, that you just rolled over and let them do it.
So if you could explain to me, in light of the cuts, how
did you give this wonderful rosy story about this great EPA and
what you are doing.
Mr. Johnson. Madam Chairman, thank you.
This budget does continue to deliver environmental results,
while meeting a balanced budget for our Nation.
You mentioned diesel and the regulations that we have put
in place to regulate diesel emissions from around the country.
I just proposed one regulation last week and when you combine
them with our clean air interstate rule, they are among the
most health-protective rules in the agency's history, probably
only second to getting lead out of gasoline. Speaking of
diesel, the President has included $35 million to help with
retrofits of legacy diesel engines ranging from school buses to
port equipment and things like that.
Senator Boxer. Let me say this, Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson. Yes?
Senator Boxer. I can't make any headway. There is no point
in it, because I say one thing and you answer how ever you want
to answer. It doesn't help us.
So I am not going to ask any more questions. What I am
going to tell you is, I am going to fight with members of this
committee on both sides of the aisle to look at these cuts. If
members of this committee feel it is good to cut Superfund by
70 percent, so be it. But we are going to fight hard. Some of
us are going to work together.
We may not agree across the aisle on everything, but I
think we are going to take these battles to the people. I hope
we will have a bipartisan battle on this, because I believe
that you, just to be honest, and I said this to the head of
NHTSA yesterday, and even Olympia Snowe chimed in and Senator
Stevens chimed in, you are champions of the status quo, period,
and worst than the status quo.
If you had an employee who you really wanted to keep and
you thought was doing a great job, and you called him and said,
you are doing a great job and I am cutting your salary by 4
percent. And he said, well, I thought I was doing a great job;
I had an offer and another place to go. You know, you would be
foolish, wouldn't you, to let that person go, but yet you sit
here and defend this kind of a budget.
To me, I don't want to say shocking because this isn't the
first time you have disappointed me, and I am sure this isn't
the first time I have disappointed you, but I am going to take
this budget. We are going to fight for these programs because
we are fighting for the people, for the children, for their
lungs, for their water quality, and for economic growth,
because to be honest with you, when you cut brownfields, you
are just cutting economic growth.
That is penny-wise and pound-foolish, as Senator Voinovich
said, totally. Because if you take one of these brownfields
sites, and again Senator Chafee and I worked very hard with
Senator Jeffords, and Senator Inhofe was extremely involved in
this. We are now bringing back to life these sites. Congress in
a bipartisan say, in a Republican Congress, funded this, and
you have cut it dramatically.
What is stunning to me is not that we are fighting this
battle, but that you will not concede that this budget is cut,
and those cuts are going to have real bad impacts on the
people.
And now, for another perspective, we turn to Senator
Inhofe.
[Laughter.]
Senator Inhofe. No, I don't think so.
It is stunning to me is, we have heard a lot of criticism
of you, Mr. Administrator, and of the EPA, but at the same time
this new majority has denied the Administrator, you, and many
of the leadership team, including Roger Martella, Alex Beehler,
and Bill Wehrum. We had the hearings before, and in the case of
the General Counsel nominee Roger Martella, he is a career
employee who was favorably reported by this committee in the
last Congress; renominated on January 9. It is very unusual to
leave somebody out there who has been renominated for that
length or period of time for this committee. It doesn't happen.
So I would hope that we could give him some of his team so he
can get things done that he can't get done now.
First of all, on the fuels, the President referred in his
State of the Union message to very ambitious alternative fuel
standards. I recognize you don't have all the answers. I am
concerned, as I said in my opening statement, is it your
understanding that motor fuels policies will still be regulated
by the EPA and within the jurisdiction and the oversight of
this committee? And then I would ask also, when do you
anticipate that the Administration will share their proposal
with us on these standards?
Mr. Johnson. Senator Inhofe, with regard to the timing, I
expect that we will be sending legislation up in the coming
weeks, not months, weeks. That is the time frame I expect. With
regard to the jurisdiction issue, we will leave to you, the
Congress, to decide. Clearly, we are looking forward to working
with you.
Senator Inhofe. Okay. But the way I worded the question
was, is it your understanding that the motor fuels policies
will still be regulated by the EPA? I know you don't have
control over that.
Mr. Johnson. As I said, the jurisdictional issue will be
left for you, the Congress. Our focus, and certainly my focus,
is steady progress toward cleaner air by having this
alternative fuel standard.
Senator Inhofe. That is right. You heard in my opening
statement my comments about Tar Creek.
Mr. Johnson. Yes.
Senator Inhofe. That thing has been lingering for 25 years,
and about $25 million, I might add, nothing being done, and now
everything is working. It is working not just because of the
EPA, but partly. It is the team, the EPA, the DOI. It is the
Indian tribes, the State of Oklahoma, our Democratic Governor.
I give him a lot of credit. We worked this thing out together,
the University of Oklahoma.
But in so far as you are a part of that, you are a piece of
that, do we have your commitment that you will continue the
fine work that you have been doing up to this point to see this
to its conclusion? As you know, right now we are going through
kind of a quasi-buyout period, but there are some things we
don't know yet, so we don't know to what extent that will take
place.
Mr. Johnson. Senator, we are committed to working with all
the parties to restore this land, and you have my commitment.
Senator Inhofe. Okay, good. I appreciate that.
Now, there is some confusion, some contradictory thing that
have been brought to our attention from the State of Oklahoma
concerning what they are getting out of the two organizations,
the Office of Water and the Office of Enforcement and
Compliance.
The Office of Water appears to be trying to work with the
States to promote a general permitting process and lessen some
of the administrative costs. At the same time, OEC is coming
from the other end, and I think quite frankly they don't know
who to listen to. But there are two conflicting instructions.
Can you help clarify that and help us out with those two?
Mr. Johnson. Senator, our interest is helping the community
to achieve their clean water goals. Our interest is also making
information available to the State and to those who are
regulating. I look forward to working with your State to help
make sure that this is not a burdensome requirement and, that
in fact if there is any conflict, that it is resolved. We want
to help. Our goal is to help the State achieve their clean
water goals.
Senator Inhofe. With as much of the administrative
streamlining as possible? I am sure that Senator Voinovich and
maybe even some others might want to address this small water
system, but you heard some of the comments that we made and the
situation that we faced with in Oklahoma. In the 2006
appropriations bill, Congress provided $280 million in
earmarks. In the CR, Congress has directed that $197 million of
that be given to the clean water State revolving fund. The
remainder was given to EPA to do with however EPA chooses.
