<DOC>
[110th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:41131.wais]
THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY (EPA) LIBRARY CLOSURES: BETTER
ACCESS FOR A BROADER AUDIENCE?
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS AND
OVERSIGHT
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MARCH 13, 2008
__________
Serial No. 110-85
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.science.house.gov
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
41-131 PDF WASHINGTON : 2008
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, Chairman
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois RALPH M. HALL, Texas
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR.,
LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California Wisconsin
MARK UDALL, Colorado LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
DAVID WU, Oregon DANA ROHRABACHER, California
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
BRAD MILLER, North Carolina VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
NICK LAMPSON, Texas JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
JERRY MCNERNEY, California JO BONNER, Alabama
LAURA RICHARDSON, California TOM FEENEY, Florida
PAUL KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington
JIM MATHESON, Utah MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas
MIKE ROSS, Arkansas MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky PHIL GINGREY, Georgia
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
BARON P. HILL, Indiana PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona
CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio
------
Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight
HON. BRAD MILLER, North Carolina, Chairman
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR.,
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas Wisconsin
DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon DANA ROHRABACHER, California
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia
BART GORDON, Tennessee RALPH M. HALL, Texas
DAN PEARSON Subcommittee Staff Director
EDITH HOLLEMAN Subcommittee Counsel
JAMES PAUL Democratic Professional Staff Member
DOUGLAS S. PASTERNAK Democratic Professional Staff Member
KEN JACOBSON Democratic Professional Staff Member
BART FORSYTH Republican Counsel
TOM HAMMOND Republican Professional Staff Member
STACEY STEEP Research Assistant
C O N T E N T S
March 13, 2008
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Prepared Statement by Representative Bart Gordon, Chairman,
Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 22
Statement by Representative Ralph M. Hall, Ranking Minority
Member, Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 20
Statement by Representative Brad Miller, Chairman, Subcommittee
on Investigations and Oversight, Committee on Science and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 17
Written Statement............................................ 19
Prepared Statement by Representative F. James Sensenbrenner Jr.,
Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Investigations and
Oversight, Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 20
Prepared Statement by Representative Jerry F. Costello, Member,
Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, Committee on
Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.......... 22
Prepared Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson,
Member, Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, Committee
on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives....... 23
Statement by Representative Paul C. Broun, Member, Subcommittee
on Investigations and Oversight, Committee on Science and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 21
Witnesses:
Mr. John B. Stephenson, Director, Natural Resources and
Environment, Government Accountability Office
Oral Statement............................................... 28
Written Statement............................................ 30
Biography.................................................... 39
Mr. Charles Orzehoskie, President, National Council of EPA Locals
#238, American Federation of Government Employees
Oral Statement............................................... 39
Written Statement............................................ 41
Dr. Francesca T. Grifo, Senior Scientist, Union of Concerned
Scientists; Director, Scientific Integrity Program
Oral Statement............................................... 49
Written Statement............................................ 51
Biography.................................................... 54
Mr. James R. Rettig, President-elect, American Library
Association; University Librarian, University of Richmond
Oral Statement............................................... 55
Written Statement............................................ 56
Biography.................................................... 59
Ms. Molly A. O'Neill, Assistant Administrator for Environmental
Information, The Office of Environmental Information (OEI);
Chief Information Officer (CIO), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Oral Statement............................................... 60
Written Statement............................................ 62
Discussion
Access to EPA Library Services................................. 64
Availability of Library Materials.............................. 64
More on Access to EPA Library Services......................... 65
When Did EPA Develop Library Commonality Procedures and
Outreach?.................................................... 66
EPA Actions Since the Senate Hearings.......................... 68
EPA Report to Congress......................................... 69
Effect of Library Closings on EPA Employees.................... 70
Progress Report on Digitization................................ 71
More on EPA's Report to Congress............................... 72
Is EPA Briefing Stakeholders on the Report?.................... 73
Effect of Librarian Loss on EPA Employees...................... 74
Is EPA Reaching Out to Communities With Library Closures?...... 75
More on the EPA Report to Congress............................. 75
Reopening EPA Libraries........................................ 76
Appendix 1: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Mr. John B. Stephenson, Director, Natural Resources and
Environment, Government Accountability Office.................. 80
Ms. Molly A. O'Neill, Assistant Administrator for Environmental
Information, The Office of Environmental Information (OEI);
Chief Information Officer (CIO), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency......................................................... 83
Appendix 2: Additional Material for the Record
Exhibit #1, EPA Office of Environmental Information Report,
``Business Case for Information Services: EPA's Regional
Libraries and Centers'' (January 2004)......................... 88
Exhibit #2, EPA Library Network Workgroup Report, ``EPA Library
Network: Challenges for FY 2007 and Beyond'' (November 22,
2005).......................................................... 112
Exhibit #3, EPA Office of Environmental Information ``EPA FY 2007
Library Plan: National Framework for the Headquarters and
Regional Libraries'' (August 15, 2006)......................... 122
Exhibit #4, EPA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
(OECA) Position Paper on the 2007 EPA Library Plan (August 23,
2006).......................................................... 140
Exhibit #5, Letter to GAO Comptroller General David Walker
requesting an investigation of the EPA Libraries Restructuring
Plan from Chairmen Gordon, Dingell, Waxman, and Oberstar
(September 19, 2006)........................................... 145
Exhibit #6, Letter to EPA Administrator Johnson from Chairmen
Gordon, Dingell, and Waxman (November 30, 2006)................ 149
Exhibit #7, Letter to Chairman Gordon from Molly O'Neill,
Assistant Administrator and Chief Information Officer, Office
of Environmental Information, EPA responding to November 30,
2006 (Exhibit #6) (January 12, 2007)........................... 151
Exhibit #8, The Arbitration decision between EPA and the American
Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO; Council 238....... 153
THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA) LIBRARY CLOSURES: BETTER
ACCESS FOR A BROADER AUDIENCE?
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 13, 2008
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight,
Committee on Science and Technology,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:35 a.m., in
Room 2318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Brad Miller
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
hearing charter
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS AND OVERSIGHT
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) Library Closures: Better
Access for a Broader Audience?
thursday, march 13, 2008
9:30 a.m.-12:00 p.m.
2318 rayburn house office building
Purpose
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) manages an extensive
library system designed to serve the specific needs of its research and
regulatory scientists, its enforcement specialists and the interested
public. Beginning in 2003, EPA managers began a series of studies of
how to consolidate and restructure their library system to reduce costs
among its 26 branches.
By the end of FY 2006, seven libraries were closed. The libraries
closed included three regional libraries (Dallas, Chicago, Kansas
City), a technical library in Edison, NJ, associated with the Region
two library, a laboratory library in Region three located in Fort
Meade, MD, and two libraries located in Washington, D.C. (the
headquarters library and the chemical library managed by the Office of
Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances (OPPTS) ).
