[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
MODERNIZING THE BUSINESS OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION AND PROTECTION
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND THE ECONOMY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JULY 23, 2014
__________
Serial No. 113-164
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
energycommerce.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
92-557 PDF WASHINGTON : 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
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 ENERGY AND COMMERCE
FRED UPTON, Michigan
Chairman
RALPH M. HALL, Texas HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
JOE BARTON, Texas Ranking Member
Chairman Emeritus JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania ANNA G. ESHOO, California
GREG WALDEN, Oregon ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
LEE TERRY, Nebraska GENE GREEN, Texas
MIKE ROGERS, Michigan DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania LOIS CAPPS, California
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
Vice Chairman JIM MATHESON, Utah
PHIL GINGREY, Georgia G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana JOHN BARROW, Georgia
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio DORIS O. MATSUI, California
CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi Islands
LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey KATHY CASTOR, Florida
BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky JERRY McNERNEY, California
PETE OLSON, Texas BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa
DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia PETER WELCH, Vermont
CORY GARDNER, Colorado BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
MIKE POMPEO, Kansas PAUL TONKO, New York
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
BILLY LONG, Missouri
RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina
_____
Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
Chairman
PHIL GINGREY, Georgia PAUL TONKO, New York
Vice Chairman Ranking Member
RALPH M. HALL, Texas FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky GENE GREEN, Texas
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania LOIS CAPPS, California
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio JERRY McNERNEY, California
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia JOHN BARROW, Georgia
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida DORIS O. MATSUI, California
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio HENRY A. WAXMAN, California (ex
JOE BARTON, Texas officio)
FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio)
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. John Shimkus, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Illinois, opening statement.................................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Hon. Paul Tonko, a Representative in Congress from the State of
New York, opening statement.................................... 4
Hon. Henry A. Waxman, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California, opening statement............................... 5
Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Michigan, prepared statement................................... 107
Witnesses
Henry Darwin, Director, Arizona Department of Environmental
Quality........................................................ 7
Prepared statement........................................... 9
David Cash, Commissioner, Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection....................................... 14
Prepared statement........................................... 17
Teresa Marks, Director, Arkansas Department of Environmental
Quality........................................................ 24
Prepared statement........................................... 26
William L. Kovacs, Senior Vice President, Environment, Technology
& Regulatory Affairs, U.S. Chamber of Commerce................. 30
Prepared statement........................................... 32
Scott Slesinger, Legislative Director, National Resources Defense
Council........................................................ 45
Prepared statement........................................... 47
Matthew F. Wasson, Director of Programs, Appalachian Voices...... 54
Prepared statement........................................... 56
Submitted Material
Article of February 2012, ``Mortality Disparities in Appalachia:
Reassessment of Major Risk Factors,'' by Jonathan Borak, et
al., Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine,
submitted by Mr. McKinley...................................... 84
Slide, Poverty Rate, Appalachian Regional Commission, March 2014,
submitted by Mr. Murphy........................................ 97
Slide, Unemployment Rate, Appalachian Regional Commission, March
2014, submitted by Mr. Murphy.................................. 98
Statement of July 23, 2014, ``E-Enterprise for the Environmental
Business Strategy,'' Environmental Protection Agency, submitted
by Mr. Shimkus................................................. 108
MODERNIZING THE BUSINESS OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION AND PROTECTION
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 23, 2014
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in
room 2322 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John
Shimkus (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Shimkus, Murphy, Latta,
McKinley, Bilirakis, Johnson, Tonko, Green, McNerney,
Schakowsky, Barrow, Matsui, and Waxman (ex officio).
Also present: Representative Yarmuth.
Staff present: Nick Abraham, Legislative Clerk; Charlotte
Baker, Deputy Communications Director; Leighton Brown, Press
Assistant; Jerry Couri, Senior Environmental Policy Advisor;
Brad Grantz, Policy Coordinator, Oversight and Investigations;
David McCarthy, Chief Counsel, Environment and the Economy;
Tina Richards, Counsel, Environment and the Economy; Chris
Sarley, Policy Coordinator, Environment and the Economy;
Jacqueline Cohen, Democratic Senior Counsel; Caitlin Haberman,
Democratic Policy Analyst; and Ryan Schmit, Democratic EPA
Detailee.
Mr. Shimkus. I would like to call the hearing to order, and
first, I want to ask unanimous consent that all members'
opening statements can be submitted for the record. Without
objection, so ordered. And I want to welcome the panel and I
want to take a request, a personal request, to recognize one
shadow and one intern. Alexa is from Taiwan. She has been
interning in my office all summer. Wave, Alexa. And Reza is
from Albania, Kosovo, and she just joined to shadow with me
today. And I can't pronounce the name, her last name. But it is
a town. What is it? Gjakova. So, welcome, and this is her first
chance to be in Washington and see the legislative process. And
we are glad to have her with us.
I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes for an opening
statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Every day we hear about innovations in system
communications and logistics that make businesses more
productive. Some of this modernization is technological and
some is just common sense. Today, we explore these system
innovations in the context of environmental regulation,
modernizing environmental programs and making them more
efficient.
The States and EPA are partners in the business of working
toward cleaner air, water, and soil because the States
implement a significant percentage of the environmental laws,
and EPA relies on the States for the implementation of its
programs as Ranking Member Waxman will remind me almost every
time we have a hearing. So I am learning. I have been
listening, Mr. Waxman. In this age of declining budgets and
workforce, States, EPA, the regulated community, and the public
must work together to find ways to improve environmental
protection while spending less resources.
A great example of Congress working with the EPA and the
regulated community to modernize and streamline the way an
existing statute is carried out began with enactment of Public
Law 112-195, the Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest
Establishment Act. Negotiations on this bill involved members
from both parties, from several committees, and from House
leadership, and from the Senate. Once a deal was reached, it
passed the House and the Senate without a single dissenting
vote. The President signed it into law on October 5, 2012. This
Act authorizes EPA to employ a system that uses electronic
manifests to track shipments of hazardous waste, under Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, known as RCRA, Subtitle C, from
its generation to its ultimate disposal. This streamlines the
current process, which requires paper forms and replaces the
millions of paper manifests produced each year.
Today, we will hear from the Commissioners of three States
who will share their stories about how their States analyze
their programs to determine how they can boost efficiency while
maintaining and improving environmental protection. Arizona
applies a management principle used in the private sector
called Lean which is centered on preserving or creating value
using fewer resources. The process improvements made in Arizona
as a result of the Lean analysis has resulted in a decrease in
the average permitting timeline by more than 60 percent and
reduced the average time for a facility to return to the
compliance by more than 50 percent. That means greater and
faster protection of the environment and shortening the wait
time for the regulated entity to use the permit to carry out
their business strategy. Government and permit holders both
win.
Arkansas will give us examples of its modernization efforts
including how State site inspections are now using electronic
tablets to record inspection data and allow the regulated
community to sign the forms at the time and the place of the
inspection. The permit holder obtains the inspection form on
the spot which means they will know immediately what they need
to fix and will allow them to return to compliance much more
quickly. Again, most everybody is a winner.
Massachusetts will tell how it plans to use geographic
information systems and mapping software to provide easy access
to site cleanup documents to enable realtors and investors to
more easily identify sites that are available for
redevelopment. This facilitates real estate redevelopment.
Economic growth and environmental cleanup are both improved.
And finally, Bill Kovacs will give us the perspective of
the regulated community. We expect Bill to discuss how these
initiatives affect the bottom line of businesses across America
and what further modernization steps could be taken. We welcome
all our witnesses and look forward to their testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Shimkus follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. John Shimkus
Every day, we hear about innovations in system
communications and logistics that make businesses more
productive. Some of this modernization is technological and
some is just common sense. Today, we explore these system
innovations in the context of environmental regulation--
modernizing environmental programs and making them more
efficient. The States and EPA are partners in the business of
working toward cleaner air, water, and soil because the States
implement a significant percentage of the environmental laws
and EPA relies on the States for the implementation of its
programs. In this age of declining budgets and workforce,
States, EPA, the regulated community, and the public must work
together to find ways to improve environmental protection while
spending less resources.
A great example of Congress working with EPA and the
regulated community to modernize and streamline the way an
existing statute is carried out began with enactment of Public
Law 112-195, the Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest
Establishment Act. Negotiations on this bill involved members
from both parties, from several committees, from the House
Leadership, and from the Senate. Once a deal was reached, it
passed the House and Senate without a single dissenting vote.
The president signed it into law on October 5, 2012.
This Act authorizes EPA to employ a system that uses
electronic manifests to track shipments of hazardous waste,
under Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle C,
from its generation to ultimate disposal. This streamlines the
current process, which requires paper forms, and replaces the
millions of paper manifests produced each year.
Today, we'll hear from the Commissioners of three States
who will share their stories about how their States analyze
their programs to determine how they can boost efficiency while
maintainingor improving environmental protection. Arizona
applies a management principle used in the private sector
called ``Lean,'' which is centered on preserving or creating
value using fewer resources.
The process improvements made in Arizona as a result of the
Lean analysis have resulted in a decrease in the average
permitting timeline by more than 60 percent and reduced the
average time for a facility to return to compliance by more
than 50 percent. That means greater and faster protection of
the environment and shortening the wait time for the regulated
entity to use the permit to carry out their business strategy.
Government and permit holders both win.
Arkansas will give us examples of its modernization
efforts, including how State site inspectors are now using
electronic tablets to record inspection data and allow the
regulated community to sign the forms at the time and place of
the inspection. The permit holder obtains the inspection form
on the spot which means they will know immediately what they
need to fix and will allow them to return to compliance much
more quickly. Again, most everybody is a winner.
Massachusetts will tell how it plans to use geographic
information systems and mapping software to provide easy access
to site cleanup documents to enable realtors and investors to
more easily identify sites that are available for
redevelopment. This facilitates real estate redevelopment.
Economic growth and environmental cleanup are both improved.
And finally, Bill Kovacs will give us the perspective of
the regulated community. We expect Bill to discuss how these
initiatives affect the bottom line of businesses across America
and what further modernization steps could be taken.
We welcome all our witnesses and look forward to their
testimony.
Mr. Shimkus. I yield back the balance of my time and
recognize the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Tonko,
for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL TONKO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and welcome to all of our
panelists. Today's hearing gives us an opportunity to examine
innovative new tools to enable State and Federal environmental
regulators to accomplish their mission of environmental and
public health protection more efficiently and more effectively.
Smart metering, advanced data management and mapping tools and
advanced monitoring devices can provide State and local
governments with the means to deliver significant benefits to
the public. We are all aware that budgets are tight and that
there are many demands placed upon State and local governments.
We have been asking States to do more with less for far too
long. New tools can be helpful, but they come at a price.
Without funding to procure these new tools and to train people
to use them, we are simply imposing another mandate.