I understand that some of the funds will be used for fixed
costs like payroll and building costs. Many members, I believe
as many as 200 over in the House, have asked that the EPA also
use some of these funds to provide technical assistance to
small systems, the small systems that we have been talking
about through the National Rural Water Association, the rural
waters operators with the daily operations for their
facilities, as well as regulatory compliance.
Now, we talked about this extensively last year, and it is
one that has been a great concern of mine. I think it is
probably more of a unique problem for my State of Oklahoma than
many other States, although I am sure others have the same
problems, too. What do you think about that, and that type of
help?
Mr. Johnson. Senator, we want to help the small community
water systems, and you have my commitment we are going to
continue to help through technical assistance, providing
training, and providing assistance. We, as part of the drinking
water State revolving loan fund, up to 2 percent of that can be
used for small community water systems. In fact, in 2006 a
number of communities took advantage of that and used $14
million to help.
We are in the process of putting together an operating plan
for 2007. We are looking at all of the issues that are before
us. So as we make our final decisions on our operating plan,
you will be among the first to know.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you. I appreciate that. There are
three of us on this panel that have either been Mayors or
Governors, and unfunded mandates is something that we are very,
very sensitive to. Thank you.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Lautenberg.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
I understand your ire, because I have the same thing. Mr.
Johnson, it totally perplexes me, and not to insult your
wordsmithing, but to try to understand what the message is
here. You say over 36 years, EPA has a strong foundation to
shift America into a green country. Today, instead of having
just 17,000 EPA employees to protect the environment, we now
have 300 million Americans as environmental partners.
Now, does that mean that the 17,000 before were doing the
work of 300 million? How do you square it? These answers, I am
sorry, have to be relatively short. What assignment did we give
to the 300 million Americans? Do they drive less? Do they emit
less pollution? What has happened in this miracle of yours that
permits this to be judged with any degree of credibility, Mr.
Johnson?
Mr. Johnson. We have a premier world agency in the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, continuing to accelerate
environmental success.
Senator Lautenberg. Without enough money. We have heard
that.
Mr. Johnson. With sufficient funds to deliver results.
Think about Energy Star. By Americans buying Energy Star
product----
Senator Lautenberg. Will they start that tomorrow? When do
they start? When does the signal go that says that 300 million
are now wearing the EPA uniform and they are going to go out
and do the job?
Mr. Johnson. Senator, Americans all around the Nation are
paying attention to the environment.
Senator Lautenberg. Yes, I think they are really angry if
they know what the truth is, that there is going to be less
attention to things. I read your statement. I see that our
Nation is committed to balancing the budget. Is DOD committed
to balancing the budget?
Mr. Johnson. Yes, they are.
Senator Lautenberg. They are? Here ye, here ye, I want the
Chairman's attention. DOD is committed to balancing the budget.
Mr. Johnson, I don't whether EPA, in your view, is now a branch
of OMB, but that is what I am looking at. That is the first
thing. Instead of talking about the results of these cuts, you
are trying to persuade everybody and it just isn't working,
that balancing the budget by taking away health protections,
whether it is Superfund or water or clean air or what have you,
is good for America. If you have to tell that story to 300
million Americans on a direct basis, I am sure you wouldn't
like the response.
I looked at what is happening here, decreasing funding of
the clean water revolving fund. I looked at the States that are
represented here. Georgia, for instance, will take a $6 million
cut in the revolving fund, from 2007 to 2008. Ohio will go down
$22 million. New Jersey will go down $16 million. Oklahoma will
go down $3 million.
I want everybody to know that this is good for you. You
just don't understand it, but it is really good for you. The
fact of the matter is that EPA had for years improved its
performance, and now what we are being told is that cutting
budgets is really good for America. I don't believe it, and I
don't know how you can believe it, Mr. Johnson. Honestly, to
come here and say everything looks better now than it did
before as we cut programs and as we hire 300 million Americans,
my 10 grandchildren I assume will be included. Do you consider
it environmental progress to finalize the toxic right-to-know
rule? It is a law that I authored. According to GAO, it will
allow 33,500 chemical facilities to cease reporting to the
public all of the details of their chemical releases and waste
management.
Is that helping clean our environment?
Mr. Johnson. Senator, the TRI rule that I signed actually
makes a good program better. It encourages reductions in
emissions. It encourages recycling. Facilities still have to
report. Chemicals still have to be reported. There are no
chemicals being----
Senator Lautenberg. But 3,500 said that they don't have to
report the details to the public.
Mr. Johnson. Well, they still have to report. Those
chemicals still have to be reported. And in fact, our TRI----
Senator Lautenberg. Who are the 3,500 that don't have to
report?
Mr. Johnson. They all have to report. They all have to
report under TRI. The President's budget request this year of
$15.7 million is actually the largest in 5 years.
Senator Lautenberg. Yes, we know that we are short on
details. I close with this, Madam Chairman. I am sorry.
Senator Boxer. Senator, others have gone over 2 minutes. I
can give you another minute.
Senator Lautenberg. Well, they are cutting the Energy Star
program by $1.7 million. That is supposed to be good for us. It
is a program that was devised by EPA. The statements are
painful. I see it in terms of lack of progress. Our pace for
cleaning up Superfund sites has slowed substantially. And for
you to say things are better really, I think, challenges what
is being proposed by you and your department. And you are part
of it. And I don't know how hard you fought to say no, don't do
that, don't make me part of OMB; my mission is not primarily to
save the dollars; it is to save the people. And that is where
you ought to be going.
Thanks very much.
Senator Boxer. I think that was well said, Senator. Thank
you.
Senator Voinovich.
Senator Voinovich. I would like to repeat that the EPA's
budget is woefully inadequate to take care of the Nation's
pressing water and wastewater infrastructure needs. We have a
ticking time bomb ready to blow up if we continue to ignore
these nationwide needs.
Billions of dollars have already been spent and billions
more are needed to upgrade the Nation's aging wastewater
infrastructure. I firmly believe the Federal Government is
responsible for paying its fair share. As I mentioned, the city
of Akron, for example, has proposed to spend $426 million over
30 years to fix the city's combined sewer overflow problems.
The city of Cleveland must spend $4 billion over the next 30
years to meet Clean Water Act requirements.