Because EPA did not complete work necessary to restructure its
library network, the collections previously housed in these libraries
are still not fully accessible to EPA employees and the public. On
Thursday, March 13 at 9:30 a.m. in Rayburn 2318 the Subcommittee on
Investigations and Oversight will hold a hearing on EPA's plan to
consolidate and modernize its library network and the impacts of their
implementation of this plan on EPA employees and the public.
Witnesses:
The witnesses testifying at the hearing will be:
Mr. John Stephenson, Director Natural Resources and Environment,
Government Accountability Office;
Mr. Charles Orzehoskie, President, American Federation of Government
Employees, Council 238;
Dr. Francesca Grifo, Senior Scientist and Director of the Scientific
Integrity Program, Union of Concerned Scientists;
Mr. Jim Rettig, President-elect, American Library Association;
Ms. Molly O'Neill, Assistant Administrator for the Office of
Environmental Information (OEI) and Chief Information Officer,
Environmental Protection Agency.
Background
This matter has been of interest to the Committee since March 2006
when Jeff Ruch, Executive Director of Public Employees for
Environmental Responsibility (PEER) testified before the Subcommittee
on Environment, Technology and Standards about a proposed funding cut
of $2 million dollars in the budget for EPA's regional libraries was
likely to lead to the closure of library facilities. In September 2006,
Mr. Gordon was joined by Mr. Dingell and Mr. Waxman (Senator Boxer
later joined the request) in a letter to GAO requesting an
investigation of EPA's library restructuring plan, its implementation,
and its potential impacts on delivery of library services to EPA
employees and the public (letter attached).
In November 2006, those same House Members, joined by Mr. Oberstar,
wrote to EPA Administrator Johnson asking that he suspend all activity
designed to close facilities or dispose of materials until Congress
could be heard on its preferences for EPA's library system. Early in
2007, Administrator Johnson agreed to do so. In the FY 2008 omnibus
appropriation Congress included $1 million in additional funding for
EPA's libraries to reopen the regional libraries that were closed and
required the Agency to provide a plan to restore library services
within 90 days of the law's enactment (signed on December 26, 2007).
A good primer on the restructuring effort can be found in the
attached report by CRS, this charter will briefly touch on five key
questions which we hope to explore in the hearing.
1. Did EPA Have a Plan for Maintaining Continuity of Library Services
When the Plan Was Implemented in 2006?
For several years, EPA managers have looked at alternative
structures for delivering library services to their employees and the
public. The collections in EPA's libraries are extraordinarily
specialized and, in some cases, absolutely unique. The network as a
whole is a unique library collection. EPA's own information procedures
guidance on library materials dispersion reads in relevant part:
``Although it may be tempting to dispose of library materials
quickly, the loss of important and unique materials could have
serious future consequences if the Agency cannot document
scientific findings or enforcement actions.'' \1\
\1\ ``EPA Library Network Procedure: Library Materials
Dispersion,'' Issued by the EPA Chief Information Officer pursuant to
delegation 1-19 dated 07/07/05.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Used by both their science staff and their enforcement staff, the
holdings in these libraries are essential to the work done at EPA.
Librarians at the facilities also play an integral role in helping
staff locate the most responsive, richest materials for the particular
research, enforcement action, or litigation that EPA staff are
pursuing.
While EPA initiated a review in 2003 that identified areas for
improvement and modernization of EPA's library network, the follow-up
work recommended in the 2004 report: Business Case for Information
Services: EPA's Regional Libraries and Centers\2\ was not done before
libraries were closed or limited in their service and collections were
dispersed and disposed of. The failure to do the required preparatory
work suggests that no plan was guiding the library consolidation
process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Business Case for Information Services: EPA's Regional
Libraries and Centers. Prepared by Stratus Consulting for U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information,
EPA 260-R-001, January 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seven libraries were simply closed without the holdings being
digitized, clearly prioritized for future digitization or even always
secured for future access. Nothing about this effort appears to have
been consistent with the guidance quoted above. In fact, the regions
appear to have been presented with draconian budget cuts and then
``allowed'' to figure out how they would cope with those cuts with
little or no guidance or coordination from Washington. This situation
was guaranteed to lead to confusion and a collapse in service for many,
many EPA employees.
2. Did EPA Realize Budget Savings Through Implementation of Their
Plan?
EPA has said repeatedly that they had to respond to a $2 million
budget cut. This budget reduction appears to have been a cut initiated
by the Agency itself. There is no line in the EPA's budget submission
to Congress or in the appropriations legislation or its accompanying
report where the cut to services planned for FY 2007 (which began to
unfold in September 2006) was revealed. Funding for the regional
libraries is included in the budget for the Office of Environmental
Information which is within a larger allocation for administrative
functions of the Agency. The Administration chose to fold into their
budget less money for library services. It was not a problem imposed
upon the agency, and this budget decision runs contrary to information
in their earlier planning activities that suggested that additional
resources would be required initially to move to a more electronically-
based system for delivering library services. EPA initiated library
closings before Congress passed EPA's appropriation for FY 2007, which
ultimately included a larger overall Agency budget than was requested
by the Administration, yet that did not slow the effort by EPA to
implement this reduced ``budget.''
As to budget savings, EPA also had no accounting mechanism in place
to ensure that savings would in fact be realized by closing libraries.
The Agency claimed it was committed to ensuring continued access to the
materials in the libraries that closed. In order to provide continued
access to library materials and digitize unique EPA documents, the
collections would have to be sorted, identified and cataloged for
distribution to the new location. In terms of documents to be
digitized, materials would have to be identified, prioritized,
digitized, and hosted on a computer with an effective interface to
allow searching and retrieval. The prospect of virtual libraries is
tempting, but it is not a cheap exercise.
The 2004 study on library restructuring laid out all the analyses
that would have to occur to result in a net benefit to the government.
GAO found that none of that research--including surveying library users
about their needs, conducting a complete inventory of each library's
information resources, and fully evaluating alternative models for
delivering library services--had taken place.
The Business Case report had laid out a high bar to get over for
any plan aimed at closing libraries and changing access: they found
that for every dollar spent, anywhere from $2 to $5.70 came back to the
Agency and the public in benefits. The active involvement of librarians
in searches for materials was the primary gain from the library system
as it existed. Librarians were found to both speed searches for
materials and improve the quality of materials identified for a
specific purpose. Digitizing collections alone would not fully capture
those benefits--or necessarily offset the costs of searches done absent
expert knowledge of reference material contained in the collections.
3. Has EPA's Effort to Digitize Library Holdings Resulted in Greater
Access to Library Collections?