We should incentivize and support agencies' use of
innovative technologies to achieve greater environment and
public health protection. I believe that the initial investment
will pay for itself in a rather short period of time. For
example, water leaking from mains represents significant loss
of revenue and the loss of a resource that is growing scarce in
some areas of our country. New monitoring technologies can
identify leaks in water mains enabling municipalities to target
maintenance and repairs of infrastructure to areas of greatest
need. Advanced monitoring devices can identify spills or
pollution problems when they first occur, enabling authorities
to act quickly to mitigate the problem and avoid costly
cleanups and risks to our public health.
A clean environment is not a luxury. It is a necessity. We
have years of experience to demonstrate that communities do not
have to sacrifice public health and the environment for
economic growth. And a clean environment is not achieved
automatically as a byproduct of a growing GDP and expanding job
base. Unfortunately, common essential resources--land, air and
water--are often used as free disposal areas by industry when
there are no standards to define and require pollution
controls. We learned that lesson many years ago. China is
learning it today. The impressive economic growth in job
creation in China in the absence of enforceable environmental
protection standards has led to serious air, water and land
pollution in many of their industrialized areas. It is leading
to health problems, resource shortages, and in some areas, it
has led to companies offering hardship pay to attract skilled
people.
Modernizing environmental regulation implies that we will
move forward, not backward, on environmental protection. The
public relies on State and Federal environmental regulators to
protect their interests. EPA and their partner agencies in the
States are making decisions that will have impacts far into our
future. Over the years we have seen industries come and go.
That is the nature of a dynamic economy. But we have never lost
our need for productive land, clean air and clean water. Tools
to modernize environmental regulation should be evaluated to
determine whether they indeed help agencies to achieve greater
public health and environmental protection, and better
recordkeeping. Web-based reporting of inaccurate or incomplete
information achieves nothing. Fast permitting may benefit the
permit applicant, but without robust evaluation of a proposed
project, there is no guarantee that a new business will be the
type of good neighbor that truly benefits an entire community.
I look forward to hearing about the initiatives that are
underway in the States from our distinguished panel of
witnesses. I thank you all for being here this morning to share
your experiences and ideas with the subcommittee. My bottom
line, if it improves our environmental stewardship, so be it.
Let us go forward. If haste makes waste, if it gives us a worse
outcome and avoids the mission statement to which we are all
assigned, no go. Thank you very much.
Mr. Shimkus. I thank my colleague. I turn to the Republican
side to see if anybody wishes time for an opening statement.
Seeing none, the Chair now recognizes the ranking member of the
full committee, Mr. Waxman, for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Waxman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Technology
has an enormous potential to improve environmental protection.
From the catalytic converter to smokestack scrubbers,
technological advances have brought us cleaner cars and cleaner
energy. Now mobile technology can empower citizens to monitor
their environment and can help them access real-time
information about chemical releases in their neighborhoods. It
is important for regulators to embrace new technology, and EPA
and the States have taken significant steps toward
modernization.
In 2011, the Government Accountability Office found serious
problems with the State Drinking Water Information System. The
EPA is now undertaking a significant effort to improve and
modernize that system which will ensure that regulators and
citizens have access to accurate drinking water quality
information.
Progress is also being made on hazardous substances.
Consumers and researchers looking for information about the
dangers of potentially toxic chemicals can now turn to the
EPA's ChemView Web portal. That new Web site brings together
information from multiple programs and sources in a sortable
and searchable format. As more testing is done under EPA's
chemical action plans, this resource will become more and more
valuable.
The environmental community is also using new technology to
improve environmental protection. Just last week, an
environmental group published the results of a partnership with
Google that put sensors on Google's Street View mapping cars to
detect methane leaks from utility pipes under city streets. The
maps they produced illustrate priorities for repair and
replacement of aging lines, helping States and municipalities
prioritize funding and reduce carbon pollution.
We will hear from the panel today about similar projects
bringing attention to the health impacts from coal mining and
empowering people to participate in the protection of their
local environment.
I welcome this opportunity to hear about some of these new
tools and the strong partnership that has been created between
EPA and the States to pursue E-Enterprise, a joint effort to
maximize the use of advanced information technologies, optimize
operations and increase transparency.
I am supportive of efforts to improve the experience of
regulated entities, but these initiatives should remain focused
on enhancing environmental protection. The primary customers of
environmental regulations, the people served by them, are the
public, not the regulated entities.
In North Carolina last year, the new Republican head of the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources shifted the
agency's focus from protecting the public to providing customer
service to regulated entities. When staff resigned in protest,
he penned an op-ed to proclaim his success in turning the
department into ``a customer-friendly juggernaut.'' We saw the
results of that customer service approach in the Dan River coal
ash spill. The effects of that spill were visible across 70
miles of the Dan River, crossing from North Carolina into
Virginia and affecting drinking water sources for the citizens
of Danville and Virginia Beach. According to a recent estimate,
the economic impacts of the spill could exceed $70 million.
So as we discuss this new technology and the potential for
improving the process of environmental regulation, we must
ensure that the role of regulators as protectors of the
environment is not undermined. State and Federal regulators
should remain focused on protecting human health in keeping the
air and water clean.
I look forward to today's testimony and learning how new
technologies can be adopted to achieve these goals. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman. I yield back my time.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time. I want to
thank him for his comments. And now I would like to recognize
our panel. I will do that one at a time. Your full statement
has been submitted for the record. You have 5 minutes to
summarize. We will not be draconian if you get off for a few
seconds. But if you go 5 minutes extra, then you might hear the
gavel come down. So that way we can get to questions. It is a
large first panel. We want to make sure everyone has access to
your testimony and questioning.
So with that, first, we have Mr. Henry Darwin who is the
Director of Environmental Quality for the State of Arizona.
Sir, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENTS OF HENRY DARWIN, DIRECTOR, ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY; DAVID CASH, COMMISSIONER, MASSACHUSETTS
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; TERESA MARKS, DIRECTOR,
ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY; WILLIAM L.
KOVACS, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, ENVIRONMENT, TECHNOLOGY &
REGULATORY AFFAIRS, U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE; SCOTT SLESINGER,
LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL; AND
MATTHEW F. WASSON, DIRECTOR OF PROGRAMS, APPALACHIAN VOICES
STATEMENT OF HENRY DARWIN
Mr. Darwin. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Shimkus, Ranking
Member Tonko and distinguished members of the committee. I am
Henry Darwin, Director of the Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality. I have been director of ADEQ since
February 2011, and prior to my appointment as director, I
served approximately 15 years in various staff level and
management positions throughout the agency, including chief
counsel and acting director of the Water Quality Division. I am
the only director in the agency's 27-year history to have
worked in all three of ADEQ's environmental programs, air,
water and waste.
As a trained hydrologist and environmental lawyer, as an
enforcement officer who has worked to ensure regulated
facilities comply with environmental laws, and as a former
rank-and-file staff member who sat long hours inside a cubicle,
I believe I bring a unique perspective to my role as the head
of a State agency responsible for protecting and enhancing
public health and the environment of Arizona.
During my tenure as a State employee, I have heard many
times the demand for increased privatization of Government
services, as if all that ails Government could be fixed simply
by turning over the keys to the private sector. Roughly 40
percent of ADEQ's annual budget is already allocated to
private, outside services. So we readily support privatization
as being possible for an organization entrusted with the
important responsibility of ensuring preservation of the
delicate balance between the natural world and a society that
depends on it for sustenance, prosperity and a rewarding
quality of life.
This does not mean, though, that we support entrusting the
private sector with guarding the delicate balance between
environmental protection and economic prosperity. To critics
who complain about how poorly Government agencies perform, I
say amen. Such critics are by and large correct. Most systems
of Government are indeed a mess, but rather than having
Government run by corporations, perhaps we might be better off
encouraging agencies to operate more like corporations--the
successful corporations, of course, because why would we
emulate flops just because they operate in the private sector?
Looking at successful businesses today, we see they have
several things in common. First and foremost, they do a very
good job listening to their customers. Second, they rapidly
adapt their processes to fulfill customer expectations. They
are also adept at using technology to deliver faster, better,
cheaper service and integrate technology the right way at the
right time. We only have to look to the demise of Blockbuster
video, who used to have stores on virtually every street
corner, to see the consequence of not keeping up with the
American public's increasing expectation that quality products
and services be delivered immediately and online.
At ADEQ, we have made tremendous strides in the past 2
years to improve productivity and efficiency for the benefit of
our customers and shareholders by looking to the private sector
for lessons about how to improve our processes and use
technology to speed customer transactions. In the written
comments I leave you with today, I elaborate on what we are
doing, especially to deploy Lean management as a core
philosophy and use it to instill a culture of continuous
improvement throughout our organization. I also touch on a key
project we have undertaken, which we call myDEQ, to leverage e-
technology to radically simplify and further speed up
operational transactions with our customers.
The point I want to leave you with is this. To be effective
in meeting customer expectations, Government agencies have much
to learn from successful private-sector businesses. What
business knows, and what Government agencies are starting to
learn, is that to be successful, organizations must both
streamline processes to improve capacity for a value-added
activity and integrate information technology solutions to
accelerate delivery of products and services. But these steps
must occur in the proper order. First Lean your systems then
integrate e-solutions. Reverse this order and agencies may well
lock-in existing burdensome bureaucracy.
Before closing my remarks, I would like to mention my
participation in and effort by EPA to bring Federal
environmental protection into the 21st century. Their effort,
known as E-Enterprise, represents an unprecedented level of
partnership with the States. As a member of the leadership
committee, I can tell you that EPA is not merely listening to
States like Arizona, they are involving us deeply in developing
a model for modern environmental protection, a model very close
to what I have just described. Now, I am not usually one to say
that EPA is heading in the right direction, but I can honestly
say that I am happy to join them on this important journey and
hope that we can count on your support. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Darwin follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you. Now, the Chair recognizes
Commissioner David Cash from Massachusetts, the State of
Massachusetts, and he is in charge of the Department of
Environmental Protection. Sir, you are recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Cash. Thank you.
Mr. Shimkus. Well, I was going to say Commonwealth, but I
couldn't get it out.
STATEMENT OF DAVID W. CASH
Mr. Cash. Thank you very much, Chairman Shimkus, and
Ranking Member Tonko and other distinguished members of the
subcommittee. It is a pleasure to be here today to talk about
how the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
has been able to reach its two complementary goals of
protecting public health and the environment and helping drive
economic development. The agency, catalyzed by both significant
reductions in resources and an evolving new economic
development mission, devised a path forward that not only
ensured the agency fulfilled its critical missions of
protecting the environment, ensuring public health, and
preserving the Commonwealth's natural resources, but also
supported the needs of the Commonwealth's regulated community
to facilitate growth and economic development.
Between 2002 and 2011, MassDEP's budget and staffing were
reduced by more than 30 percent with no corresponding reduction
in the agency's statutory environmental mission. In response,
MassDEP undertook initiatives to restore alignment between
available agency resources and work requirements. Those
initiatives included identification and implementation of
alternative regulatory approaches to streamline MassDEP's
processes and procedures and pursuing major information
management initiatives to increase automation and effectiveness
of agency activities.