These city and State officials are concerned that the
Federal Government is pressuring them to do the work in half
the time, and suggesting enforcement action. We have an
epidemic, and I am sure it is not just in Ohio, of small sewage
systems that are up in arms over the demands of the
Environmental Protection Agency and their threatened
enforcement actions.
I want you to know it is my intention, I am going to invite
all those small cities to Washington and we are going to have a
rally to underscore the fact of the unreasonableness of what
your folks are asking them to do. Two years ago, the EPA
announced that affordability is an issue for communities facing
the cost of significant capital improvements. I want to know
why has EPA enforcement failed to consider affordability issues
in their approach to achieving compliance? And second, why does
the EPA allow the regional EPA offices to initiative sanitary
sewer overflow enforcement when there are no national sanitary
sewer overflow regulations, policy or standard?
Mr. Johnson. Senator, with regard to the SSO enforcement,
discharges of untreated sewage are in fact violations of the
Clean Water Act. Going back to the State revolving loan fund,
what is included in the President's budget meets the present
commitment to help achieve a sustainable infrastructure. The
infrastructure challenge is everyone's challenge. Of course, as
part of the budget----
Senator Voinovich. I want to know why you are not
considering affordability. You said two years ago you were. Why
aren't you?
Mr. Johnson. We are beginning to. Our affordability
guidance is in place. We are working with communities to help
deal with affordability. Our goal is to provide a sustainable
infrastructure protecting public health and the environment.
Right now the revolving level is over $3 billion. That is the
highest it has ever been.
In addition, we have some innovative pieces that we believe
will help dealing with the sustainability issue. One of them is
private activity bonds. One is a program we have launched for
water efficiency called Water Sense. We think these will also
help.
We are committed to helping communities meet their clean
water objectives. Obviously, it is important for their health
and it is important for the environment.
Senator Voinovich. Why has the EPA allowed the regional
offices to initiate sanitary sewer overflow enforcement when
there are no national sanitary sewer overflow regulations,
policy or standard?
Mr. Johnson. Again, it is a violation of the Clean Water
Act. We understand that discharges of untreated sewage, result
in beach closings. Contaminants can also get into intake valves
for drinking water.
Senator Voinovich. I am asking you, are there national
sanitary sewer overflow regulations, policy or standard? I
understand that they have not been adopted.
Mr. Johnson. May I ask Ben Grumbles, the head of our water
program?
Mr. Grumbles. Thank you.
Senator, a couple of points on the sanitary sewer overflow
issue. While we did not follow through and finalize
comprehensive proposed sanitary sewer overflow regulations from
the previous Administration, we have adopted several things.
One thing is we have embraced across the country a ``CMOM''
approach which emphasizes the sustainable targeting of
capacity, management, operation and maintenance. The first step
is to recognize the way the Clean Water Act is currently
written, sanitary sewer overflows are illegal.
You ask how do you make progress on reducing those
overflows, acknowledging the practicalities and the costs of
reducing that to a zero discharge. Our policy and that of the
Enforcement Office is to focus on the ``CMOM.''
We are also Senator, on the affordability issue and these
long-term control plans for sewer overflows, we recognize very
much that there is a need to update the financial capability
analysis, which is a key part of establishing a standard and a
schedule. We are committed to working on that. The
Administrator has said focus on affordability on drinking
water, and also the financial capability analysis on clean
water. So we are in the midst of working on that additional
updated guidance on the economics and the practicalities of
meeting the Clean Water Act requirements for no discharge.
Senator Voinovich. I can tell you one thing, it is not
being communicated out into the areas of my State. I literally
mean we are having an epidemic. We have people coming in every
day in the office and they are just up in arms about this, and
saying you are asking us to do these things where it is
absolutely impossible for us to afford it.
I know what OMB is basically saying is let them eat it.
They can raise the rates and they will take care of it, and we
are not going to give you that much money to help with that
State revolving loan fund. Every year, we have increased $20
billion. Last year, we provided $20 billion each year for it.
They have never funded it. They are just going to have to
understand that we are going to have a walk on Washington. They
just cannot completely ignore the fact of what is going on out
there, or you better come back with some different ideas about
how to do this.
I know several years ago, we amended the Clean Water Act.
There was a requirement then that small systems had every three
years to add 25 new pollutants. The legislation was changed. It
also said that you had to use the highest and best technology,
and the law was passed that said that you didn't have to use
that best technology. You could just use technology that works.
I am saying that you have a major problem and it is going
to be really tough. It is not only Ohio. It is going to come
across the country. Somebody better in your shop figure out how
you are going to deal with this.
Senator Boxer. Senator, thank you very much.
Senator Carper.
Senator Carper. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Johnson, welcome. It is good to see you. Thank you for
joining us today.
I understand that Senator Voinovich earlier asked a
question about the budget likely funding for fiscal year 2008
for the Diesel Emission Reductions Act, something that he
worked very hard on, and others of us were pleased to work with
him. I don't know that anybody has asked you about the
appropriations monies that are available for 2007.
I would just like to hear from you. As I recall, the Act
was enacted about a year-and-a-half ago as part of the energy
bill in 2005. In fact, it was one of the fastest I have ever
seen a bill go from introduction to adoption in the Senate, to
enactment in law. It was a record time. EPA was certainly very
supportive, and a lot of States were very supportive of it as
well.
I don't know that the regulations have been issued for the
program, but I don't think they have. Do you have any idea? It
has been about 18 months.
Mr. Johnson. We have been actively working on the
regulations. Again, we want to see the renewable fuel standard
put in place as quickly as possible because we see it as a
great next step in that steady march toward cleaner air by the
renewables.
I expect that literally within the coming weeks, you will
see that final regulation entered.
Senator Carper. Good. Okay, great.
A follow-up question is, do you intend to fund the Diesel
Emission Reduction Act at about $49 million or $50 million,
which I think is what the President had proposed in his fiscal
year 2007 budget?
Mr. Johnson. For fiscal year 2007, we are in the process of
putting together our operating plan, and sorting through the
discussions and the direction of Congress as to what we should
or should not do as part of our 2007 operating plan. I look
forward to having that submitted to you all on time. That is
certainly one of the issues that we are working our way
through.
Senator Carper. Good. Well, we hope you do and I would
encourage you to do that.
There has been some discussion of the Energy Star program.
I would just say as an aside to my colleagues that I was in
Seaford, Delaware a couple of weeks ago, visiting the Seaford
School District. It is a school district with only six schools.