On its face, a claim that modernizing a library system through
delivery of web-based or electronic library services is persuasive. It
sounds like it should be cheaper to maintain, cheaper to provide access
and that it would result in expanded access to library collections and
services. However, in the case of EPA's efforts, there is little
evidence that these presumed benefits have been realized or will be in
the near-term. Digitization of library materials does not require
libraries to be closed, yet EPA closed libraries before collections
were properly inventoried and digitization of materials appropriate for
conversion to electronic media was completed.
EPA still has not digitized all materials eligible for digitization
and it is unclear whether the products of this effort are appropriate
for use by a library system. Materials were simply boxed up and stored
or shipped to other EPA libraries; some materials were disposed of
(including materials being tossed into dumpsters), and others were
distributed to other public and private libraries. While employees who
used closed libraries have all been provided with guidance on how to
work with libraries that remain open somewhere in the system, it is
still unclear whether collections from the closed libraries are still
accessible to employees. Public access to these materials has
apparently not yet been restored.
4. Did Implementation of EPA's Plan Ensure Continuity of Library
Services to EPA Employees and the Public or Improve Library Services?
Library Services have been interrupted for both EPA employees and
the public. Not only have libraries been closed, but librarians with
experience in managing the individual collections are no longer with
the Agency. As important as the loss of access to materials was the
loss of qualified librarians to help employees and the public navigate
the extensive, often technical, holdings in these libraries. The
closure of seven libraries had an absolute impact on the ability of EPA
employees to do their jobs. In August of 2007, the Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance provided a position paper on the
closure plan arguing that it would materially impact their ability to
enforce the law.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Position Paper
on the 2007 EPA Library Plan, 8/23/2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another sign of the impact on employees was that it was substantial
enough to contribute to a Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service
arbitrator to find ``that the changes effected by the Agency associated
with the reorganization of its Library Network did, in some profound
ways, affect the working conditions of the Union's bargaining unit
employees.'' \4\ Agency employees complained to their Union
representatives as well as to the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS)
and to the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER)
about these conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ In the Matter of the Arbitration Between the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-
CIO, Council 238, FMCS Case No. 07-50725, February 15, 2008, p. 66.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's failure to conduct the follow-on work necessary to realize
the benefits of modernizing the delivery of library services resulted
in a disruption of library service to EPA employees and the public.
Service has not improved nor is the same level of service being
provided today as existed prior to the closure of the libraries. This
is especially true for service to the public. The 2004 study noted
that: ``EPA libraries often act as the safety net, catching the most
frustrated members of the public trying to find information or
assistance.'' \5\ The safety net has now been eliminated at five
locations and hours have been reduced at other EPA libraries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Business Case for Information Services: EPA's Regional
Libraries and Centers. Prepared by Stratus Consulting for U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information,
EPA 260-R-001, January 2004. Page 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. What Is the Path Forward?
As mentioned above, Congress has appropriated funds to reopen
closed libraries. Note that the Region 5 library's physical
infrastructure was auctioned by the General Services Administration--
$40,000 worth of shelves, desks and materials went for $300. The EPA
also is required to present Congress with their plan for the future.
That plan is due later in March, but the Subcommittee hopes to learn
what steps EPA has taken to restore those libraries and get a firm
commitment on when the agency's plan will be delivered to Congress.
GAO and the other witnesses at the hearing will also offer their
recommendations on the steps EPA should take to restore library
services to their employees and the public and to move forward with a
modernization plan that truly delivers on EPA's stated goal of
providing broader access to environmental information to a wider
audience.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Miller. Good morning. Welcome to this hearing this
morning: ``The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Library
Closures: Better Access for a Broader Audience?''
The EPA has built an absolutely unique library system. It
contains collections of documents that are very specialized,
and are used to inform scientific advice, regulatory proposals,
and enforcement of environmental laws. With 26 branches around
the country, the network, as it stood in the beginning of 2006,
was an integrated whole, with regions possessing collections
appropriate to those regions, as well as a general collection
of journals and books.
By the end of that year, however, the system was in
disarray. EPA headquarters had imposed an 80 percent budget cut
on the regional library system, which resulted in the closings
of the Chicago, Dallas, and Kansas City libraries, and closed
both the Headquarters Library and the Chemistry Library in
Washington. The materials of those libraries were boxed,
stored, shipped, given away, and in some cases, apparently,
just thrown away.
Members of the public, EPA employees, Members of Congress,
were all concerned about the way the library closings
developed, and Congress had no real warning that it was coming.
And neither did the employees or the public, who rely upon the
EPA's library system. Our Full Committee Chairman, Mr. Gordon,
joined in a GAO request, a Government Accountability Office
request, with Chairman Dingell and Chairman Waxman, as well as
Senator Boxer, and gave the GAO the task of examining the
methods used by the EPA for closing the libraries.
We will hear the testimony of the GAO today, but their
findings confirm that our concerns about the library closings
were very well founded. EPA managers had quietly begun
considering how to consolidate the libraries and modernize
their libraries in 2003. They gave it a lot of thought. They
developed a thoughtful plan to avoid hobbling the EPA's work or
the public's access, to develop a continuous availability of
the information, with minimum disruption.
But then, when it came time to consolidate the system,
those managers, EPA managers, just ignored all of that careful
planning, and simply shut the libraries, or told the libraries
your budget is now 20 percent of what it was before. Deal with
it.
There was no effort to reach out to the staff, to learn
what they needed from the libraries, and how to serve the EPA
employees' continued work, that the EPA managers did not try to
establish priorities in library holdings, or to digitize those
holdings before boxing them up, so that they would remain
continuously available to the EPA and to the public. They made
no effort to do a cost-benefit analysis of various ways to
organize the library system, and when it came to decisions to
close libraries, EPA headquarters made no effort to provide
guidance or assure integration within the system. Again,
headquarters simply announced a $2 million cut, leaving
$500,000, a half a million, across the regional system, and
just told the regions to figure out, figure it out. Your budget
is 20 percent of what it was before. Deal with it.
Perhaps it is not surprising that the library system was as
disrupted as it has been, that libraries have closed. What is
pretty remarkable is the effort of EPA's employees to keep the
libraries open, even if they have had to reduce hours and
access.
The most generous interpretation of EPA's conduct in
closing the libraries is incompetence, that EPA managers
grossly mismanaged the library system. Despite careful thinking
and planning, in the end, incompetence seems to have ruled the
manner in which the EPA budget cuts were administered.
Others see a more sinister motive. Because it is
undoubtedly the case that closing the libraries and limiting
access to important information reduces the ability of EPA
employees to protect the environment or the public health, it
certainly hobbles the work, also, of independent scientists who
had relied upon the libraries. I am not persuaded that there
was actually a conscious motive behind those actions of
hobbling the work of the EPA and of independent scientists, but
it is an unavoidable and absolutely predictable consequence of
what management did in 2006, and there is a well known legal
doctrine that you are held to the natural consequences of your
conduct, of your actions.