MassDEP's Regulatory Reform Initiative provided a mechanism
for reviewing existing regulations to identify efficiency
improvements which were required of all State agencies under
Governor Deval Patrick's Economic Development Reorganization
Act of 2010. MassDEP solicited regulatory reform ideas from a
wide array of external stakeholders as well as from agency
staff in consultation with other agencies including our
Economic Development Agency. This solicitation effort included
establishing an external Regulatory Reform Working Group to
serve as key advisors in addition to hosting discussion forums
with a number of other external stakeholders, with
representatives as diverse as the Massachusetts Health Officers
Association, Boston Bar Association, Associated Industries of
Massachusetts, and a group of prominent environmental advocacy
groups. Successful alternative approaches being used by other
States across the Nation were also evaluated.
As a result of its Regulatory Reform Initiative, MassDEP
recommended changes that (1) streamlined environmental
permitting requirements, (2) eliminated certain State permits
that either were of low environmental protection value or
duplicated local approvals, and (3) encouraged better
environmental outcomes by reducing barriers to environmentally
and economically beneficial projects such as renewable energy.
The resulting programmatic changes will achieve substantial
agency efficiencies without sacrificing environmental
protection by allowing MassDEP to disinvest from low-value
regulatory activities, rely upon local regulatory entities
where redundant oversight currently exists, and utilize
authorized and accredited third parties for selective
environmental inspection and regulatory implementation
services. These regulatory changes include improvements to the
following MassDEP programs: the cleanup of oil and hazardous
materials waste sites; public waterfront protection; wetlands
protection; septic systems; solid waste transfer stations and
landfills; and siting of clean energy projects. Promulgation of
these regulations is complete, with the exception of wetlands
and waterfront protection regulations which are due to be
finished by the end of this year.
One significant example of how MassDEP's streamlining of
the regulatory permitting process resulted in reducing barriers
to environmentally beneficial projects is the use of closed and
capped landfills to support renewable energy facilities, such
as solar panels or wind turbines. Previously, MassDEP
regulations prohibited the utilization of closed and capped
landfills for any other purpose. By understanding the
opportunity that renewable energy facilities could provide for
closed landfills, MassDEP revised its regulations to allow
renewable energy projects while maintaining environmental
protection. Just in the last couple of years, 52 projects at
about 100 megawatts of renewable energy have been proposed, and
23 of those are already running.
In addition to effectively revising its regulations,
MassDEP is undertaking an agency-wide review of its business
processes to achieve greater efficiency and consistency across
the Agency. The effort was initiated in coordination with
MassDEP's proposed information system development effort, known
as EIPAS, Energy and Environmental Information and Public
Access System, and is intended to enable both MassDEP to
perform timely, predictable and cost-effective permitting and
implement data-driven strategies and policies, while responding
effectively to environmental threats.
In particular, EIPAS is designed to reduce uncertainty and
time to businesses, improve stewardship of Massachusetts'
environmental resources, use data-driven strategies and
policies, increase civic engagement, and enhance collaboration
and data sharing.
Massachusetts' Brownfield programs also has incentives that
are available to buyers and sometimes sellers of contaminated
property, provided it is a commitment to environmental cleanup
and property redevelopment. We have committed to this clean-up
in such a way that we are coordinating data gathering for a
variety of different criteria that the developing community is
interested in accessing and coordinating this with our MassGIS
system, so through a mapping and data program, we are able to
provide information to municipalities and the development
community on these sites that show great promise for both
renewable energy development and development of more
traditional economic development.
Finally, by partnering with EPA on the E-Enterprise for the
Environment Initiative, MassDEP and EPA can achieve additional
governmental efficiencies while reducing administrative burden
reduction. E-Enterprise for the Environment is an innovative
21st Century business strategy utilizing joint governance of
States and EPA to improve the performance of our shared
environmental enterprise by closely coordinating job program
implementation and creating efficiencies for the regulated
community and the public.
Through continued support of the E-Enterprise, I believe
that EPA, the States and regulated entities will all benefit
from a more coordinated environmental enterprise. I also
believe that the E-Enterprise Initiative will maximize
governmental efficiencies and significantly reduce
administrative burdens through streamlining regulations,
optimizing processes and coordinating system development
activities.
Thank you for providing me this opportunity to provide
testimony today. I am happy to take any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cash follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you. Now I would like to recognize
Director Teresa Marks, Director of Environmental Quality from
the State of Arkansas.
STATEMENT OF TERESA MARKS
Ms. Marks. Chairman Shimkus, Ranking Member Tonko and all
the members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to
speak today about my department's ongoing efforts to modernize
environmental regulations through electronic reporting.
By way of disclaimer, let me just say initially that I am
probably the least tech-savvy person in this room. I am one of
those people that when I fire up my computer in the morning, I
am still amazed by the miracle of email. But I am a very
practical person, and I realize the tremendous benefits that
can be achieved through the use of electronic reporting.
The Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality strives to
be responsive to members of the public, whether they are
seeking water quality data, filling out a Title V air permit
application or reporting an environmental concern.
We all realize that electronic reporting doesn't completely
replace traditional ways of doing business. A citizen in Rose
Bud wanting a speaker for the local Lion's Club will probably
still pick up the phone, and the owner of a small salvage yard
in Romance will most likely mail in their storm water permit
application. But electronic reporting puts a wealth of
information and opportunity at a user's fingertips and greatly
benefits the department. Users save time and money, not to
mention the sparing of a few trees. From the department's
standpoint, electronic reporting allows us to more quickly
respond to complaints, review permits and upload data. In this
day and age, the large majority of the businesses and residents
we serve are tech savvy so it behooves the department to keep
up.
I would like to talk briefly about what ADEQ has done to
modernize reporting and how we plan to improve and expand
electronic offerings in the future. Since 2012, ADEQ has used
the State and Local Emissions Inventory System, or SLEIS as it
is referred to, to allow permitted facilities to submit point
source emissions inventory data online. SLEIS is compliant with
the Environmental Protection Agency's Cross-Media Electronic
Reporting Regulation, commonly called CROMMER. ADEQ used an EPA
grant to develop the system in partnership with environmental
agencies in Arizona, Delaware, New Hampshire, West Virginia,
and Tennessee. The system has proven popular in our State with
90 to 95 percent of reporting facilities entering their data
directly into the system.
Hazardous waste generators and treatment, storage and
disposal facilities in Arkansas can use a CROMMER-approved
system to submit annual reports that detail how much hazardous
waste a given facility generates or manages. Clean Water Act
permit holders can submit discharge monitoring reports
electronically using a NetDMR system developed by EPA and used
nationally. Again, these reporting tools streamline the
reporting process not only for the public, but for ADEQ's
employees as well, resulting in the saving of both public and
private resources.
An example of how modernized reporting has made the
department more efficient is the use of electronic tablets in
our Regulated Storage Tanks Division. Each inspector at ADEQ in
the Storage Tank Division carries such a tablet when performing
facility inspections. The inspection forms are loaded onto the
tablets, and the inspector is able to fill out the form on site
while in the presence of the facility operator. Once the
inspection is complete, the facility operator signs the
inspection report, and with the use of secure software, the
form is locked to ensure the signature can't be copied or the
form changed without the facility operator's knowledge. The
inspection report can be printed on site with the mobile
printers they carry in their truck and given to the facility
owner who can start addressing potential issues immediately
instead of waiting for a copy of the report to arrive through
traditional mail services.
We are excited about the strides we have made to modernize
reporting in recent years, but in many ways the best is yet to
come.
I often say that the citizens of Arkansas are our eyes and
ears. Our inspectors insure that facilities across Arkansas
comply with their permits, but they can't be everywhere all the
time. Currently citizens can submit complaints online 24 hours
a day or call our offices directly when they see something they
view as an environmental hazard. Our staff is developing a
mobile application that would allow users to submit complaints,
along with GPS coordinates and photos, from their phones. Those
details will aid our inspectors in determining the severity of
any violation as well as the exact location of the area of
concern. This information will be invaluable in addressing
violations in a timely and efficient manner.
Finally, we are in the late stages of developing an ePortal
system that will allow applicants to apply for permits,
licenses and registrations online. The ePortal system, which we
hope to roll out in the fall, was developed using CROMMER
standards and is currently being reviewed by EPA. The first
feature to go live will be the online permit applications
submission process. The development of this system has involved
an incredible amount of staff time and resources, a good bit of
trial and error and a lot of testing. But we are confident the
end result will be well worth the effort.
Electronic reporting has allowed the department to be more
efficient and more responsive. We hope to continue to improve
and expand our offerings to meet the demands of the public in
the most efficient and effective way possible.
Thank you for your time. I would be happy to answer any
questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Marks follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you very much. Now I would like to
recognize Mr. Bill Kovacs representing the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce. Welcome, sir. Five minutes.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM L. KOVACS
Mr. Kovacs. Good morning, Chairman Shimkus, Ranking Member
Tonko and other members of the committee. Thank you for
inviting me here today to discuss modernizing the business of
environmental regulation and protection.
The committee should really be commended for this very
important issue dealing with the Federal-State relationship,
especially in the implementation of environmental laws. The
relationship between the States and EPA is very important
because the States manage most of the implementation,
permitting, enforcement, inspections and data collections for
Federal environmental programs. According to ECOS, the
Environmental Council of the States, the States manage
approximately 96 percent of the Federal programs that are
delegated to the States. And I think it is fair to say that
without the States' cooperation and willingness to assume these
responsibilities, EPA would have a difficult time implementing
Federal statutes.
The Chamber is also pleased to learn that ECOS and EPA are
partnering in the E-Enterprise Initiative. My understanding is
that E-Enterprise Initiative aims to modernize environmental
programs in order to reduce paperwork, enhance services to the
regulated community and streamline operations. E-Enterprise is
presently in a concept phase, so it is kind of hard for us to
offer a blanket support for the program. But we do offer a
general support because we think it is an excellent idea, and
any way in which the business community can help, we would be
glad to assist.
It is important to note, however, that over the last--since
really since the Carter administration, many of these efforts
have been tried, and really, we have had somewhat of a mixed
success. What seems to happen is the streamlining efforts
literally get overwhelmed by a regulatory system that
continuously becomes much more complex and much more costly. As
a result, the States assume responsibility for managing more
programs, implementing and enforcing more and newer regulations
in shorter timeframes, and they have to do all of this with
less money. In fact, the amount of money awarded to the States
by the Federal Government has been reduced from $5 billion in
fiscal year 2010 to $3.6 billion in fiscal year 2013.
So the complexity and the cost of the mandates imposed on
the States are significant, and they are really going to get
worse as we cut the budgets. I think just this year, if you
look at it, you are going to see three very complex and staff-
intensive rule-makings that the States are going to have to
pick up over the years: greenhouse gas regulations for existing
power plants, ozone for which the States are going to do
implementation plans and Waters of the United States. These are
three huge programs that they are going to have to deal with.
So we need to be conscious of how much we can impose upon the
States and how much we can ask them to do with the resources
that we are willing to give them.