Seaford is the town where the first nylon plant in the world
was built some 60 years ago. It is a very high- performing
school district.
They went to work on the Energy Star program, and with the
help of the Energy Star program have come up with energy
savings that amount to about $1 million a year. On an annual
basis, that is $1 million that they can spend on smaller class
size, early childhood education, and after-school educational
programs that otherwise they would be spending for electricity
and for fuels to heat the schools in the winter.
I think they are one of three school districts in the
country that are receiving the kind of recognition that they
are. I have urged the other school districts in our State to
take a page out of the chapter of the Seaford School District.
I just want you to know it is terrific. I hope that, and you
probably don't hear a lot from programs that are working well,
but I have seen it with my own eyes.
Here is a school district where they have now put air
conditioning in all 6 of their schools. They have year-round
school in a couple of the schools. The weather gets pretty warm
there in the spring and even in the fall. They put air
conditioning in all the schools, and I think their use of
electricity has actually diminished, even after air
conditioning all of their schools.
So it is a program that certainly has my attention and my
support. I hope it has yours.
Mr. Johnson. That is great. It is a great example of a
partnership program delivering real environmental results.
Senator Carper. I want to talk about, in the time that
remains, and ask you two questions. One is on Smart Growth, the
funding for Smart Growth. Seaford, DE is in a little county,
actually a big county called Sussex County. We are a little
State, but we have big counties. EPA's Office of Smart Growth
is providing technical assistance to Sussex County, DE about
ways to pursue both options that are expected to lower
environmental impact of the growth that is occurring in our
county and reduce some of the infrastructure costs of that
development.
As I said, this is a fast-growing county. A lot of people
are flocking there to retire. We have Rehoboth Beach and
Bethany and Dewey Beach, and people just like to be close to
the ocean. The county is growing by close to 15 percent over
the last 15 years in terms of population. They are looking for
ways to accommodate the growth and still try to maintain the
rural character of our county.
The Office of Smart Growth is able to offer this assistance
in spite of a small budget and staff I guess of about 16
people. Yet I think your budget proposal seems to cut this
program. You may not know this, but if you don't, then for the
record I would ask you to let me know how many positions do you
plan to cut in your Office of Smart Growth, and which projects
and technical assistance will be jeopardized as a result. If
you could do that for the record, I would be grateful.
Mr. Johnson. I would be happy to. I would just like to add
that Smart Growth and our activities, both from our
coordinating office as well as throughout our program, really
are smart for the environment. It is smart economically and it
is also quality of life.
So we have found the program to be very successful, both
from our coordinating role in my office, the Administrator's
office, as well as throughout our program. Because one of the
things we found as we deal with water infrastructure, for
example, is that Smart Growth becomes a component of how we
deal with water, both quantity as well as quality, and how do
we deal with infrastructure sustainability.
So we are now seeing the Smart Growth concept really
infiltrate across all our programs.
Senator Carper. All right.
Madam Chairman, I have one more question for the record,
and I will submit that if I may.
Thank you, Mr. Johnson.
Senator Boxer. Thank you very much.
Senator, we have done some research on how many cuts there
are at EPA. We are trying to track down the answer for you now.
We do know that if you look at the previously authorized full-
time equivalents, there are 300 cuts of previously authorized
full-time equivalents. In other words, we don't know how many
of those were filled or not, but that is the reduction in
staff. We don't know in your particular office your staff
level, but we will find that out.
So we are continuing to go back and forth in order of
arrival. So Senator Isakson, you are next.
Senator Isakson. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
As the head of an agency, you have to play the hand that is
dealt you and you have been dealt a pretty tough hand. I
appreciate the job that you are doing.
I want to amplify a couple of things that really have
already been mentioned. Number one, Senator Inhofe mentioned
the Rural Water Program funding for a second. I called a week
or so ago and talked to your office because it has been brought
to my attention that there is a contract to provide rural water
assistance through June of 2008, but that it is anticipated
that is going to be terminated. As I understand it, the budget
request for 2008 does not include any money for the Rural Water
Funding Program. Can you elaborate on that?
Mr. Johnson. The National Rural Water Association has been
an earmark through the years. As you are well aware, earmarks
are not carried forward by any Administration. We are now
looking at additional ways that we can help the small community
water systems. That is what we are looking at right now, both
in terms of training, technical assistance, as well as whether
or not additional resources may be available as part of our
2007 operating plan.
Senator Isakson. I appreciate that answer, and I would like
the Chairman, if Chairman Boxer would listen to this comment I
am going to make, I appreciate that answer because you brought
up earmarks. Now, the Rural Water Assistance Program is not for
one specific rural water community. It is a rural water program
for the United States. Is that not correct?
Mr. Johnson. The National Rural Water Association was a
specific earmark. That Association did serve the entire Nation,
but specific grant was earmarked by Congress.
Senator Isakson. One of the things that I am having a real
difficult time with is this term ``earmark'' has taken on a
life of its own in terms of its application. I think the intent
of all of us is to not have earmarks that specifically benefit
an individual location, or even worse an individual. But to
designate appropriations, which is the preferred term in my
vocabulary, for a program that is available to the entire
United States of America is not an evil earmark. Most things
that we do begin that way.
So for the record, Georgia, because we have a great
metropolitan city in Atlanta, but our State is a rural State.
Agriculture is a huge business, with land management and the
management of our water, etc. So that is a very valuable
program to the communities of our State, in particular our
smaller rural communities. I would hope that it was not cut
because it was perceived to be an earmark that was bad.
Instead, I think it was a designated appropriation for a
legitimate need in terms of clean water in the country.
Secondly, you and I had a conversation about MSMA.
Mr. Johnson. Yes.
Senator Isakson. Just for the record, I have a lot of
cotton farmers in Georgia. I realize there was a registration
on that product because of alleged levels of arsenic in the
drinking water, but other studies have shown that was just not
any more than the naturally occurring arsenic. This particular
herbicide is absolutely critical to cotton in the southern
United States of America. You are doing an IRIS study. I would
like to know how that is going and if you are going to suspend
any registration until that report is fully in.
Mr. Johnson. Our goal is to make all of our licensing
decisions, to make sure that they meet the standard of
protecting public health and the environment. We are finishing
up the public comment process for the cancellation of that
pesticide. I have asked our Assistant Administrator Jim
Gulliford to actually visit your State, to see first-hand and
to talk to growers who are using that product, to help better
inform our deliberations with regard to the benefit side of the
equation.