EPA managers took a library system that was working well,
that was the best in the world at what they did, that they knew
was important to what EPA did, that they knew was important to
independent scientists, and they disrupted it so much that it
will take years and a lot of money to make things right, and
some things will never be made right.
So, where do we go from here? First, Congress directs,
through the 2008 Omnibus Appropriation, that the regional
libraries that have been closed should be reopened. I
congratulate Senator Boxer for her strong work to make that
happen. And I want to know what EPA is doing to follow that
direction from Congress.
Second, the Agency should reopen its headquarters and
chemical libraries. Those are central assets that serve the
Washington staff of EPA, and the loss of those libraries is a
tragedy. Third, EPA managers need to return to the studies of
2004 and 2005 for how to consolidate and manage and modernize
the libraries. There should certainly be no further closings
until the holdings of the libraries have been effectively
cataloged, evaluated, ranked in priority order, and digitized.
No library should be closed without a promise, should be
closed with a promise of eventual Internet or Intranet access,
until the search engines that would make it happen are proven
to provide the access that is promised. No library should be
closed until methods are established to guarantee librarian
support for the work of the libraries, even, and for the EPA
and for the scientists who depend upon those libraries, even if
that work is done with virtual materials.
Finally, no effort to restructure services should come
without significant consultation and guidance from the staff of
the Agency, the concerned public, the scientists who depend
upon those libraries, and with Congress.
We are right in the Constitution, right there, just before
Article II, Article I. We are not meddling. We are part of the
government.
We have an excellent panel of witnesses with us this
morning. I look forward to their testimony, your testimony, and
your recommendations on how to rebuild and modernize the EPA's
network.
Now, I would like to recognize Mr. Hall, who is filling in
today for Mr. Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin. Mr. Hall, would you
like to make an opening statement?
[The prepared statement of Chairman Miller follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairman Brad Miller
Good morning and welcome to today's hearing on the Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA) management of its library system.
EPA has developed an absolutely unique library system. It contains
collections of documents that are very specialized and are used to
inform scientific advice, regulatory proposals, and enforcement of
environmental laws. With 26 branches across the country, the network as
it stood in early 2006, was an integrated whole with regions possessing
collections appropriate to the issues in those regions as well as other
journals and books.
By the end of 2006, that system stood in disarray. In the interim,
EPA headquarters had imposed an almost 80 percent budget cut on the
regional library system--which resulted in closings of the Chicago,
Dallas and Kansas City libraries--and had closed both the headquarters
library and the chemistry library in Washington, D.C. The materials of
those libraries were boxed, stored, shipped, given away or simply
thrown away.
Members of the public, EPA employees and Members of Congress were
all concerned about the way the library closure process unfolded.
Congress had no real warning that this was coming--and as it turns out
neither did employees or the public. Our Full Committee Chairman, Mr.
Gordon, was joined in a GAO request by Chairmen Dingell and Waxman as
well as Senator Boxer. GAO was tasked with examining the methods used
by EPA for closing the libraries. We will hear their testimony today,
but their findings confirm that our concerns were well founded.
EPA managers had quietly begun studying how to consolidate and
modernize their library system in 2003. They gave it a lot of thought.
They developed a terrific road map to how to do it in a 2004 report.
Then, when it came time to consolidate the system, those managers
simply ignored all the careful planning they had engaged in and simply
shuttered libraries. No effort had been made to reach out to staff to
learn what they needed and how to better serve them. No effort had been
made to prioritize library holdings and digitize those holdings, prior
to boxing them up, so that they would remain available to EPA and the
public. No effort was made to even do a careful cost-benefit analysis
of various ways to reorganize the library system. And when it came to
decisions to close libraries, headquarters made no effort to provide
guidance or assure integration across the system. Headquarters simply
announced a $2 million cut--leaving just $500,000 across the regional
system--and left it to the regions to figure out what to do. Perhaps
the surprise isn't that so many libraries closed, but that so many
found the means to stay open--even if they reduced their hours and
access.
The best interpretation of this situation is that EPA managers
appeared to grossly mismanage their library system. Despite all the
careful thinking and planning, in the end, incompetence seems to have
won the day. Others may see a more nefarious motive in these actions,
because it is undoubtedly the case that closing libraries and limiting
access to important information reduces the ability of EPA employees to
act to protect the environment or the public health. I am not persuaded
that was the motive behind these actions, but I do think it is an
unavoidable and predictable consequence of the moves by management in
2006. They took a library system that was working, and shook it up so
that much of it is not working well and it may take years and a lot of
money to set things right again.
So where do we go from here?
First, Congress directed in the 2008 Omnibus Appropriation that the
regional libraries that have been closed should be reopened. I want to
particularly congratulate Senator Boxer for her strong work to
accomplish this. I want to know what steps EPA has taken to follow that
guidance.
Second, the agency should reopen its headquarters and chemical
libraries. These are central assets that serve the Washington, D.C.
staff of EPA and the public and the loss of these libraries is a
tragedy.
Third. EPA managers need to return to its studies of 2004 and 2005
and restart their effort to enhance library services. No library should
be closed until its holdings have been effectively catalogued,
prioritized and digitized. No library should be closed with a promise
of Internet or Intranet access, until the search engines are proven to
provide meaningful access. No libraries should be closed until methods
are established to guarantee librarian support for work, even if that
work is done with virtual materials.
Finally, no efforts to restructure services should come without
significant consultation and guidance from the staff of the agency, the
concerned public or Congress.
We have an excellent panel of witnesses with us this morning. I
look forward to your testimony and your recommendations on how to
rebuild and modernize the EPA library network.
Mr. Hall. I would like to, and I am going to.
With that opening statement from one of the renowned
lawyers who came to Congress with the reputation of being one
of the really great lawyers in the whole area that he
represented, he is kind of a hard guy to take on, and I am not
taking him on. I am not here to push nor to pull. I am here,
really, to be a Member sitting here, to where we can get this
committee going, and you do have a good panel. I know some of
them, and known them for some time, but I am kind of, I have
listened to you there, very capable output.
I thought about Tom Connelly, a judge, long-time judge
later in the Senate, he was about to sentence a man to death,
and he reiterated all of the hard crimes he had done, and how
horrible and heinous it all was, and said now, do you have
anything to say before I sentence you to die, and he said no,
sir, the way you put it, it seemed like I'm getting off pretty
light. So, I don't know if that is the way this group feels or
not, but Mr. Chairman, I don't have an opening statement.
I would like to ask unanimous consent for Mr. Sensenbrenner
to put a statement in the record. Without objection.
Chairman Miller. Without objection.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sensenbrenner follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative F. James Sensenbrenner Jr.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established its library
network in 1971, one year after the Agency's creation. Since that time,
the network grew to 26 libraries, serving both EPA staff and the
public. In 2004, EPA's Office of Environmental Information (OEI)
completed a cost-benefit analysis of EPA's library services. OEI
concluded that the libraries provided ``substantial value'' to the
agency and to the public, with a benefit-to-cost ratio ranging between
2:1 and 5.7:1. These benefits were based on time savings for EPA staff
because of the benefits of assistance from a professional librarian.