So I have several suggestions. One is anything we can do to
help on E-Enterprise, let us know. We will help. The Chamber
has been very active in pursuing what we call permit
streamlining. We believe it is one of the few efforts in the
Federal Government that has really garnered an enormous amount
of bipartisan support. The House passed a bill on permit
streamlining, H.R. 2641 with bipartisan support. The Senate
Federal Permitting and Improvement Act, sponsored by Senator
Portman, has six Democrat cosponsors, and permit streamlining
was one of the top recommendations of the President's Jobs
Council. It has been the subject of several presidential
directives, and it has been the focus of the new infrastructure
initiative released by the White House. I am not saying there
is all agreement, but we are much closer on this issue than we
are on most.
Second, I think we can look at just some practical things.
EPA promulgates, for example, National Ambient Air Standards.
Every 5 years it must be revised. By law they must at least
review them. And every 5 years, EPA does revise them. This is
very rushed because when you are a State, the States have to go
back, and they have to, once they get the Federal mandate, they
have to design it, they have to implement it and many times
they have to litigate it. And we are saying that rather than
doing something every 5 years, there should be more discretion
because what happens is if you do everything in a 5-year
period, the States really never catch up. They just finish, and
they are onto a new system. And it is so rushed, that we really
never get a time even to find out what is working and what is
not. I think Federal agencies should truly look at the Unfunded
Mandates Act and so should Congress. They should look at
regulatory alternatives.
And finally, I really think that the States do a fabulous
job. In the course of the year they end up doing hundreds of
thousands of types of transactions and enforcements and
inspections. But sometimes the EPA decides that it wants to
over file them because it doesn't like one particular way in
which they are handling an issue.
So anyway, with that I will quit, and thank you very much.
I will answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kovacs follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you very much. The Chair now recognizes
Scott Slesinger, Legislative Director for the National
Resources Defense Council. He has appeared before us many
times. Welcome back, and you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF SCOTT SLESINGER
Mr. Slesinger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Tonko, members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify today. My name is Scott Slesinger, and I
am the Legislative Director of the Natural Resources Defense
Council. NRDC is a nonprofit organization of scientists,
lawyers and environmental specialists dedicated to protecting
public health and the environment.
Before becoming the legislative director, I spent a decade
promoting the e-Manifest concept as a lobbyist for the
hazardous waste disposal industry. My remarks reflect that
experience as well as my years as a regulator at EPA and my
current perspective at NRDC.
The striking lesson trying to move towards electronic
manifest was how new technologies gradually put to rest
concerns over security and costs. There was plenty of
resistance at the outset. The Justice Department had serious
concerns about anything but a handwritten signature, based on
hundreds of years of American and common law jurisprudence.
This concern about new-fangled technology in some ways echoed a
mortgage bankers' magazine article from 1947 that talked about
the signature problems spawned by a new technological invention
that they said was made for counterfeiters: the ball point pen.
When I left the industry in 2009, the major technology
problem was how to allow waste haulers to confirm delivery by
use of a landline. The idea that virtually everyone would have
a smartphone was just not contemplated. Another problem was how
and who should pay for the reduction of the paperwork burden on
companies. This was finally compromised, and the bill
authorizing electronic manifests passed this committee and was
signed into law.
A key lesson learned through this process is that
technology keeps changing. The goal of finding a platform and
using it over and over again, which is contemplated in the E-
Enterprise principles, must be done with care and eyes wide
open. Tomorrow's technology may make today's cloud tomorrow's
VCR.
The other hurdle to get e-Manifest authorized was how hard
it was to pass even what we thought was minor changes in basic
environmental laws. Manifest changes at least 10 years. Many
more of the advances in electronic reporting will regulatory
changes. However, regulatory process because of executive
orders and required impact statements is so convoluted it often
takes the agency more than 6 years to do a simple regulatory
change, enough time to make a rule dealing with new
technologies obsolete before the rule is final. Proposals to
expand these processes for guidance documents and adding on top
of that something like the REINS Act places epic hostile
artificial barriers in the path of EPA and State modernization.
Using new technologies is necessary as industry becomes
wired and budget cuts make working the traditional way
unsustainable. But these benefits come at a financial start-up
cost to develop while this Congress continues to eviscerate the
EPA budget.
The E-Enterprise vision implies that improving
environmental outcomes and dramatically enhancing services to
the regulated community and public are equal principles. We
believe the number one goal of E-Enterprise should and must be
striving for better environmental outcomes. Reducing paperwork,
as with the manifest, is a nice outcome. But EPA should not be
investing its few dollars, now at a long-time low, for anything
that does not advance EPA's mission of improving the
environment and public health.
The movement towards E-Enterprise in enforcement is
positive because it could lead to more and cheaper inspections
and enforcement. However, because of the budget cuts E-
Enterprise is helpful but insufficient. However, EPA's
strategic plan promises significantly less compliance and
enforcement efforts going forward, even using new technologies.
Cuts in environmental enforcement inevitably lead to less
protection and unfair competitive disadvantage to responsible
companies who play by the rules. EPA's plan to use technology
and aim its enforcement at the greatest threats in the largest
companies lies a problem. How can they tell where these threats
are with their acknowledged reduced capacity? Aiming at just
the large companies doesn't help, either. Actual experience
shows that many times, such as the recent spill in West
Virginia or the kepone spill that closed the James River, that
very small companies can cause substantial harm. Recent
amendments and proposals outlined in my footnotes in my
testimony show that essentially taking low-profit-margin
recyclers of toxic hazardous materials off the grid--companies
under tremendous pressure to cut corners--worry the
environmental community and these companies' local communities,
at least in those communities that even know what these
companies are doing. High-tech monitoring only works with
companies that have the technology and the States even know
exist.
Because of other priorities, the environmental community,
and particularly the environmental justice communities, without
a substantial outreach by the States and EPA, could be detached
to the E-Enterprise effort. We believe the final products of E-
Enterprise will be significantly improved if meaningful efforts
are made to include these customers in the development of these
programs.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Slesinger follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you very much. And last but not least is
Matt Wasson, a Director of Programs for the group Appalachian
Voices. Sir, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MATTHEW F. WASSON
Mr. Wasson. Thank you, Chairman Shimkus, Ranking Member
Tonko and members of the subcommittee for the opportunity to
speak today. My name is Matt Wasson. I am the Director of
Programs at Appalachian Voices. We are an organization
dedicated to protecting the land, air, water and people of the
Southern and Central Appalachian region.
Appalachian Voices supports the committee's goal of
modernizing environmental regulation and protection. Certainly
using technology and science to achieve better environmental
outcomes at lower cost is a goal that we, and I think all
Americans, share. But modernization doesn't only mean finding
technological solutions. Modernization means adapting to modern
realities.
And so in the context of today's hearing, it is useful to
ask, what has changed over the 40 or 50 years since Congress
passed the Nation's key environmental laws and our modern State
and Federal regulatory apparatus that was put in place?
Certainly the ability of private interests to influence the
political process has skyrocketed in recent years, and that
influence is even greater at the State level than it is at the
Federal level. That means that the ability of regulated
industries to influence the regulatory process at the State
level is greater than it has ever been. Any genuine attempt to
confront that threat requires a greater, not lesser, role for
Federal agencies like the EPA.
Another thing that has changed since the 1970s is the
assumption underlying our key environmental laws, that industry
can be trusted to self-report environmental violations to
regulators. That now appears naive, at least as it applies to
the coal industry in Appalachia.
As I went into in depth in my written testimony, the
biggest coal companies in Kentucky for years routinely failed
to deliver discharge monitoring reports to State regulators in
addition to filing false reports that regulators failed to
detect until environmental groups like Appalachian Voices
stepped in. Worst of all, companies appear to have manipulated
water quality results in a manner that is virtually impossible
to explain with an innocent explanation. For instance, the
statistical likelihood that the conductivity values submitted
by one of the biggest coal companies in Kentucky could have
occurred through natural variation approaches one in a google.
That is one with 100 zeroes after it.
Modernizing environmental regulation protection in this
context means confronting this reality and investing more
resources and manpower in State and Federal regulatory
agencies' ability to review and independently verify the
discharge monitoring reports provided by coal companies.
Decreasing the funding and power of these agencies' funding
moves in the direct opposite direction of modernization.
Most importantly of all, there was little scientific
information linking mountaintop removal to elevated cancer and
other disease among nearby residents back in the 1970s or even
10 years ago. But as I discussed quite a bit in my written
testimony, a trove of peer-reviewed scientific studies and
multiple independent sources of information have emerged over
the last 5 years that regulators should not continue to ignore.
Here are the modern facts for people living near
mountaintop removal mines in Appalachia. And if we can have
that first slide?
[Slide.]
Mr. Wasson. People living near mountaintop removal mines in
Appalachia--which are shown in red on the slide--are 50 percent
more likely to die from cancer than other people in Appalachia.
In addition, their children are 42 percent more likely to be
born with birth defects.
Next slide, please. Did you skip one? My apologies.
[Slide.]
We can continue on. People living near mountaintop removal
or in counties with mountaintop removal mining in Appalachia
have a life expectancy that is far behind the national average
and is comparable to people living in developing countries like
Iran, Syria, El Salvador, and Vietnam. And these negative
trends are not just about health. They also include
socioeconomic trends. For instance, the counties where
mountaintop removal mining occurs are seeing some of the most
rapid population loss of anywhere in the country, as the next
slide shows.
[Slide.]
Mr. Wasson. Modernizing environmental regulation and
protection in Appalachia means confronting these facts
directly, and it happens that this subcommittee has unique
ability to do just that. A bill called the Appalachian
Community Health Emergency Act, or ACHE Act for short, was
reported to this subcommittee. I am not in a position to speak
substantively about the bill, but fortunately, Congressman
Yarmuth, the lead sponsor, was able to join us today. I thank
you, Congressman.
What I can say is this. The voices of the Appalachian
residents supporting the ACHE Act deserve to be heard, and this
committee should hold hearings on that bill and the community
health emergency in Appalachia that the bill addresses.
One final thing that has changed dramatically in Appalachia
since the 1970s is the simple geological reality that the
highest quality and easiest to access coal seams have been
mined out. In addition, the modern reality of energy markets is
that Appalachian coal simply can no longer compete with
inexpensive new sources of natural gas. What this means is that
the market for Central Appalachian coal is going away, and it
is not coming back.
Appalachians are proud of the contribution their region has
made in supplying affordable energy to power America's rise to
the greatest economy on Earth. But the word modernization in
Appalachia means looking beyond the coal industry for a
sustainable source of jobs and economic growth in the region.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be happy to take any
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wasson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, and now we will begin our opening
statements. And just, Mr. Wasson, I would say you are correct
in the market debate of what is going on in West Virginia and
the coal, but I will tell you, thanks for the challenging of
the lower coal seams, coal mining in Southern Illinois is
increasing, and that helps our economy in Southern Illinois. So
we understand the economic reality. We welcome these jobs in
Southern Illinois.
Director Darwin, I was curious. You mentioned the word
customers. Who are your customers?