Our IRIS process is looking at the risk side, as is Mr.
Gulliford. They are very closely cooperating on the potential
health effects, trying to determine does it or does it not
cause a particular health effect.
We are working very closely among our programs, and very
much trying to find the science, the best available science, so
that where the science is clear, we can make a clear decision.
Senator Isakson. For the record, thank you very much for
sending him to Georgia. It is a critical issue in the State. I
completely respect the protection of the environment and would
never want us to license or impose upon people things that are
bad for them, but there is a risk-benefit analysis which the
IRIS study I think is, and it should be completed before that
registration takes place.
Thank you.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator. Senator Isakson, you
raise an important issue, which Senator Inhofe and I would like
you to stay for just a minute. He is going to take a minute and
I am going to take a minute to address the issue of these
earmarks.
Senator.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I am glad you brought this up. I think perhaps you have a
little better answer than we got, Mr. Administrator. When he
talked about earmarking, we are talking about a block of money
that is going to go for certain designated purposes. Now, that
money is going to go for those purposes whether we on this
committee and people who are elected make the designation as to
where it is going to go. If that doesn't happen, it is going to
be done by someone who is unelected.
I think we need to redefine ``earmark'' because it is
something that has taken on a connotation that doesn't serve
the electorate as well as it should. I just think that we need
to talk about that a little bit more. Those of us on this side
need to do that, because I have always felt that we can do a
better job of understanding the needs of our constituency than
some of your management can do who has never been to my State
of Oklahoma.
Senator Boxer. I just want to associate myself with those
remarks because it is really amazing. We do about 3 percent of
the earmarks of the Administration, this one and others,
Democratic or Republic, it does about 97 percent or 98 percent.
So somehow when you do it, you call it good Government, and
when we do it somehow it is bad.
The fact is, we are closer to the people because we come
from them. They elect us to represent them and their needs. We
know their needs. When Senator Vitter talks about a toxic waste
dump, he sees it. He is there. He walks it. When Senator
Isakson talks about his rural needs, he is there. He sees it.
He knows it. And it goes for me, when I see what happens in a
community when the air turns this way in a 24-hour period, I
know it because my people come and show me this, and they tell
me this. So it is just something that I think we have to work
on.
Now, we have to be clear, you have to be clear. I say you,
Administrations, this one and next ones, need to be clear that
there is no conflict of interest when they make their decisions
and we have to be very clear about that, and we are moving with
ethics reform to go there, where we will have to certify.
But the fact is I frankly, and this is my own opinion,
would trust my colleagues, who come to me and say, Barbara, you
can't believe what happened; I just went down to the local
farm, and this is what is going on; this is what is happening
when the city Mayor comes in to see me, and he can't meet the
needs because there is an unfunded mandate.
I would trust that more, just simply because I know when
you are close to the people, you get the message. So I am glad
you raised the issue. I know you didn't intend to spark a
debate on it, but since Senator Inhofe and I both are on the
same side of this, we wanted to be heard.
Senator Whitehouse.
Senator Whitehouse. You brought about harmony.
[Laughter.]
Senator Boxer. See, there is the possibility to have
harmony.
[Laughter.]
Senator Boxer. Mark it down.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Chairman Boxer.
I am going to get to my benzine question in one second, but
this is the first time we have had the chance to have an
exchange. I am new here and I wanted to ask you something. You
are obviously a good manager, perhaps even a great manager. You
have received the highest management awards the Federal civil
service has to offer. You are a scientist.
But coming from a relatively experienced background as a
U.S. Attorney and as an Attorney General, and as somebody
relatively active in the environmental community, the
reputation that I come to that this new EPA has is of a place
where industry operatives have been allowed to infiltrate into
positions of influence within the administration of EPA; where
science is too often given a back seat to politics; where
enforcement is allowed to dwindle; and where the environmental
community feels very left out, and indeed very often has its
engagement with you litigating to make your agency follow
rules, including the benzine example.
What I see is there is sort of a struggle going on for the
soul of EPA right now. In that, I would like to get a personal
sense of where you stand. Setting aside the fact that you are a
great manager, setting aside the fact that you are a scientist,
what can you tell me that will give me a sense that you have
some passion for the purpose of this agency?
Mr. Johnson. Thank you very much for asking that question.
As a career veteran, I am celebrating my 26th year in the
Environmental Protection Agency. I have devoted my adult life
to helping protect the environment. When becoming Administrator
of EPA, I took that oath with a great deal of fore-knowledge,
with a lot of years of experience, and with a passion and a
commitment to improving the environment.
Since becoming Administrator, I have signed the Clean Air
Interstate Rule, affording hundreds of billions of dollars of
health benefits to the American people. I have signed diesel
rules, again affording hundreds of billions of dollars of
health benefit to the American people. I signed the regulation
putting in place changes to the window sticker for fuel
economy, something that had been woefully lacking for over 20
years. Consumers could not make an informed decision as to what
automobiles to buy because the previous fuel economy standard
window sticker information was based upon a 20-year-old
standard. Nobody wanted to take that on before.
So am I passionate? Absolutely, Senator. Am I committed to
delivering environmental results? Absolutely. My track record
over the past 2 years is evidence that we have made tremendous
progress. I am sprinting to the finish line as Administrator,
wanting to do more to continue to accelerate environmental
progress.
So thank you so much for asking me the question.
Senator Whitehouse. Let me follow up, because these beliefs
that I have elucidated are not ones that I have just made up.
They are not new. They are widely held. They have been widely
reported. Many people shake their shoulders and give up when
you talk about EPA these days. How does it make you feel when
that is the reputation that the office has in so many
communities, and what can you do about it? What do you want to
do about it?
Mr. Johnson. My focus is delivering results, Senator. You
mentioned enforcement. From your own experiences, our
enforcement program over the past 3 years we have had the most
success in delivering environmental results. Nearly 3 billion
pounds of pollution have been avoided because of our
enforcement actions. Because of our investments over the past
three years, we have now in place at least $20 billion of
pollution control equipment in place.
So when you look at the investment of about a half- billion
dollars each year over the last few years in our enforcement
program, the result is nearly $20 billion in pollution control.
Through our partnership programs, Energy Star for example,
Americans saved $12 billion in energy costs in 2005. If you
want to put that in greenhouse gas terms, that is saving
America 23 million cars-worth of greenhouse gas equivalants.