In FY2007, EPA began restructuring its libraries to transition from
walk-in services to electronic dissemination. As part of the
restructuring, EPA closed five of its libraries and restricted access
to eight more. In theory, EPA's restructuring would improve access to
library materials by making them available electronically and reduce
costs by eliminating the need for some of the physical structures. In
practice, however, the implementation of the plan appears to have
restricted access without providing any cost savings.
The Union of Concerned Scientists found that 35.6 percent of
surveyed EPA scientists (555 total) agreed with the statement: the
``recent changes and closures in the EPA library system have impaired
my ability to do my job.'' This sentiment was much higher, nearly 50
percent, for scientists who practiced in areas where a physical library
was actually closed.
In a report released at today's hearing, titled EPA Needs to Ensue
that Best Practices and Procedures are Followed When Making Further
Changes to its Library Network, the Government Accountability Office
(GAO) found that, not only has service been interrupted, but also that
EPA failed to document any costs savings. GAO wrote:
EPA's primary rationale for the library network reorganization
was to generate cost savings by creating a more coordinated
library network and increasing the electronic delivery of
services. However, EPA did not fully follow procedures
recommended in a 2004 EPA study of steps that should be taken
to prepare for a reorganization. In particular, EPA did not
fully evaluate alternative models, and associated costs and
benefits, of library services.
Government Accountability Office, EPA Needs to Ensue that Best
Practices and Procedures Are Followed When Making Further Changes to
Its Library Network, p. 1 (February, 2008).
EPA thus failed to follow its own guidance and failed to perform
cost-benefit analysis before taking actions with the goal of reducing
costs. GAO also found that EPA hindered its transition by failing to
develop a plan to communicate the reorganizations to the public and its
staff. Finally, EPA may have violated federal property management
regulations for disposal or dispersal of library materials by failing
to make a written determination that property had ``no value'' before
discarding it. Without such a determination, regulations require that
agencies report surplus property to the General Services
Administration. The end result of EPA's hasty reorganization may have
been reduced benefits at comparable costs.
I, of course, support any effort to provide superior service at a
lower cost. EPA has not, however, demonstrated either that service was
not impaired or that costs were in fact lowered. The motivation to
reduce costs is not cost effective when coupled with hurried analysis
and rushed execution. GAO has provided a detailed analysis of EPA's
reorganization. I urge EPA to properly conduct this cost-benefit
analysis and ensure continued access to an important resource.
Mr. Hall. And I would like to have the right to let Judge
Broun, Dr. Broun, have my time, and I understand he just wants
to put one in the record.
Chairman Miller. Also without objection.
Mr. Broun. I want to thank the Chairman for holding this
hearing, and yes, likewise, I am looking forward to the
testimony of the panel, and I also will just submit my opening
statement for the record, if that is agreeable with the
Chairman. I ask unanimous consent to be able to do so.
Chairman Miller. Again, without objection.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Broun follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Paul C. Broun
I want to thank the Chairman for holding this hearing and welcome
our witnesses here today.
EPA's ability to protect public health and the environment is
contingent on timely access to accurate information. The existing
library infrastructure plays a major role in providing that information
to not only EPA, but also the general public.
While the manner in which EPA scientists, outside scholars,
advocacy groups, and litigators receive information has changed over
the last 20 years, the importance of that information has not. Modern
information technology has given access to many more users than
traditional brick and mortar libraries, but we must be cautious in how
we transition to new data formats.
One of the challenges EPA faces is access. Continuous,
uninterrupted, and timely access to EPA-unique documents by both EPA
scientists and private citizens is critical to executing EPA's charter
of protecting the environment and the public. Additionally, access to
information that is not unique to EPA such as journals, commercially
available information, and other reference materials are still vitally
important to EPA scientists and the general public. Even though access
to this information can be obtained through other means such as
interlibrary loan or Internet accessed databases, rarely is it as
timely or as efficient as having it on-site.
Another challenge EPA must address is how to keep professional
research support staff and librarians involved in the process. These
key professionals will still be required to help users navigate the
ever-growing collections of data, perhaps even more so in our new
digital age.
How to manage EPA's library infrastructure investment and balance
the competing concerns of access and efficiency is no easy task. EPA
began the process of transitioning to a more modern system in 2003 by
doing all the right things. They conducted a cost-benefit analysis and
reviewed the program no less than four times between 2004 and 2006.
Unfortunately, it doesn't seem as though EPA learned from these
reviews, or consulted with any outside experts such as the American
Library Association (ALA), internal unions, or outside users. Rather
than carefully and methodically implementing a transition, they instead
closed libraries in an abrupt attempt at cost savings. Earlier EPA
reviews had pointed to the cost effectiveness of the library
infrastructure, but those reviews apparently did not influence their
decision.
While EPA's motivation to modernize the way it provides information
to its employees and the general public should be commended, we in
Congress have the responsibility to ensure that the process is done in
a prudent manner that does not adversely impact the end-users.
I want to commend GAO for their excellent work on the topic. I look
forward to the witness's testimony today and pledge to work with EPA to
make certain that any changes to the library system do not negatively
impact end-users that are tasked with protecting our environment and
public health.
Thank you Mr. Chairman. I yield back my time.
Chairman Miller. And if there are any Members of the
Committee, of the Subcommittee who are not here this morning,
we will also welcome statements that they may submit.
So, all that, without objection, is so ordered.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Gordon follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairman Bart Gordon
The Government Accountability Office's report on EPA's library
network is a blueprint of how not to modernize and restructure a
functioning organization.
When I requested this investigation with my colleagues back in
September 2006, I suspected EPA was moving too quickly to close
libraries. I was skeptical that any cost savings would be achieved
through this exercise, or that the Agency was taking proper care to
ensure this unique library collection would remain intact and
accessible. I hoped I was wrong.
A library is more than a collection of books and documents. It is
an organized body of knowledge that we continue to build upon as we
expand our understanding of the world we live in. It is a public
institution that promotes democracy by providing everyone the
opportunity to access and utilize the accumulated knowledge of our
society.
I believe libraries should move into the modern era of electronic
communication just as all our other public and private institutions are
doing. If it is done right, the creation of a web-based virtual library
would expand access to information to a much broader audience. I fully
support such a goal. Unfortunately, the EPA library network is nowhere
near that goal.
Simply stating and repeating the goal of ``providing greater access
for a broader audience'' does not accomplish it. Real work needed to be
done by the Agency prior to emptying library shelves or closing any
library doors.