Mr. Darwin. Mr. Chairman, our customers really depend on
the product or service that we are delivering. And we define
customers as the end-user of the product or service. So an end-
user could be the permitee that has applied for a permit and
ultimately going to have to comply with the permit, understand
the permit, implement the terms of the permit. If we are
developing a Web service of some sort that is available to the
public, the public being the end-user of that Web service would
be the customer in that context.
So customer doesn't always mean the regulated community. It
could also mean the general public so long as the service that
we are providing or the part that we are delivering has them as
the end-user.
Mr. Shimkus. Could it also mean public interest groups like
the NRDC or the Sierra Club or Appalachian Voices if they
were--if Appalachia were a part of your State, which it is not?
I know that.
Mr. Darwin. Certainly, that would be the case. Like I said,
so long as whatever we are delivering as a product or service
has them being one of the end-users and because they are a
member of the public and we serve the public, a lot of the
things that we do have the end-user, the general public, in
mind.
Mr. Shimkus. Mr. Cash, I also was very interested in your
opening statement and also the phrase low environmental
protection value. How did you make a determination--I mean,
sometimes we have our debates here, and we never get to that
point because anything mentioned environmentally is high. We
can't even classify that in our debate on chemicals sometimes.
Obviously you did that. Talk me through how you did that, and
did you have public involvement? Did you have the private
sector? Did you have the, you know, obviously the
nongovernmental organizations? Did you have the public as a
whole? How did you do that, make that determination.
Mr. Cash. Thank you very much, Chairman. It is a great
question. And when we were faced with the declining budgets, it
became very clear that there were multiple interested parties
that were concerned about steps forward. Certainly you had the
environmental community that was concerned that environmental
protection would become more relaxed, and that was of grave
concerned to our agency as well. And then you had the regulated
community that was concerned that permitting times would take
longer, it would become a more complex kind of endeavor moving
forward. And so I think the real answer to your question is
that we had a very robust stakeholder process and an advisory
group that was formed that wasn't just an ad hoc, one-time
meeting. This was--these were people from the regulated
community, environmental communities, municipalities, other
State agencies who are engaged in this long-term discussion
about, how do we do more in a more budget-constrained
environment? How do we continue to protect the environment? How
do we continue to allow the regulated community to have the
certainty and timeliness that it needs?
And so we had very difficult conversations about where
there might be places that we could reduce the efforts that we
did. Now, some of these were relatively easy where we found
places where there were multiple redundant permits, State and
local permits that regulated the same kind of wetlands but
forms had to be filled out for all three, et cetera. That was
relatively easy. But an example of what you are talking about
those kinds of environmental values that we felt like in a real
budget-constrained environment, what could we focus on less.
One, for example, was docks and piers, small docks and piers,
which underwent basically the same kind of resources for large
coastal or wetlands projects, and here in agreement in this
advisory committee we said, you know what? We could put a
little less resources into the evaluation of these kinds of
permits.
So the real answer is that it was through these
conversations that we had collectively, and there was not
consensus everywhere, of course, but everybody had a stake at
the table. And as we changed our regulations, each of those
regulations then went through another, the official public
process with public hearing.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you. And if I can, I want to follow up
with you on that, and maybe there is a process by which we can
adapt here to help us move forward.
Mr. Cash. Absolutely.
Mr. Shimkus. And Ms. Marks, also since I am from a large
rural area--I represent 33 counties. There are 102 counties in
the State of Illinois--your debate on your tablet issue, I want
you to highlight it again. Based upon from my understanding,
the travel time of the investigators using technology, explain
how that is especially in a rural area where the investigators
have to go out and travel long distances.
Ms. Marks. Well, I certainly think that the time saved,
resources saved for both the regulated community and the
department have been great with the use of the tablets,
particularly as you said in the rural areas. We have nine field
offices across the State, but before we began the use of the
tablets, our tank inspectors used to go out and they would have
a clipboard, and they would make notes on their clipboard. And
they would come back to the field office, and they would enter
the information into the computer, and it would go into the
main system. And then a letter would be sent to the owner-
operator telling them the results of the inspection and what
needed to be fixed, and then we would go from there on seeing
how those repairs were done. It was just a time-consuming
process.
Now when our inspectors go out, they have a portable
printer in their trucks. They have their tablets that have the
forms loaded onto them for the inspections. They walk around
with the owner-operator who is right there beside them, and
they do the inspection with them present. They tell them, you
know, what they see. They will point out to them where the
problems are exactly. And then once they go over the report
with them after the inspection is over, the owner-operator
signs the report, which seals the report. It cannot be changed
after that. And then they print it out there and give them a
hard copy, or they will email to them, whichever they prefer.
And that has made compliance much more rapid with those types
of issues because the owner-operator for one thing is aware of
what the report is going to say immediately, and it increases
our credibility with the regulated community because they know
we can't change that report when we get back.
Now, indeed if the main office looks at the report and
finds out there is some problem, there might be some mistake,
something that was done wrong, we have to do an addendum. We
can't change that report.
So it begins with the regulated community knowing
immediately what is going on and what they need to improve so
they can get started on that immediately. And oftentimes it is
taken care of within a few days.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you. My time has well expired. The Chair
now recognizes Mr. Tonko for 5 minutes.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair, but I am going to yield to
the gentleman from California who has a conflict, another
hearing.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman from California is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Waxman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Tonko, for
allowing me to ask my questions. Dr. Wasson, your testimony
covers a number of important environmental problems including
disturbing health trends in communities around mountaintop
removal sites. But I would like to ask about your work to
address coal ash contamination, an issue that has been a major
focus of this subcommittee.
What are some of the problems you have seen from unsafe
coal ash disposal?
Mr. Wasson. Thank you, Congressman Waxman, for that
question. The Appalachian Voices, my organization, does work--a
lot of our time is spent trying to address the problem of
unsafe coal ash practices in North Carolina and other States
around the Northeast, or the Southeast. And certainly the most
dramatic problem we have seen recently was the Dan River coal
ash spill when 40,000 gallons of toxic coal ash spilled into
the Dan River, an entirely avoidable accident.
In North Carolina we have 14 sites where coal ash is
stored. In every site, these are being stored in unlined
impoundments that have been shown to be leaking, leeching toxic
and heavy metals into groundwater as well as seeping
contaminants into nearby surface waters. These are all built
directly adjacent to large waterways, many of which provide
drinking water for millions for North Carolinians.
Mr. Waxman. Well, we have heard repeatedly people on this
committee tell us that the States are doing a good job of
regulating coal ash, but your testimony tells a different
story.
Mr. Wasson. That is right. I don't think that many people
in North Carolina, certainly many elected officials of both
parties, and the media have complained very loudly about the
poor state of regulation of coal ash in the State. The fact
that these impoundments were leaking and leeching into the
nearby surface waters was not discovered by the State, by any
of the State regulators until environmental groups went out and
actually did the monitoring and discovered some of these
problems and filed suit. And then eventually the State stepped
in, but as you probably know, the State is actually under a
criminal investigation around how the State agencies have
handled----
Mr. Waxman. Which State is that?
Mr. Wasson. North Carolina.
Mr. Waxman. North Carolina. So if we rely on the States to
do this without Federal backup of any sort, there is a lack of
transparency, a lack of enforcement, a lack of necessary
safeguards. It seems like a lack of even trying to understand
what is happening with the coal ash. How are your organizations
and others using technology to fill in some of the gaps in
Federal and State efforts to ensure safe disposal?
Mr. Wasson. So we work with a coalition of groups led by
the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy based out of Knoxville
that has provided online tools so that people can understand
where these coal ash impoundments are, if they are living next
to them and actually obtain information about what--the ground
water testing that is happening there so that they have a sense
of what is going into their groundwater. Again, in a State like
North Carolina, 50 percent of the residents rely on wells for
their drinking water. So this is a very big concern.
Mr. Waxman. Well, if you are monitoring data and other
information and it becomes accessible on the Internet or
through cell phones, how do we make sure that those who don't
have access to that technology get the information they need?
Mr. Wasson. And that is the excellent question and is why I
think technology is very limited in its ability to help with
some of these problems. Certainly in coal mining regions in
Appalachia, access to high-speed Internet like DSL or cable or
even cell phone reception seems like a distant dream in many of
these communities. It requires very resource-intensive, boots-
on-the-ground kind of efforts in order to engage folks who are
living with the greatest threat.
Mr. Waxman. I had argued for the last several years that
strong Federal coal ash regulations are needed to protect
public health and the environment from toxic elements,
including arsenic, lead, mercury and selenium. Will State
action be enough or do you think we need a strong Federal
regulation for coal ash? And EPA is finalizing their coal ash
rule. Can citizen participation play an important role in
highlighting the need for strong enforceable Federal standards?
Mr. Wasson. I think the situation in North Carolina is one
of the best arguments I can provide for why we do need, we
absolutely do need, a strong Federal rule in coal ash
regulation. It is going to be a disaster I think if we leave
most of that up to the States.
Mr. Waxman. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman's time is expired. The Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Latta, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
thanks very much to our panel for being with us today. I really
appreciate your testimony. A little background. I know the
members of this subcommittee have already heard me say this,
but I represent a district with 60,000 manufacturing jobs, and
right along the same line I also represent the largest
agriculture district in the State of Ohio. So dealing with
regulations and complying with them are one of the things that
I hear from my constituents the most. And a couple of years ago
the SBA had come out and said that we have $1.7 trillion of
regulations here in this country, and unfortunately, it was
updated this year to $1.9 trillion.
So interesting enough, when I spend time out in my
district, going through hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of
different plants and businesses across my district, the number
one issue I always hear about is regulations.
And if I could start with Mr. Kovacs, I found it
interesting, your testimony, because I think that it is also
always interesting to remember these things. On page 5 of your
testimony you state that the Hoover Dam was built in 5 years,
the Empire State Building took 1 year and 45 days, the Pentagon
less than 18 months, the New Jersey Turnpike 4 years from
inception to completion. Then you fast forward to 2014. The
Cape Wind needed over a decade just to receive the necessary
permits to build an off-shore wind farm. And it is interesting
that you point these things out because as you look at where we
have gone from start to finish and how fast these regulations
have kicked in, you know, it is like I hear from the
businesses, but I have never heard any of my businesses ever
out there ever say this, that they are not for clean air or
clean water. They want to make sure that is happening. But it
is really the over-burdensome regulations that they have to
comply with.
But if I could, you also show on page 5 of your testimony
on the time required for processing your permit to drill on
Federal versus State lands, and you point out that the
Institute for Energy Research testified that it currently takes
more than 300 days to process a permit to drill for oil and gas
on Federal lands on shore while it takes less than 1 month to
process a permit for the same drilling activities on State and
private lands. And also you point out in your graph on page 5
that Ohio in particular is one of the fastest permit-processing
States. Would you agree that Ohio's efficiency does not make
them less environmentally protected?
Mr. Kovacs. I would agree with that, certainly.
Mr. Latta. Now, why would you agree with that?
Mr. Kovacs. Well, when you understand the permitting
system, to just even start a permit you have to do a whole
series of things. You have to do engineering drawings. You have
to do testing of the air, the water. You have to do site plans.
