The Honorable Christine Todd Whitman Dear Administrator Whitman: On March 28, 2001, we sent you a letter seeking information concerning your controversial decision to keep a new protective standard for arsenic in drinking water from going into effect as scheduled in the rule published on January 22, 2001. Your response is now 18 days late and more than a month has elapsed without any information or answers in response to any one of the 14 questions. Meanwhile, you have made countless appearances in the media, including sending correspondence to editors of newspapers on the subject of the arsenic rule. It is unacceptable to stonewall legitimate requests for information from Members of the House Committee with jurisdiction and oversight responsibilities with respect to the Safe Drinking Water Act. Drinking water standards such as the arsenic standard are promulgated to protect the health of our citizens and Congress is entitled to information concerning the actions of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Even during the days of deep controversy and conflict of the first administration of President Reagan, Congressional correspondence was responded to in a more timely manner. It has now come to our attention that in December of 2000 and January and February of 2001, various industries, persons, and organizations submitted information and documents to EPA transition team members setting forth their views on executive orders, rulemakings, including final rules, and lawsuits that should be reviewed by the new Administration. Information identifying the major issues these industries or organizations thought would or should require the new Administrator’s involvement was also sought by or submitted to the EPA transition team or its members. For example, responses to questions such as the following were apparently received by one or more members of the EPA transition team or the Agency:
We are also aware that two members of the core transition team for the EPA, Mr. John Howard and Mr. Marcus Peacock, now occupy senior positions at the White House and the Office of Management and Budget respectively. A third key transition team member, Mr. James Connaughton, represents in his private law practice one of the mining companies, ASARCO, Inc. that was advocating no change in the 1942 standard of 50 ppb for arsenic in drinking water. We are concerned that the transition team provided a back door opportunity for special interests to influence public policy and rulemakings such as the new standard for arsenic. We believe that Congress and the public have the right to know what industries and other organizations were saying about pending, proposed, or final rulemakings or lawsuits during the period when the transition team was operating at the EPA. Obviously, one of those very important rulemakings was the one published in the Federal Register on January 22, 2001, setting new protective drinking water standard for arsenic of 10 ppb. Therefore, we would request that responses to the attached questions (including information and documents) be provided to us no later than Monday, May 21, 2001. Thank you for your cooperation. If you have any questions, please contact us or have your staff contact Dick Frandsen, Minority Counsel, at 202-225-3641. Sincerely, John D. Dingell cc: The Honorable W. J. "Billy" Tauzin, Chairman The Honorable Paul E. Gillmor, Ranking Member
QUESTIONS AND REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS
1. Please provide all documents or written materials, including electronic correspondence, submitted to the EPA transition team or individual transition team members between December 1, 2000 and March 1, 2001, which relate in any manner to the subject matter of the rulemaking and regulation establishing a new protective standard for arsenic in drinking water, including the possibility of delaying, suspending, withdrawing, rescinding, or otherwise modifying it. 2. Please specify the date and times you were briefed by or met with one or more members of the EPA transition team. Was the arsenic in drinking water rulemaking or regulation discussed or raised during any meetings or briefings with one or more individuals on the EPA transition team? 3. Please provide any portion of the transition team’s briefing book or briefing materials prepared for you that reference in any manner the arsenic in drinking water rule or rulemaking. 4. Were there any verbal communications between you and any member of your staff and one or more members of the EPA transition team where the arsenic in drinking water rule or rulemaking was mentioned? If so, please indicate the date of any such communication and describe the substance of any such communication. 5. Either prior to or subsequent to January 22, 2001, have either you or any member of your staff initiated a written or oral communication to or received any written or oral communication from (a) Mr. John Howard, (2) Mr. Marcus Peacock, (3) Mr. James Connaughton with respect to the arsenic in drinking water rule or rulemaking? If so, please specify the date of any such communication and describe in detail the substance of any such communication. 6. Please provide any written materials, including electronic correspondence, that were provided to you or your staff by one or more members of the EPA transition team with respect to the arsenic in drinking water rule or rulemaking. 7. Did any member of the EPA transition team receive responses from any person, industry or organization to the following questions relating to the arsenic rule or rulemaking or the standard for a new MCL.
If any such responses were received, please provide them. 8. Does the Agency maintain a public repository for e-mails and other correspondence or information it has received since the arsenic rule was published in the Federal Register on January 22, 2001? Please indicate the number of e-mails the Agency has received since January 22, 2001, with respect to the new drinking water standard for arsenic. 9. On Monday, April 2, 2001, in a letter to the editor of the Washington Post you stated that with regard to your decision to seek further review of new standards for arsenic in drinking water you "reached this decision after being told by numerous parties that the decision to move the rule before the end of the Clinton Administration precluded sufficient scientific and cost-benefit review." Please identify by name the "parties" to whom you were referring and the date and nature of any such communication.
| |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