GAO's report documents the Agency's failure to do any of the work
necessary to ensure their stated goal for the modernization would be
accomplished. EPA executed a failed process for modernizing their
library network. The only goal they accomplished was to reduce the
number of libraries in the EPA network. This is not a goal that serves
the public or the Agency's mission.
The Agency appears to have avoided talking to any group with
expertise or interest in their libraries. The Agency did not consult
experts inside or outside the government to determine best practices
for establishing and maintaining an electronic library. They also
refused to meet with their own employees--an action that ultimately led
to arbitration and a finding that the Agency violated its agreement
with their Unions. EPA made no attempt to reach out to the public, and
they virtually ignored Congress until they reluctantly agreed to a
moratorium on further implementation of their flawed plan.
Until EPA has completed the work necessary to move to an electronic
delivery of library services, the closed libraries should be reopened.
Documents should be retrieved and replaced and library services should
be restored to the level they were prior to the initiation of this
flawed plan. The public and the EPA employees who serve them deserve no
less.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Costello follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Jerry F. Costello
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for overseeing this hearing
today and for your leadership of this subcommittee. The closure of the
EPA libraries is one that this committee, and many other Members of
Congress, has been concerned about for some time. The nature of the
closures, the way in which they were carried out and the effect on the
Agency and its employees have caused a great deal of concern in both
the science and library community.
I am concerned that the closure of the Region 5 EPA library has had
a considerable impact on my home State of Illinois. I am interested in
hearing more from our panel on this issue, as I have heard reports of
concerned scientists, librarians and community members on the issue.
What I find particularly troubling about today's subject matter is
that the nature in which these closures were implemented is consistent
with the dismissive attitude this Administration has taken towards
Congressional oversight. The reports of potentially lost unique
documents and hastily-sold furniture in order to save money do not seem
like part of a well-thought out plan.
I thank our witnesses for coming today and I look forward to
hearing their thoughts on this matter. I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to welcome today's witnesses
to this hearing of the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight:
both the witness from the Environmental Protection Agency as well as
the witnesses from the Government Accountability Office and from
stakeholder groups.
I appreciate that the E.P.A. manages an extensive library system
designed to serve the specific needs of its research and regulatory
scientists and its enforcement specialists.
The libraries also are a good resource for environmental data to
the interested public.
The issue at hand today is not a new one.
In March 2006, Mr. Jeff Ruch, the Executive Director of Public
Employees for Environmental Responsibility, testified before one of our
subcommittees that a proposed funding cut of $2 million dollars for
E.P.A.'s regional libraries would likely lead to the closure of library
facilities.
Surely enough, the cuts occurred, and libraries closed at the end
of fiscal year 2006, including one library located in Dallas, Texas,
which I represent.
Despite Congressional requests to the Government Accountability
Office regarding the effects of the E.P.A.'s library restructuring
plan, seven libraries were closed without the holdings being digitized
or secured for future access.
While I can certainly support the Administration's interest to
spend taxpayer dollars wisely, it seems to me that we are taking a step
backward in making environmental resource data unavailable by closing
these libraries.
I will be interested to know what efforts have been made by the
E.P.A. to make the information available to the public.
In addition, I will be glad to hear the other witness testimony
regarding the impact of these library closings.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Miller. I believe that--yes, Mr. Hall. And Mr.
Hall, if I ever return to the practice of law, I assume that I
can use some part of what you said today in my promotional
materials.
All right. I believe that we have four photographs to show
before we begin the testimony. The first photograph shows the
sign that now greets library visitors at EPA headquarters. ``As
of October 1, 2006, the EPA Headquarters Library space is
closed.'' Now, the second photo shows the sign that greeted
visitors at the Chicago library. ``This U.S.A. EPA Region 5
Library is permanently closed.'' The third photo, which was
taken by our Committee staff, shows boxes of materials at the
Headquarters Library. The final photograph shows empty shelves,
again at headquarters. Those shelves, we assume, used to be
full of the documents that EPA employees and independent
scientists relied upon to do their work. Those photographs, as
well as others taken by the Committee staff, or provided to the
Committee, will also appear in the record.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Miller. So, with that, I want to introduce our
witnesses. It is my pleasure to introduce our witnesses.
Our first witness is Mr. John Stephenson, the Director of
the Natural Resources and Environment Division at the
Government Accountability Office. Mr. Charles Orzehoskie is the
President of the American Federation of Government Employees
Council 238, AFGE. Dr. Francesca Grifo is a Senior Scientist
and Director of the Science Integrity Program at the Union of
Concerned Scientists. Mr. Jim Rettig is the President of the
American Library Association. And our final witness is Ms.
Molly O'Neill, Assistant Administrator for the Office of
Environmental Information and Chief Information Officer at the
Environmental Protection Agency.
Welcome to all our witnesses. You will each have five
minutes for your spoken testimony, and you have, I think, all
submitted written testimony, which will be included in the
record of the hearing. When you all end your testimony we will
begin with questions. And each Member will have five minutes to
question the panel.
All right. It is my intention to keep this hearing moving
at a brisk pace. It looks like the usual sources of disruption
are not, will not be the problem they are sometimes, so we
should be able to do that. We will almost certainly be
interrupted by votes. I say we, but it may just be me. I want
to encourage all of my colleagues who may be watching this on
the House Internet system to get back as quickly as possible,
if they intend to attend any part of the meeting, so we can
continue our business as rapidly as possible.
It is our practice to take testimony under oath. This is an
Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee. Do any of you have
any objection to swearing an oath? Okay. You also have the
right to be represented by Counsel. Is anyone here represented
by Counsel at today's hearings? We ask these questions to put
you at ease. Please stand and raise your right hand.
[Witnesses sworn]
Mr. Stephenson, please begin.
STATEMENT OF MR. JOHN B. STEPHENSON, DIRECTOR, NATURAL
RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
Mr. Stephenson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to be
here today to discuss our report being released today on EPA's
library restructuring.
We conducted our review, as you have already mentioned, at
the request of the Full Science and Technology Committee, as
well as the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, and the Senate
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
The EPA's library network provides access to critical
environmental information that the Agency needs to promote
environmental awareness, conduct research, enforce
environmental laws, make policy decisions, and fulfill its
mission of protecting human health and the environment. The
library network also provides information and services to state
environmental agencies, local community organizations, and the
general public. Before the reorganization, the network included
26 libraries, some at the EPA headquarters, but most at its ten
regional offices, research centers, and laboratories around the
country.
In summary, as you have in your report, we found that in
late 2006, the EPA embarked on an effort to restructure its
library network by closing physical access to one headquarters
and three regional office libraries, and reducing or changing
operations at six others. In a separate move, it also closed
its headquarters-based Chemical Library, containing vast
information on hazardous chemicals and pesticides. Furthermore,
some of the libraries began to digitize, disperse, and dispose
of books, research studies, and other materials without a
common set of Agency-wide guidance for doing so.