All of that must be done in order even to file for a permit.
And so when they review it, the agency reviews the technical
data, and the technical data is going to be almost virtually
the same in Ohio or with the Federal. The difference between
the two programs is that in the Federal program, if there is
any Federal nexus at all, the program moves into an area where
there is no coordination. By that I mean there is really no one
running the show. There are no time limits on when the permit
has to be reviewed. And anyone can jump into the permitting
process at any time, and you can go into a conflict between
State, the environmental impact statements, and Federal, even
if they have the same laws.
So when you go under State law, you are getting a much
faster process because you just don't have as many ways in
which to stop the problem, and it is managed closer to a
business which I believe someone had talked about. And the
approach that we have been arguing and the House has been
forward on and the Senate is, put someone in charge of the
program. We are not telling them what to do. Give them a role
as a lead agency and to coordinate. Give everyone time limits
in which to participate. If they don't want to participate in
the time limits, then they don't have to, but then they are out
of the program, and make a decision. And that is really what
the key--we are not talking substance here. We are talking
process.
Mr. Latta. So is this how--when you, in your testimony,
also state about improving and streamlining the process--is
that how you go about it, or other ways you see it?
Mr. Kovacs. No, that is how we would go about it.
Mr. Latta. OK. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I yield
back.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time. The Chair
now recognizes the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr.
Tonko, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am very interested in
today's testimony about ways to improve our environmental
monitoring through better technology at the State level and
through greater public participation. Obviously the sooner
pollution is detected, the faster it can be contained and
remediated. For example, an inspection of the tank that leaked
in West Virginia could have prevented widespread harm, but
inspections require resources, both from the regulatory agency
and the regulated entity.
With that being said, Mr. Slesinger, you testified that EPA
is planning to reduce the number and frequency of inspections
it conducts. Is that correct? Did I hear that correctly?
Mr. Slesinger. Yes, in their strategic plan there is a
substantial reduction in the amount of enforcement action,
civil actions, inspections going forward, mainly because of the
reduction in budget.
Mr. Tonko. Do you have concerns about the impact that that
shift would have on compliance?
Mr. Slesinger. We are very concerned. As Ms. Marks
mentioned, the key to compliance in her State was walking
around. It is with a new, high-tech gadget that makes it much
more efficient, but the key is getting someone to do the
walking around. And as you mentioned in the spill in West
Virginia, it had been I think decades before someone from the
State had been on that site.
So if you are going--yes, if you use these high-tech
technology, you can probably do more with less, but when the
less is so much less that you are doing significantly less,
feet on the ground, going to sites, helping people get in
compliance, you are going to have more problems.
Mr. Tonko. Well, I had served in our State Legislature in
New York for 25 years, and I know that we have a sound track
record with the environment. But I would have to agree that all
States do not play the same degree of intense role in enforcing
many environmental regulations.
Dr. Wasson, can you briefly describe some of the problems
you have seen in State enforcement of environmental
regulations? I know you mentioned some, but can you share some
other scenarios with us, please?
Mr. Wasson. Sure. I think what it boils down to time and
again is it takes us filing a lawsuit or entering in some sort
of proceeding to get the States to act. They are not doing it
on their own. That is true in North Carolina. That is true in
Kentucky in the examples I gave in my written testimony. It is
true in other States that we worked in.
And so I think you have a lot of hard-working and very
well-intentioned State regulators that are strapped for the
resources to do their jobs effectively. And that is, you know,
what it really boils down to. In the State of North Carolina,
we just cut the funding by as much as I think 25 and then on
top--more than 25 percent for our State agency. They just can't
do the job that we mandate them to do with the resources that
are available to them, and I really think that that is the
underlying problem.
Mr. Tonko. Right. I know that a number of States and
organizations have indicated that doing more with less has now
become doing less----
Mr. Wasson. That is exactly right.
Mr. Tonko [continuing]. With less. What role can informed
citizens play in your view in informing environmental
regulation?
Mr. Wasson. Well, it is informed citizens, you know, in the
cases that I gave of, you know, fraudulent water quality
monitoring in Kentucky or the leaking coal ash impoundments in
North Carolina. It is engaged citizens that are entirely
responsible for why we have any enforcement actions at all.
So it is our job as environmental advocates to get more
citizens engaged. I liked very much what Ms. Marks had to say,
citizens being the eyes and ears of the State agencies. We also
very much see it that way, and I think that there is a role to
play for citizens when the State agencies just are not able to
fulfill their mandate.
Mr. Tonko. And what are some of the steps that your
organization has taken to empower citizens to monitor and
enforce environmental laws?
Mr. Wasson. The Appalachian Citizens Enforcement Project
that I spoke about in my written testimony is one example where
we are actually going out and we are training people to monitor
the water quality in streams near their homes. We are providing
them with the equipment to do that as well as some expert
consulting to help answer questions and help them do something
with that information. It is one thing to find that the water
across the, you know, road from your house is polluted. It is
another to actually take action on that and get that problem
corrected.
And so, you know, it takes a lot of hand-holding, honestly,
for regular citizens to be able to engage at that level, but it
is possible, and we are proving it is possible. We are working
with groups all across Appalachia that are every day proving
that it is possible to get people engaged in this.
Mr. Tonko. And I know my 5 minutes have expired, so I will
yield back.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time. And the
Chair now recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia, Mr.
McKinley, for 5 minutes.
Mr. McKinley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In light of some of
the testimony that has been given, I would like to ask
unanimous consent that this article by Dr. Borak be included in
the file.
Mr. Shimkus. Let me--I am sure we will accept it, but let
me make sure the minority has taken a look at it. And you can
go ahead, and we will make that request.
Mr. McKinley. I think what Dr. Borak says in light of some
of the comments that have been made here is that I think we
have heard once again there seems to be an attack on the coal
industry on West Virginia. I thought we were having a panel on
modernization and how we work, but this has turned into a
little bit on the part of some of the folks one more attack on
our coal miners in the industry. And what Borak goes on--his
report says coal mining is not per se an independent risk
factor for increased mortality in Appalachia. Appalachians
suffer disproportionately poor health and significantly higher
mortality rates than the rest of the nation. The Appalachian
counties with the poorest health are also the most economically
depressed, least educated and those with limited access to
social and medical services.
So to try to connect that to mountaintop mining is a
stretch. There may be a connection. I am not going to dispute
that. But I think we have to take other things into
consideration. Smokeless tobacco or tobacco use. I didn't see
that on the chart to see whether or not that. I didn't see a
chart about diabetes. Could that be affecting health and cancer
issues with that?
So I think we have to be fair when we are doing these kinds
of reports that we have an--try to be more unbiased than what I
have heard in this testimony so far.
Also Dr. Wasson, in your report you talked about how the
sports fishing industry creates more jobs than the surface coal
mining. And maybe it does. Maybe it does. But I tell you, the
coal mining jobs that are being paid $50,000 and $70,000 a year
are far better than the sports fisherman that may be in the
$25,000 job. If we are trying to get these people out of
poverty, we need to have good-paying jobs, and once more, an
attack on the coal industry because we have got counties in
West Virginia and Eastern Kentucky that just simply don't have
other alternatives. That is what they say. They are
economically depressed, and to take away something that is a
good-paying job is really a threat to their livelihood.
So I think we have to be careful about jumping to
conclusions. I wish one of the proponents that were here today
to continue on with this discussion instead of skipping out.
But you also raise a good point, Dr. Wasson, about Yarmuth.
Yarmuth's bill is interesting, and I hope it does get a
hearing. I think we need to have those kind of--we can't be
afraid in Congress to talk about tough subjects. But at the
same time it was announced earlier today that we have 321 bills
sitting over in the Senate, not being acted on.
So I would say that perhaps maybe that is a good trade. If
we are going to take up Yarmuth's bill, then maybe other body
ought to take up some of the bills that we have sitting over
there that have to do with jobs, healthcare, coal mining and
the like.
Let me touch just closing again with your issue about the
fly ash because I think your group and some of the groups that
you represent were opposed to the fly ash bill as passed out of
the House four times. It is one of those bills that is sitting
over--the 321 that is sitting over there in the Senate without
action. It would have addressed all of the problems that you
have talked about, all the leakage. The fly ash bill, the
legislation of the coal ash bill took care of impoundments. It
took care of dam safety. It took care of water leakage. All
those issues were taken--but yet groups that you are engaged
with opposed the legislation. I think it is hypocritical that
you are coming here and telling us that we need to do it when
we have done that. We have passed that, but the Senate, the
other body, won't take those bills up.
I hope that you can be more fair in your assessment in the
future, all of you, as we address these issues of
modernization. Let us stay to the subject matter.
So are you telling me that Randy Hoffman, the DEP, is
incapable of handling issues in West Virginia on DEP?
Mr. Wasson. I do not in any way mean to impugn Mr. Hoffman
and----
Mr. McKinley. But you have used the----
Mr. Wasson [continuing]. And his ability to do his job.
Mr. McKinley [continuing]. Freedom Industry's tank. You
have talked about the surface mining. All of those issues come
under his purview, and you are denigrating him. You are running
him down. Is that fair?
Mr. Wasson. I am saying the facts on the ground show that
the goal, the environmental outcomes that we would expect, are
not being achieved. The health of people----
Mr. McKinley. Should he be fired?
Mr. Wasson [continuing]. In those counties----
Mr. McKinley. Should he lose his job?
Mr. Wasson. That is--I do not have a position on whether or
not Mr. Hoffman should have his job. I am simply observing that
if we look at just the science, just the environmental outcomes
that we see on the ground in West Virginia, they are not being
achieved, what we should expect. When people in Southern West
Virginia counties have the same life expectancy of somebody in
Iran or Syria or Vietnam, there is something----
Mr. McKinley. I have run over my time, but I would sure
like to see it because I think that who has in Vietnam--is age
36, 37 in Vietnam? I think the life expectancy is very much
greater than 36 and 37 in Southern West Virginia. And I am
sorry that I have run over my time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman's time has expired. I did
consult with the minority, and without objection, I would ask
for the article authored by Jonathan Borak be accepted into the
record. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Shimkus. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
Texas, Mr. Green, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Green. I would like to thank you, Chairman, and our
Ranking Member Tonko for holding today's hearing and welcome
our distinguished panelists for joining us.
I want to turn to a law that this subcommittee passed in
2012 with strong bipartisan support, the Hazardous Waste
Electronic Manifest Establishment Act finally gave the EPA the
authority and the resources it needed to develop an e-Manifest
system for hazardous waste shipping. This law is a prime
example of how technology can improve environmental protection
outcomes while providing measurable burden reductions for the
States in the regulated community. Although still in the works,
the States and industry are expected to save $75 million under
this new electronic system for waste shipment manifest.
Ms. Marks, do you expect your department and the regulated
entities in your States to benefit from the new e-Manifest
system?
Ms. Marks. Yes, sir. I think certainly that that is
something that will benefit the States in our attempts to
regulate. There are always instances where you need to know if
there are things that are on the regs in your States that you
need to be mindful of. It certainly helps to have that
transparency for the public, too. It is just reassuring to the
public to know that there is nothing that anybody is trying to
cover up in that regard.