Those are significant results. My focus is continuing to
deliver results to the American people.
Senator Whitehouse. My time has expired. I will wait for
another round and ask about benzine.
Senator Boxer. Absolutely.
Senator Klobuchar, welcome. We are so happy you could join
us.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you, Chairwoman Boxer.
Welcome again, Administrator Johnson.
I wanted to follow up on, you were just talking about
Energy Star. I know that Senator Lautenberg had mentioned it,
but didn't have quite enough time to finish up some questions.
You just talked about how effective this program has been in
reducing greenhouse gas emissions and improving energy and
efficiency.
I am still trying to figure out, given that, the last time
Congress appropriated money I think it was $49.5 million in
fiscal year 2006, but this year the budget only seeks $43.9
million. Could you explain why you are seeking less money for
the program?
Mr. Johnson. We believe that this budget will continue to
deliver results, while meeting a balanced budget, and that it
is a mature program that we have a lot of great stakeholders
who are continuing to invest in. Most important is it is going
to continue to deliver environmental results.
Senator Klobuchar. When something is working, and you just
talked about getting results, usually you don't cut back on it.
I think in your own annual performance plan, which was
submitted to Congress, you stated that you plan to expand the
Energy Star Program as outlined in the Administration's
national energy policy. The national energy policy talked about
how Energy Star should, first of all, include a broad range of
products, appliances and services, and then secondly expand
beyond office buildings to include schools, retail buildings,
health care facilities, and homes. Has that been done? Are
there ways to expand this? And should we consider this as we
look at the budget?
Mr. Johnson. In fact, we are expanding in our Green
Buildings Program. I just got back from Denver, where we opened
up our new Denver Region VIII headquarters facility, which is a
green building. We are in the process go going through the LEED
certification. We expect that it will likely be a gold
certification.
So we are not only talking the talk, we are walking the
walk of promoting energy efficiency. We are the first Federal
agency to now go to 100 percent, or certainly 100 percent-
equivalent of green energy. We are the first Federal agency in
the Federal Government to do that.
We are continuing to push on to help not only promote green
buildings.
Senator Klobuchar. I congratulate you for that. But
understand why I am grappling with this, is when the President
has made energy a major part of what he wants to do, and we
have a program that is working, and we know that there is more
that we can do with reducing greenhouse gas emissions and
conservation, why we wouldn't be looking to at least keep this
program with its funding, or perhaps expand it. There must be
other ways that we can extend this program beyond where we are
now.
Mr. Johnson. Senator, we believe we have sufficient funds
to be able to meet our fiscal year 2008 goals and objectives in
Energy Star and in all of our other program areas as well.
Senator Klobuchar. Okay. I just wanted to follow up as well
Senator Isakson's questions, and then the follow up by our
Chair on the rural water issues. We talked about how there
wasn't any specific funding for this program. I know that in
Minnesota our Rural Water Association provides vital technical
assistance and protection to small rural communities in
Minnesota, as across the country. They have helped communities
with their environmental protection efforts for drinking water,
wastewater, ground water and source water.
I can tell you, we have gotten a lot of calls about this.
They want to make sure that they can keep providing assistance.
I would just echo the discussion that we have had here that
this is a nationwide program. It doesn't seem to fall into the
category of what we are talking about with earmarks here. Even
when we have earmarks, not every earmark is bad. I think we
need to reduce the amount of discretionary spending in the
Government. I have said that, but I also said stand by your
pork. People are willing to say this is a good program, as I
think you are hearing across the aisle here from both
Republican and Democratic Senators that this is a good program.
I guess my question of you is whether that is going to make
a difference to you as you, in your words, look for money for
this program.
Mr. Johnson. As I said, we are in the process of sorting
through our operating plan and sorting through what you,
Congress, has directed us to do or not to do with regard to
this year-long continuing resolution. As we sort through this
and a number of other programs, we continue to provide support
to small water systems through education and outreach and
training.
As I mentioned as part of the State revolving loan fund,
there is up to a 2 percent set-aside in 2006. In fact,
communities took advantage of that, and $14 million was devoted
out of that fund to help small water systems. We will continue
to provide support. In the meantime, we are sorting through
your directions with regard to the continuing resolution and
with regard to earmarks. We will have an operating plan to you
on time.
Senator Klobuchar. When that will be, being a new person
here?
Mr. Johnson. I will have to ask our CFO. March 15.
Senator Klobuchar. Excellent. Thank you very much.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you.
Senator Boxer. Thanks, Senator.
Senator, go ahead. I will do the closing round. Why don't
you ask about your benzine?
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you.
This is the beginning of a discussion that we are going to
continue to have, but while I have you here, I wanted to raise
it and you can respond either now or at greater length later.
My understanding is that lead was an early addition to
gasoline in order to improve octane and engine performance. It
quickly became apparent that the lead that was being spread
into the environment as a result of that was dangerous, and we
took lead out and cleaned that up. As somebody who has had a
lot of work dedicated to the lead issue, that was a very
significant achievement.
The lead was then replaced by benzine, toluene, and xylene
for the same purpose. And now it is very apparent that those
are three very dangerous chemicals. You have just begun a
process to limit the benzine. Toluene and xylene remain, as far
as I can tell, without regulatory activity.
What I further understand is that ethanol, which we are
hearing about as a good fuel alternative or fuel supplement
additive in a lot of different respects, could displace those
aromatics. If so, it seems to me that that is one of these kind
of wonderful win-win-wins in which we increase our use of
ethanol, we lower our use of three very dangerous chemicals. I
think benzine has been banned in paint. Toluene went to a great
effort to get out of the dry cleaning industry. This is serious
stuff.
There is this alternative waiting right there, which for
other reasons relating to the greenhouse effect, have their own
added independent value. (A), am I wrong, and if I am not, why
aren't we going at this just full blast?
Mr. Johnson. Senator, you correctly characterize the
wonderful advantages of renewable fuels, ethanol in particular.
That is precisely why the President is aggressively pursuing,
and certainly wants Congress to aggressively pursue, the
alternative fuel standard of 35 billion gallons, because not
only is it good for energy security, it is also good for the
environment.
Greenhouse gases is one. Another is, as you point out,
replacement for a number of these other aromatic compounds,
benzine being certainly, from what we know, the most hazardous.
That is why we put in place the regulation that we did.