EPA's approach created the risk that not only would library
services not be improved, but they may actually be degraded.
While exploring ways to restructure and make library operations
more efficient is always a good idea, it should not be done
haphazardly. Certainly, you don't close libraries, get rid of
staff, and dispose of materials first, and then figure out what
to do later.
But it seems that that is exactly what happened here. EPA
began restructuring its libraries without conducting several
analyses that you would typically expect to see to adequately
justify, plan, and implement such an important endeavor. For
example, it did not fully survey EPA staff and other users to
characterize their needs. It did not fully inventory its vast
holdings to determine what it had and how it should be handled.
It did not develop or analyze business, organizational, or
technical models for improving service. It did not develop new
policy and procedures to guide the library reorganization, nor
did it do a basic cost-benefit analysis that OMB generally
recommends for agency decisions such as this.
According to the EPA officials that decided to proceed
without completing such analyses, many of which were
recommended, as you mention, in its own 2004 Library Study, to
create $2 million in savings needed to contribute to the
overall EPA reduction in the President's fiscal year 2007
budget proposal. Interestingly, EPA's Regional Managers usually
have discretion as to how to absorb budget reductions such as
this, but in fiscal year 2007, they agreed that the reduction
would come from the libraries.
As of today, EPA has still not developed an effective
strategy or plan to ensure the continuity of library services.
EPA's 2007 plan describes library reorganization as a phased
approach, but it does not provide specific goals, timelines, or
feedback mechanisms to measure performance and monitor user
needs to ensure a successful reorganization while maintaining
quality services.
Moreover, library collections and services formerly
provided by the closed libraries will now be provided on a fee
for service basis by other libraries in the network, and some
materials will be digitized and made available online, but EPA
has yet to estimate what these activities will cost or where
the funds will come from.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, our report contains
recommendations to the EPA Administrator to continue the
moratorium on further changes to the library network until the
Agency: one, develops a comprehensive plan to justify and guide
the implementation of its reorganization; two, institutes an
outreach process to ensure that the views of all stakeholders
affected by the reorganization are considered; three, creates
mechanisms to ensure sufficient oversight to control the
library reorganization and to monitor the impact on EPA staff
and other users; and four, implements procedures to ensure
library materials are appropriately handled.
EPA agreed with the recommendations in the report, but now,
it needs to take the next step and implement them.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes the summary of my statement,
and I will be happy to answer questions at the appropriate
time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Stephenson follows:]
Prepared Statement of John B. Stephenson
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I am pleased to appear here today to discuss our recent review of
the reorganization of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
library network, which is being released today.\1\ We conducted this
review at the request of the House Committees on Science and
Technology, Oversight and Government Reform, and Energy and Commerce,
and the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ GAO, Environmental Protection: EPA Needs to Ensure That Best
Practices and Procedures Are Followed When Making Further Changes to
Its Library Network, GAO-08-304 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 29, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As you know, the library network provides access to critical
environmental information that the agency needs to promote
environmental awareness, conduct research, enforce environmental laws,
make policy decisions, and fulfill its mission of protecting human
health and the environment. The library network also provides
information and services to State environmental agencies, local
community organizations, and the general public to help these
stakeholders in protecting human health and the environment. In fiscal
year 2006, the network included 26 libraries across headquarters,
regional offices, research centers, and laboratories, and these
libraries were independently operated by several different EPA program
offices, depending on the nature of the libraries' collections.
In fiscal year 2007, EPA began to reorganize its library network on
the basis of a 2006 reorganization plan issued by EPA's Office of
Environmental Information (OEI). This plan focused on OEI's
headquarters library and libraries located in each of the agency's 10
regional offices. The plan was intended to provide a framework for
consolidating libraries and making more materials and services
available online.
My testimony, which is based on our report being released today on
the EPA library network, addresses (1) the status of, and plans for,
the library network reorganization; (2) EPA's rationale for its
decision to reorganize the library network; (3) the extent to which EPA
has communicated with and solicited views from EPA staff and external
stakeholders in planning and implementing the reorganization; (4) the
steps EPA has taken to maintain the quality of library services
following the reorganization, both currently and in the future; and (5)
how EPA is funding the library network and its reorganization.
To address these objectives, we reviewed relevant EPA documents,
policies, plans, and guidance as well as related laws and requirements
pertinent to the library network and reorganization effort. We
interviewed EPA librarians and library managers from each of the 26
libraries in EPA's library network as well as EPA officials
knowledgeable about EPA's library network and budget. In addition, we
interviewed representatives from local unions, who represent EPA staff,
and regional science councils, which is a group that consists of EPA
scientists and technical specialists. We also sought information from
library professionals, including representatives from the American
Library Association and the Association of Research Libraries; members
of academia; and private consulting companies with expertise in
libraries.
We conducted this work from December 2006 through February 2008 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Summary
In summary, we found the following:
<bullet> Since 2006, EPA has implemented its library
reorganization plan and closed physical access to the OEI
headquarters library and three regional office libraries. In
the same period, six other libraries in the network
independently changed their operations: one closed, four
reduced their hours of operation, and one changed how it
provides library services. Sixteen libraries did not change.
Furthermore, some of these libraries digitized, dispersed, or
disposed of their materials before EPA had drafted a common set
of agency-wide library procedures for doing so. Until these
procedures are completed, EPA plans no further changes to the
library network. In addition to completing these procedures,
the library network's future configuration and operations may
depend on EPA's response to directions accompanying its fiscal
year 2008 appropriation to use $1 million to restore libraries
recently closed and EPA's 2008 library plan, which describes
how EPA expects to operate the library network in the future.
<bullet> EPA reorganized its library network primarily to
generate cost savings through a more coordinated library
network and more electronic delivery of services. However, we
found that EPA did not effectively justify its reorganization
decision. That is, before launching the reorganization, EPA did
not conduct several analyses, including many that its own 2004
study of the libraries recommended, as well as a cost-benefit
analysis that the Office of Management and Budget recommends.
According to EPA officials, OEI decided to reorganize its
libraries without completing the recommended analyses in order
to reduce its fiscal year 2007 funding by $2 million to create
the savings necessary for its headquarters library and the
regional office libraries, per the President's fiscal year 2007
budget proposal.
<bullet> EPA did not systematically inform the full range of
stakeholders on the final configuration of the library network.
In addition, EPA libraries varied considerably in the extent to
which they communicated with and solicited views from staff,
external stakeholders, and experts before and during the
reorganization effort. Such efforts were limited or
inconsistent because EPA acted quickly to make changes in
response to a proposed fiscal year 2007 funding reduction and
because of the decentralized nature of the library network. EPA
is currently reaching out to stakeholders, including EPA staff
and library experts, by holding and attending stakeholder
meetings and conferences.