Mr. Green. Mr. Cash, what about Massachusetts?
Mr. Cash. Yes, we approach this in the same kind of way as
Ms. Marks. We are all on board with this. We think it creates
the kind of transparency and tracking of these kinds of
materials. It is critically important.
Mr. Green. Mr. Darwin, Arizona is kind of like Texas. We
have a lot of cross border. Do you expect benefits in reduce
burdens in Arizona?
Mr. Darwin. Yes, sir, I do. I think any time you can
transfer resources from shuffling paper to analyzing data, it
benefits everyone.
Mr. Green. OK. Do you think that the experience with e-
Manifest can serve as an example for other E-Enterprise
projects?
Mr. Darwin. Mr. Green, I think that the only thing that I
would suggest be different between what EPA has done with the
e-Manifesting system and what they are doing with the E-
Enterprise system is involving States in the design of the
system. I think EPA has recognized--and I applaud them for
recognizing--the role the States play in implementing
environmental regulations throughout this country. And I am
hopeful that in implementing their E-Enterprise system--and the
proof is that they have been doing that so far--is that they
will involve the States more heavily in the development of
future systems.
Mr. Green. Obviously I agree because I joke in Texas it
must be in our DNA that we disagree with the EPA
generationally. But again, the partnership makes it much more
easier.
Mr. Slesinger, you worked closely on e-Manifest for many
years and continue to follow its implementations. What lessons
should we in Congress and regulators at the State level learn
from e-Manifest for other E-Enterprise initiatives?
Mr. Slesinger. I think there are quite a few lessons I
think that can be learned, but I think the most important one
and I think E-Enterprise has taken that on and that is to work
very closely with the States. When you try to uniform a system,
like manifest reporting, you already may have a lot of
different programs already under way in the different States.
So getting the States to work with the Federal Government
together and everyone agreeing to compromise because it is
really hard for Connecticut to say, well, we need a uniform
system that looks exactly like Connecticut, and Tennessee and
Arkansas have a somewhat similar view about how there has to be
uniform--so keeping the States involved early and consistently
and everyone compromising a little is really key.
Mr. Green. For each of your States, would it be better
for--would you be better served if the US EPA had greater
resources to work with that, with each State, to make sure it
is coordinated?
Mr. Darwin. The basic answer is yes. The more resources and
assistance that we get from EPA at this point, the better. As
was seen in my testimony, we have had cuts in the order of 30
percent over the last 8 to 10 years, and it becomes
increasingly difficult to do the kinds of compliance,
permitting and enforcement that we need to, and assistance from
EPA, particularly on these issues in which there is cross-State
transfer of, in this case, hazardous waste, it is something
that we would like to partner with EPA on.
Mr. Green. Mr. Chairman, I am almost out of time. It seems
that we have a lot of opportunities to build on the success of
our e-Manifest and improve the process of regulated entities
and get better outcomes, and I would like to thank you and the
ranking member holding the hearing. I yield back.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time. I have got
a question for the gentleman. Do you remember who were the
sponsors of the e-Manifest legislation? Do you remember who
moved that through the House? I think it was a Mr. Green and a
Mr. Shimkus who were the original authors, but my memory
doesn't serve me well. It didn't end up that way. It ended up a
John Thune bill in the Senate after they mashed it up. But I
thought you were being very humble in those questions.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania,
Mr. Murphy, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good to have you all
with us today. I first want to bring to the attention of Mr.
Slesinger and Dr. Wasson, when I was in college in West
Virginia, I spent a lot of time in Appalachian areas that were
affected by a lot of poverty and a lot of coal problems out
there. And I have spent my time also in doing everything from
the Buffalo Creek gob pile disaster I believe before you were
born, sir. But it was brutal, the things that happened down
there.
But one of my concerns we have sometimes with environmental
groups is misleading data. I want to--you showed us a couple
maps of lifespan and cancer, and I think you were trying to
relate that to mountaintop mining. Let me show you a map here
first of--I believe this is poverty rates in Appalachia.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Murphy. It is the same. Now let me show you the next
map, unemployment.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Murphy. The problem is people don't have jobs, and when
you have issues of people unemployment and don't have jobs, you
have a number of health effects, increased asthma, increased
cancer, depression, mental health problems, shorter life
expectancy associated with that. It is when people aren't
working. And much of that not working is we have a lot of
closed mines, abandoned mines, closed coal-fired power plants.
I really hope that the environmental groups can work with us in
finding solutions and unleashing the vast brilliance of
American technology to find solutions for this different from
shutting it down. And I welcome any opportunity to discuss that
with you folks there because the poverty in those parts of the
country, particularly Eastern Kentucky where you have some of
the--and parts of Western Virginia, we have a 40-percent
unemployment rate. Forty percent and eight times the national
rate of substance abuse. It is brutal.
And parts of my district, however, are saved even though in
Green County, something like 30 percent of their income is
dependent upon coal. Thank goodness they have Marcellus shale
because that is something they can have for some income there.
To which case I then turn my attention to Ms. Marks and talk
about Arkansas a little bit which my family is from. You may
have heard of Murphy Oil?
Ms. Marks. Yes, sir.
Mr. Murphy. I am not from that side of the family.
Ms. Marks. I am sorry.
Mr. Murphy. We went into healthcare, but from the El Dorado
Murphys and the Springdale Murphys out there and part of that
Fayetteville shale is out there, but we went to healthcare.
But I want to ask about the role of the Department of
Environmental Quality. How does that--what is their role in the
regulation of natural gas exploration in Arkansas?
Ms. Marks. We actually share that role with the Oil and Gas
Commission. We would like to say that we deal with the service
facilities, and they deal with the drilling facilities.
We have a memorandum of understanding with them that they
deal with the actual drilling process itself, the construction
of the wells, those kinds of things. They permit those. We deal
with the ponds on site, the water issues, all of those types of
things.
Mr. Murphy. And how many State regulators do you have that
monitor all these in the State?
Ms. Marks. I can't speak for the Oil and Gas Commission.
They have a number of inspectors that go out on site. We have
in our water division, which is where we are involved most
closely with Oil and Gas, we have 17 inspectors, and we also
have four inspectors that are dedicated solely to natural gas
issues. We were able to partner with the Oil and Gas Commission
and get money from them through a memorandum of agreement that
allows us to do joint inspections with them.
Mr. Murphy. And how many regulators does EPA have in
Arkansas to deal with the same thing?
Ms. Marks. They don't have any regulators actually located
in Arkansas. Dallas is the closest one.
Mr. Murphy. Now, you have moved toward electronic reporting
in Arkansas. So how has this affected the speed of time in
moving forward in the thoroughness of reviewing permitting?
Ms. Marks. It has been a great help, and it will be much
more of a help when we actually get it fully implemented. But
the fact that we don't have to deal with paper copies and
uploading information into a database that then goes to EPA has
saved a tremendous amount of time for both us and the regulated
community.
Mr. Murphy. Do you also maintain records of chemicals used
for fracking in natural gas----
Ms. Marks. The Oil and Gas Commission does. That is on
their Web site, and it is open to the public.
Ms. Marks. And it is required they have to file full
disclosure in Arkansas?
Mr. Murphy. They have to file disclosure. I am not sure of
the actual specifics of that law, but they do have to disclose
the materials in fracking fluids in Arkansas.
Mr. Murphy. Also with regard to ponds there, do you
maintain public records with regard to content in those ponds
and any leaks in them or any environmental hazards associated
with them so the public can also review those?
Ms. Marks. Yes, sir. We have certain requirements. Our
ponds are permitted on the basis of a permit by rule, and those
ponds have to have a certain--they have to have below a certain
level to be able to be put in those outside ponds and they have
to be lined a certain way, constructed a certain way.
Mr. Murphy. EPA has told us that there are not necessarily
problems with those. Have you found problems with regard to any
leaks or problems with groundwater contamination of any kind
with those?
Ms. Marks. Not so much with groundwater contamination.
Surface water contamination we have. You know, you have
sometimes ponds are going to fail, and sometimes you have
people that don't follow the right construction process. And we
will have contamination with adjacent waterways but nothing
that has been, I would say, completely horrible. I mean, we
have had leaks that we have had to address. We have had some
minor fish kills, but that is about--that is rare, but it has
happened.
Mr. Murphy. OK.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman's time has expired. Just to let
people know, the committee rules are that the committee and the
subcommittee get to ask questions first and then guests, like
Mr. Yarmuth, will get a chance at the end once all the
committee members have asked their questions. And so with that,
I will turn to Congressman Johnson from Ohio. He is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that.
Director Darwin, in your review of processes that required
improvement, what activities constituted the places most in
need of reform or elimination in your view?
Mr. Darwin. Thank you, Congressman Johnson. It is a great
question, and the fact of the matter is that what we have found
is that there is no process that couldn't use some sort of
improvement. Studies have shown that whenever you review a
process, about 80 percent of the process is wasteful from a
document sitting on someone's desk from a document transferring
from one desk to another, from errors that have occurred within
the document.
So as an agency, we have been reviewing every single one of
our processes for whether or not it warrants improvement or
not. We have done everything from the long lead-time permits
that we issue, those permits that take the longest. I think the
chairman mentioned that we have seen a 60 percent reduction in
that timeframe. We have reduced the time it takes for a public
records request by 80 percent, for us to respond public records
request by 80 percent over the past 2 years as well. The time
we see from us identifying a violation from it being corrected,
that period of time is reduced by over 50 percent over the same
period of time.
So as an agency, we have been reviewing every single one of
our processes, acknowledging that every process can be improved
and prioritizing them based upon their impact to the
environment.
Mr. Johnson. OK. Well, you indicated in your written
testimony that there is a, and I quote, ``a lot of wasted
effort imbedded in the current process and that it invites
error and delay in evaluating adherence to environmental
requirements. Can you give us some examples, specific examples?
Mr. Darwin. Absolutely. You know, most environmental
protection programs rely heavily on self-monitoring reporting.
We heard a lot about that today. This means that the entity
must collect data and report the data to the responsible
Government entity, and they largely do this via paper. This is
despite the fact that the rest of the business world is
reporting on the things that they do, even we do,
electronically. Think of our online bank accounts that we have
and how we have demanded as a public that we have access to the
information that our banks have electronically.
If we choose to follow a pure paper operation, it results
in slow transactions and they are wrought with human error.
Electronic reporting, on the other hand, is much quicker. It
contains less error and allows for almost immediate feedback
about whether or not there is a need for corrective action.
When we receive electronic information from those who we
regulate, we can give immediate feedback of whether or not they
are complying with environmental requirements, and they can
take corrective action to resolve those issues.
Mr. Johnson. Do you see similar issues at the Federal
level?
Mr. Darwin. Absolutely, and I think that it is imperative
that we understand that the Federal Government has acknowledged
that as well through the e-Manifesting system they have
developed, through the eDMR system under the Clean Water Act
that they are also looking into, and then this E-Enterprise
program that they have been partnering with the States is
really their acknowledgment that they are dealing with the same
issues the States are on needing to transfer their operations
into the 21st century.