We, the President and EPA; are very aggressively urging
Congress to move as quickly as we can to implement this very
aggressive----
Senator Whitehouse. Has there been legislation proposed
that would do that?
Mr. Johnson. We will be sending up legislation in the
coming weeks.
Senator Whitehouse. Could you notify me about it?
Mr. Johnson. Excuse me?
Senator Whitehouse. Keep in touch with me on it.
Mr. Johnson. I will be happy to. Absolutely, yes, sir.
Senator Whitehouse. Good.
Thank you.
Senator Boxer. Thank you very much, Senator.
I would point out that there is a whole new world out there
with cellulosics, some of which even offer more advantages than
corn ethanol, because you don't have to grow the crop and then
toss the crop out. We are already getting people saying the
price of corn is going up. So there are a lot of opportunities
we have out there with cellulosics.
I think the most important thing for us to remember is that
all alternative fuels are clean, but renewables are. So that is
important.
I just have two more questions, and then I will make my
closing comments.
Administrator Johnson, perchlorate is a toxin found in tens
of millions of Americans' drinking water. Most of our States
have traces of perchlorate. Your agency said in 2001, ``EPA
will make a regulatory determination about whether to set a
standard for perchlorate when data become available, not wait
until 2006.'' It said the agency would decide whether to set a
perchlorate standard by 2003.
So now it is 6 years since EPA made that promise. Have you
decided whether perchlorate should be regulated in drinking
water?
Mr. Johnson. Well, Senator, as you are probably well aware,
our focus is to make sure that people are protected from
perchlorate, whether it is a vapor intrusion, water or other
sources. In fact, that is why we went to the National Academy
of Sciences and sought their advice, which they came back.
Senator Boxer. I have to ask you a very simple question.
Mr. Johnson. Sure.
Senator Boxer. Have you decided whether perchlorate should
be regulated in drinking water? That is my question.
Mr. Johnson. We have not decided, and not decided because
we are in the process of evaluating the science, both the
science associated with the RFD, as well as the science of what
is the relative source contribution of perchlorate. Is it water
which is the issue? Is it food which is the issue?
Senator Boxer. I am talking about water.
Mr. Johnson. Yes.
Senator Boxer. I am talking about perchlorate in drinking
water. I am telling you that California is already moving on
this, and the States are going to go right ahead of you. It is
just like greenhouse gases. The lack of interest by this
Administration in doing your job is leading to a patchwork
quilt of regulations that is just going to be ridiculous.
When are you going to give us an answer?
Mr. Johnson. With due respect, we are aggressively looking
at the science. There have been some recent studies done by the
Centers for Disease Control. We are evaluating those.
Senator Boxer. With due respect, Administrator Johnson, in
2001 the agency said EPA will make a regulatory determination
about whether to set a standard and we won't wait until 2006.
And you decide in 2003. So this sense of frustration you hear
is, this great EPA that you have been lauding since you walked
in here has failed the people. And this perchlorate is all over
the place. It is all over the place. And other States are
moving ahead.
And then you say you are very concerned. Why did you stop
testing drinking water for perchlorate?
Mr. Johnson. We stopped testing because we have sufficient
monitoring information on which to base a decision, and I did
not want to impose a monitoring requirement and have data not
coming until 2010.
Senator Boxer. So you have enough information to stop the
testing, but you don't have enough information to set the
standard.
Mr. Johnson. I want to be in a position to make a decision
before 2010.
Senator Boxer. Oh, that is the new date.
Mr. Johnson. That is precisely why I did not want to
continue the monitoring.
Senator Boxer. Well, you are not going to be there in 2010.
Maybe you will, but it is doubtful. So you are pushing this off
on somebody else, and you are saying you have enough data, so
you don't have to test, but you don't have enough data to set a
standard. You fail my test of credulity.
I want to ask you something else, exemption for factory
farm pollution from Superfund. It has been widely reported that
EPA plans to exempt pollution from huge factory farms called
concentrated animal feeding operations from Superfund's
reporting requirements. In 2005, EPA said these facilities,
``can have a negative impact on nearby residents, particularly
with respect to odors and other nuisance problems that concerns
have been raised recently regarding the possible health impacts
from these facilities' emissions.''
EPA entered into a settlement agreement with 2,500-plus
facilities that agreed to help determine how much air pollution
they emit, to certify that they are complying with Superfund
and other public health laws. Does EPA plan to reverse course
and now exempt those facilities?
Mr. Johnson. Senator, we do not intend to exempt those
facilities under the Clean Air Act, and we do not plan to
exempt them from the CERCLA-EPCRA liability or releases to
water or their response authority. We are planning to propose a
rule to exempt the air releases from CERCLA reporting as an
emergency. Twenty-six State emergency planning commissions
wrote into the agency. Of the 26 that wrote in to us on this
issue, all 26 recommended that we exempt this reporting.
Further, Congress in 2004, 2005 and 2006 asked us to take a
look at this and sort this out. They did not want, as the
members of the State emergency planning commissions, wasting
time from our emergency response people in dealing with air
releases from farms.
Senator Boxer. Okay. So the community will no longer have
the right to know about this pollution is what you are telling
me.
Mr. Johnson. The community still has the right to know
because there are still potential releases to water. There are
still potential authorities regarding liability, and this is
not a termination of the Clean Air Act. So again, this is
trying to have an efficient and effective response program that
doesn't burden our emergency response personnel with this
information. Oh, by the way, this also does not affect the GRI
program either.
Senator Boxer. Okay. I am going to put in the record a
letter that opposes what you are doing. I will tell you who
signed the letter: the U.S. Conference of Mayors, National
Association of Counties, National Association of City and
County Health Officials, American Waterworks Association,
American Metropolitan Water Agencies, Attorneys General from
eight States, the Iowa Department of Natural Resources, the
City of Waco, the City of Tulsa, which I think my Ranking
Member would be interested in, and more than 20 national and
State public health and environmental organizations.
Now, I haven't seen in writing what you are suggesting, but
the community right to know is an American value. So I hope you
reconsider this course. I am going to put in some questions
into the record so you can get going and moving, and I am going
to leave the record open for a week to get these questions in.
Do you think you can get them answered in about 30 days? Would
that be possible?
Mr. Johnson. We will do everything we can to achieve that,
yes. Not knowing what the list of questions are or how many,
but we will do everything we can.
Senator Boxer. I don't think they will be an over-
burdensome number, but we will hope that you can get them in in
30 days.
So let me just sum up here. We always have these
contentious debates. I think it is healthy for the counrty to
see this debate. I think it is an important divide in our
country now over what the community has a right to expect from
its Government when it comes to the health of their families.
To have the EPA Administrator talk about how he hasn't really
fought these cuts is very disturbing to me. I think Senator
Lautenberg was right on point when he said your job is to fight
for the environment now.
In your rhetoric, it is beautiful. Your rhetoric is
beautiful. But what you are doing is not beautiful. And let me
tell you, you have said in answer to Senator Whitehouse, you
have a passion to improve the environment, but your budget
endorses cuts to the environment of $421 million: cuts in
personnel, cuts in the Clean Air Program; the Safe Drinking
Water Program; aid to the cities and counties; the Brownfields
Program.
I have gone through this. The list goes on and on. And all
of these things have made our counrty a leader. So when we have
the Administrator sit here and say, well, I didn't even sit and
really make a fight for it. You take away a targeted Office of
Children's Health that was set up for a purpose, so that the
only issue there was children's health.
Now, knowing what EPA tried to do under your leadership
with testing kids for pesticides, getting paid off, and their
families called the CHEERS Program in Florida, where the kids
would be crawling around as pesticides were being sprayed, but
the families got paid off with a videocam, I understand why you
might not want an Office of Children's Health.
Mr. Johnson. Senator, we still have an Office of Children's
Health. I have to correct the record.
Senator Boxer. Well, it is going to be combined with other
functions, and we have it right out of your own budget. It is
going to be combined with other functions.
Mr. Johnson. We have an Office of Children's Health. And,
in fact, it is not just the Office of Children's Health, but it
is our entire agency that is continuing to work to make sure
that we are protecting our Nation's most vulnerable
populations.
Senator Boxer. Well, I mean, the fact is we wanted an
Office of Children's Health where the only thing done in that
office is worrying about children's health.
Mr. Johnson. There still is an Office of Children's Health.
Senator Boxer. You have combined it, period, end of quote.
That is a fact.
Mr. Johnson. It is still an Office of Children Health. That
is a fact, Senator.
Senator Boxer. The fact is, and I don't need you to talk
now because I will give you your chance in many other hearings.
Mr. Johnson. Okay.
Senator Boxer. But I have listened to you very carefully,
and this is my turn to wrap up as far as what I know and what I
believe and what I heard and what I read and what I have been
briefed about.
You have cut funds for environmental justice, toxic
chemical regulations, global warming, environmental protection
at the U.S.-Mexico border, environmental education. I mean, the
last time we sat here, we had arguments and you said the
libraries were not shutting down, and I showed you the website
that said they were closed. Oh, you didn't know. I trust you
know what you are cutting, because if you listen to your words
it sounds like you are not doing any damage.
So here is the deal, this is a great counrty. I hold the
gavel now. You hold an office now. We will work together when
we can. But we have a fundamental difference. I don't think an
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator should sit back
and take the kind of cuts in programs that you are taking, and
you are in essence endorsing.
At the same time, when you testify, you don't even admit to
that. This is the second time you have done this in a hearing.
It is disingenuous. We had a hearing on rollbacks. You didn't
talk about the rollbacks. You talked about how great everything
is. We have a hearing on budget. The budget has been cut, huge
numbers, everything. My colleagues on the Republican side are
very unhappy with this, too.
And yet you don't even reference this, and it is a very
disturbing trend here. It is almost like we are talking past
each other. And so that is why I don't think it is useful for
you to respond, then I will respond, then you will respond. We
have done it enough today. We have done it enough. You are
tired. I am tired.
But as long as I have this gavel and no one knows how long
it will be, believe me. We don't know. I am going to press you
on how you can sit there and say that what you are doing at the
EPA, everything you are doing is so wonderful for the American
people, when the facts belie it.
Now, I want to say something to the employees of the EPA,
who may be in this room or who may hear the sound of my voice,
or who may read an article. Thank you for helping me do my job.
You send me letters. You call me up. You let me know what is
going on. Keep doing it. Keep letting me know the truth of what
is going on, because the truth shall set you free. We are
learning that when you lie, it catches up with you. We are
going to have truth-telling here. We are going to look at these
cuts. We are going to look when you say how great we are doing
on air, we are going to look at this, that I got from my local
people who are apoplectic at the cuts that you are making to
the Clean Air Program, just as Senator Voinovich was so upset
about the cuts to the Safe Drinking Water Program.
This is not acceptable. Do you think I could go home with a
straight face and look at these people and say, oh yes, this is
what you are exposed to; in three and a half months, this is
what your lungs are going to have to take. But we are doing
everything we can do. And it is fine to cut the environmental
budget; no problem.
It doesn't wash. So you and I go at it. It has sort of
become now an expected duel. And all I can do is try to win you
over to the side of what I think the EPA ought to be: a
champion of the environment. And if you would sit there and
say, Senator, I really want to tell you this, but the OMB told
me this is what I have to take, and I am not happy, but I did
it the best way I could do.
No, we don't hear that and it makes me very unhappy. But it
is just the difference between the parties, I guess, or it is
the difference between the way you see the world and the way I
see the world. But here is the thing, I think the people are on
my side. They want clean air. They want it.
And by the way, I don't agree with you that 300 million
Americans are all environmentalists. Oh, no. I know a few right
here who wouldn't call themselves environmentalists, let alone
out there. A lot of them are too busy to even get into it. It
is our job to keep them healthy, breathing clean air. It is our
job to make sure their kids don't live next to a Superfund. It
is our job to fulfill the requirements of the law. It is our
job to let the community know if filth and dirt and pollution
is coming over them.
This is serious stuff, serious stuff. And perchlorate, oh,
we don't know now; well, we were supposed to know in 2001 if
there was going to be a standard set. In 2001, they said you
will know by 2003 whether we need to set a standard. And we
will certainly do it before 2006. Oh, now we can't do it. Well,
other States can do it, but we can't, but we know enough so
that we can have a new rule from you saying no testing of
perchlorate.
How outrageous is that? At least let's test it before we
set a standard so people know.
So that is where we stand on different sides of this. Thank
you for coming, and we will continue these debates as we move
the budget to the floor.
Thank you.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 4:56 p.m. the committee was adjourned, to
reconvene at the call of the Chair.]