Mr. Johnson. OK. Please explain for us how confidential
business information will still be protected with information
technology sharing like--and I hope I am pronouncing this
right--MyDEQ? Is that how you say that?
Mr. Darwin. Absolutely.
Mr. Johnson. Are developed and used.
Mr. Darwin. Yes, sir. This is a concern that we have heard
from our business community in Arizona, and what I respond to
them and I will respond to you in the same way is that there
are certain laws within Arizona that protect confidential
business information, and those laws remain unchanged
regardless of how we receive the information. The fact of the
matter is though that the information that we are receiving,
even if it is not confidential business information, still may
be subject to public records laws. And so as we are receiving
this electronic information, our--disseminating that
information and making that information publically available is
something that we have to work with our regulated community to
make sure that we are fulfilling their expectations and also
our obligations in our public records laws.
Mr. Johnson. OK. Final question for you. How does the fee-
for-service model and having a significant portion of Arizona's
DEQ's budget from fees and other revenue from the regulative
community improve compliance and environmental protection in
Arizona?
Mr. Darwin. Congressman Johnson, I am sure you are
referring to the fact that my agency was taken off the general
fund 3 years ago. That means that our budget is made up of 85
percent fees from our regulated community and 15 percent from
the Federal Government through grants from EPA. What this has
caused us to do is to become much more responsive to our
regulated community. It only makes sense. They are paying for
85 percent of our budget. They deserve some additional
attention from us. And the fact of the matter is when I was
going before our legislature and asking for the ability to
increase fees to fund my agency, I had to make commitments to
the regulated community to get their support. And the
commitment that I made to them was that I would issue permits
to them quicker so they could do the business that they were
asking to perform in Arizona quicker as well.
So I fulfilled that commitment by becoming more responsive
to them because of the fact that they are now 85 percent of my
budget.
Mr. Johnson. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time. And the
Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Bilirakis,
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. I
have one question for Mr. Kovacs. Arizona removed the budget
for the Department of Environmental Quality, and I know you
referred to it just now, another witness did, from the general
fund in favor of fee-for-service model. Does the Chamber
support such a move like that for the States?
Mr. Kovacs. Well, it is certainly an interesting concept,
and I would like to see more data about it. But I think--I am
sorry. No, I think it is on. And I would like to see more data,
but----
Mr. Shimkus. Just pull it a little bit closer and I think
that will be--make the----
Mr. Kovacs. You know, it is a fascinating concept. The
States overall receive roughly about 60 percent of their budget
I think, 45 to 60 percent, from fees anyway. And on the fee
issue, in some States, I believe even like California for an
example, for an environmental impact statement, the developer
actually pays.
I don't think anyone is asking--because they pay, that
doesn't mean they get any special treatment. What it means is
is that they have paid for a service. If you buy a book on
Amazon, you expect the book. If you pay for a filing fee for a
hazardous waste facility or solid waste facility, you expect
that the State will review it. You still have to comply with
all the same tests. You still have to comply with the
engineering drawings, the zoning requirements, all of the--
anyone who wants to sue can still sue. All of that is still in
place, and if the State makes a mistake or there is a
violation, the State has enforcement authority or they deny the
permit. But what the business community never asks for is
special treatment. They ask for the service that they would be
paying for, and I think that on States like Arizona, I think
that you have got a, you know, a good laboratory.
Mr. Bilirakis. Very good. Anyone else wish to comment on
the fee-for-service model?
Mr. Slesinger. I would, Congressman. We believe it is not
the best way for the Government to operate is that the
regulated control the budget of the regulator. The example
though as just mentioned, that the State had to agree to be
faster with approving permits as a prerequisite to get the
needed fees to run I think is a bad precedent. Shouldn't the
priority be possibly something else that is more protective of
the general public and protecting the environment and public
health as opposed to speeding up the processes for a permit.
As I said in my testimony, the propriety of environmental
agencies should be enforcing the environmental laws. Making the
paperwork system work better is a very nice secondary. But when
that secondary group is essentially controlling and having the
impact to say what the budget and priorities are going to be is
a very bad way to go.
Mr. Shimkus. Would the gentleman yield, Mr. Bilirakis?
Mr. Bilirakis. Yes, I will.
Mr. Shimkus. I would just point out that the NRDC in the
pesticide regulation obviously endorsed obviously the
stakeholders paying into the system for identifying and then
application and approval process.
I would also say that we do that a lot in the drugs and
devices world that we deal with all the time. The user-fee
system has been very successful in trying to force the
bureaucracy to move rapidly to--in a timely manner to get a
decision. It could be a yes, it could be a no. But at least
when you have a period of time where you don't know when a
final decision will be made, that is problematic.
Mr. Slesinger. That--
Mr. Shimkus. Actually I want to ask my colleague from
Florida if I can finish up and ask another question.
Mr. Bilirakis. Absolutely.
Mr. Shimkus. And I need to go to Mr. Cash just for this
issue. Can you provide more details on why the E-Enterprise for
Environment Initiative between the States and the EPA is
important for Massachusetts?
Mr. Cash. Yes. As I had mentioned before, implied before,
there are many different programs that we have that overlap
with EPA that we do in collaboration with EPA, and we don't
want to be in a situation as we move to an electronic system,
as we are in Massachusetts, as many other States are, in which
we replicate the kind of different layers of regulation that we
have on a paper system. We don't want to do a similar kind of
system electronically. We don't want to be in a situation where
our permittees are applying online in Massachusetts and then
have to do a similar thing on a different system for EPA.
And so it is really important that we coordinate these
things across the different levels, and that is one of the
reasons we have been so engaged in this.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you very much.
Mr. Tonko. Mr. Chair? Can I ask Mr. Slesinger to respond to
that? I believe he----
Mr. Shimkus. It is the gentleman from Florida's time. Mr.
Bilirakis, do you want to yield the remainder of your time to--
--
Mr. Bilirakis. Yes. Yes, I will.
Mr. Shimkus. Then yes.
Mr. Bilirakis. One second.
Mr. Slesinger. Thank you, Mr. Bilirakis. I think the
difference with pesticides in the funding of that program and
approval, was that was an additional delta. It did not come as
it did in the other case that was mentioned out of the base
budget. You are not going to get your base budget unless you
took care of this priority first, whereas a pesticide add-on,
which is a fee, is a delta on top of the normal EPA budget.
Mr. Shimkus. And I would just say, that is a credible
debate, but it is also a credible point to be made that the
user fees have been successful throughout the Government
operations as far as streamlining and getting accountability.
I would like to now recognize a very patient gentleman from
Kentucky, Mr. Yarmuth, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Yarmuth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
courtesy of the subcommittee. Thanks to all the witnesses.
Thank you for your service.
Dr. Wasson, I was pleased that in your testimony you said
it is important that we eliminate duplication and streamline
our regulatory processes. That makes total sense. But that the
foundation of any effective and efficient regulatory process is
scientific evidence and knowledge of how certain practices
impact the health and well-being of our citizens.
We hear a lot about the economic burden of regulation on
coal operators, but we also know there is a personal cost paid
by those families who live near coal mining sites. As you have
mentioned, a number of peer-reviewed studies have shown that
there are higher rates of cancer and mortality of those living
near mountaintop removal sites. I think there are more than 20
of those studies. So would you kind of elaborate in light of
Mr. McKinley and Mr. Murphy's statements about other factors
what you are talking about when you are talking about higher
rates of cancer and mortality and the evidence of them?
Mr. Wasson. Sure. I am very familiar with the study that
Mr. McKinley entered into the record, and there is one study
they used different statistical methods to come to their
conclusions. I think what is so impressive about the literature
that shows health issues near mountaintop removal mines just
the sheer number of different independent sources of data that
point in that direction.
So, you know, maybe there is some debate over some
statistical methods over some of those studies, but taken as a
whole, if you look at the entire body of evidence, it is really
pretty stunning. And again, it is independent. There are almost
40 different researchers that have published on these--you
know, among these 21 different studies. And so I think that
that is really the biggest factor.
And again, the tools that I talked about in my written
testimony where we provide information about, you know, these
maps that I showed, we also have the poverty information. That
could have been in our maps as well. And the scientists control
for those factors. And so when they do a study, they are
looking at smoking rates and poverty rates and education rates
and factoring those into their analysis.
And so yes, many of the things that other members have said
are true, but that does not in any way discredit the studies we
are talking about.
Mr. Yarmuth. Right. Now, you spend a lot of time in
Appalachia and I have spent some time there. I am sure you have
seen this before. That is water that came from the drinking
well of the Urias family in Eastern Kentucky. That is U-r-i-a-s
for the recorder. Those of you who think that is not dramatic,
there is a contrast with normal water. And you know, I think
they don't need a Web site in their neighborhood, in their
community, to know that there is a health problem associated
with that water. If that were the drinking water here in
Congress, we not only wouldn't drink it, we would not stand for
it. And yet, people in Appalachia, for those people, the
Federal Government has yet to conduct a single study examining
the health impact of coal mining on the communities that it
inhabits. And that is exactly the point that I think all of us
agree on, Mr. McKinley, Mr. Murphy. We need that kind of
information, scientific information, to determine what the
impact on the health of these citizens is, and the ACHE Act,
which you mentioned and Mr. McKinley may want to co-sponsor, if
you want to ask him, basically does that. It says we have to--
the Federal Government has to conduct a study on the health
impact of mountaintop removal before it issues anymore permits.
So can you tell me what the impact of such a law would be,
if it passed, on the health of the citizens of Appalachia?
Mr. Wasson. Well, the study itself, it is a great start,
and it is long overdue. There is just no question about it.
There is too much information showing health problems to
continue to ignore. The other obvious impact is--a moratorium
on issuing the mountaintop removal permits is an excellent
idea, and I don't think that we need any more studies. The
health studies aside, just the water quality impacts, the rich
scientific literature about the water quality impacts of
mountaintop removal, would justify such a moratorium right now,
today. And so, you know, I think that that study as well as the
moratorium would be an excellent start.
Mr. Yarmuth. I thank you very much. Once again, Mr.
Chairman, thank you very much for your courtesy.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time. And seeing
no other members present wishing to ask questions, we really
want to thank you. I think it was very--a little broader on
some of the issues, but I think as the chairman of the
subcommittee in trying to deal and reconcile and really talking
to a lot of Environmental Council of the States which you all
are kind of memberships and understanding the good work that
they are doing, understanding Federal role and setting
standards as the ranking member of the full committee keeps
reminding me. How can we continue to work together?
And the last point I will just make is that we have a
budgetary crisis, and we are always going to have that. And our
problem is mandatory spending, which keeps eating away at the
discretionary budget, and the discretionary budget eats away at
the EPA's budget. So until we do Medicare, Medicaid, Social
Security, interest payments on our debt--and I would encourage
people, if they want the Federal Government to do more, they
need to help, engage, start talking about reforming the
entitlement programs.
So with that I would like to adjourn. Thank you again, and
adjourn the hearing.
[Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]