<bullet> EPA does not yet have an effective strategy to ensure
the continuity of library services following the reorganization
and does not know the full effect of the reorganization on
library services. EPA's library plan describes the
reorganization effort as a ``phased approach,'' but it does not
provide specific goals, timelines, or feedback mechanisms that
allow the agency to measure performance and monitor user needs
to ensure a successful reorganization while maintaining quality
services. EPA did not follow key practices for a successful
transformation, even though the agency made several changes to
the library network that could have impaired the continued
delivery of library materials and services to its staff and the
public. For example, EPA did not determine whether federal
property management regulations applied to the dispersal and
disposal of library materials before it closed the libraries.
Instead, EPA provided vague criteria and guidance to its
libraries and did not adequately oversee the process.
<bullet> The several different program offices responsible for
the EPA libraries in the network each generally decide how much
of their available funding to allocate to their libraries and
how to fund their reorganization. For example, OEI typically
provides funding for the regional office libraries through each
region's support budget and gives regional management
discretion on how to allocate this funding among the library
and other support services. However, when faced with a proposed
budget reduction of $2 million in fiscal year 2007, rather than
following its normal procedures, OEI directed the regional and
headquarters offices to reduce funding for OEI libraries--a
reduction of 77 percent for these libraries from the previous
fiscal year. EPA did not allocate funds to help closing
libraries manage their collections; instead, the responsible
program or regional office used its annual funding to pay for
these costs. Services formerly provided by the closed libraries
are now provided on a fee-for-service basis by other libraries
in the network. While EPA did not track the costs associated
with closing the libraries, it estimated that it spent about
$80,000 through an existing contract to digitize 15,260 titles
between December 2006 and January 2007.
We recommended that the Administrator of EPA continue the agency's
moratorium on changes to the library network until the agency (1)
develops a strategy to justify its reorganization plans; (2) improves
its outreach efforts; (3) ensures sufficient oversight and control over
the reorganization process, and continuously and consistently monitors
the impact of the reorganization on EPA staff and the public; and (4)
implements procedures that ensure that library materials are dispersed
and disposed of consistently and in accordance with federal property
management regulations. EPA agreed with the recommendations made in our
report.
Background
The EPA library network was established in 1971 to provide staff
and the public with access to environmental information in support of
EPA's mission to protect human health and the environment. The
libraries differ in function, scope of collections, extent of services,
and public access. Before the 2007 reorganization, the network
comprised 26 libraries, each funded and managed by several different
program offices at EPA: one library was managed by OEI and 10 by
regional offices;\2\ eight libraries were located at EPA laboratories
within the Office of Research and Development (ORD), and two were
within the Office of Administration and Resources Management (OARM). In
addition, each of the following program offices had one library: Office
of the Administrator, Office of General Counsel, Office of Prevention,
Pesticides, and Toxic Substances (OPPTS), Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance, and Office of Air and Radiation. A national
program manager within OEI was responsible for coordinating the major
activities of the entire EPA library network.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ OEI primarily funds these regional office libraries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aside from visiting a physical location, the network provides
access to its collections to its staff and to the public through (1) a
Web-based database of library holdings--the Online Library System
(OLS); (2) interlibrary loans from another network library or a public
library; and (3) through a separate online database--the National
Environmental Publications Internet Site (NEPIS). EPA staff also have
access to other information sources--such as online journals, the
Federal Register, news, databases of bibliographic information, and
article citations--from their desktop computers.
EPA began to evaluate its library network in 2003. It developed and
issued studies to determine the value of library services and inform
regional management of their options to support library services beyond
fiscal year 2006.\3\ EPA also issued an internal report in November
2005, which offered recommendations on how to maintain an effective
library network if the library support budget were reduced. After these
reports were issued, EPA established a Library Steering Committee--
composed of senior managers from EPA's program offices and regions--to
develop a new model for providing library services to EPA staff. In
August 2006, the steering committee issued the EPA FY 2007 Library
Plan: National Framework for the Headquarters and Regional Libraries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental
Information, Business Case for Information Services: EPA's Regional
Libraries and Centers, EPA 260-R-04-001 (January 2004); and Optional
Approaches to U.S. EPA Regional Library Support, EPA 260-R-05-002 (June
2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The August 2006 library plan provided the framework for the network
to begin reorganizing in the summer of 2006 in preparation for the
proposed fiscal year 2007 budget reduction beginning in October 2006.
The plan provided guidelines for EPA staff to determine how the
collections would be managed; noted that OEI libraries in Regions 5, 6,
and 7 would close, and that the headquarters library would close
physical access to its collection but would function as a repository
library, along with the OARM libraries in Cincinnati, Ohio, and
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. In addition, according to the
plan, EPA is to develop Library Centers of Excellence, where a library
with more expertise in a specific area of reference research would
provide that service to staff in other regions.
Some Libraries Independently Decided to Close, Reduce Their Hours, or
Take Other Actions, but the Final Network
Configuration Is Still Uncertain
As a part of EPA's 2006 reorganization effort, some EPA libraries
have closed, reduced their hours of operation, or changed the way that
they provide library services. Furthermore, some of these libraries
have digitized, dispersed, or disposed of their materials. The future
of EPA's library network--its configuration and its operations--are
contingent on final policies and procedures, on EPA's response to
directions accompanying its fiscal year 2008 appropriation, and on
EPA's 2008 library plan.
Owing to the decentralized nature of the EPA library network, each
library decided on its own whether to change its operations. Table 1
shows the operating status of each library in the EPA library network.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
While EPA's August 2006 library plan noted that three regional
libraries--Regions 5, 6, and 7--and the headquarters library would
close physical access to their libraries, it did not reflect other
changes that occurred, as shown in Table 1. According to EPA officials,
the plan focused on the OEI headquarters and regional office libraries,
and they did not think it was necessary to reflect all changes that
were planned for other libraries. The focus of the plan, according to
EPA officials, was to set the framework on how library services would
be provided electronically and not on what physical changes were to
occur.
Although no longer accessible to walk-in traffic from EPA staff and
the public, the closed regional and headquarters libraries continue to
provide library services, such as interlibrary loans and research/
reference requests, to EPA staff through service agreements that the
closed libraries established with libraries managed by OARM or with the
Region 3 library located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ OARM libraries are located in Cincinnati, Ohio and in Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina. The OARM libraries and the Region 3
library have been designated as Centers of Excellence for the EPA
library network, meaning that these libraries have staff qualified to
conduct research in specific areas, have access to tools to support
services, and have the ability to handle increased workload. According
to EPA officials, the OARM libraries serve as Centers of Excellence for
core library services, such as research requests and interlibrary
loans, and the Region 3 library serves as a Center of Excellence for
business research issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of the library reorganization, each library in the network
that was planning to close access to walk-in services independently
decided which materials would be retained at their library or be
selected for digitization, dispersal to EPA or non-EPA libraries, or
disposal. Table 2 shows the actions taken by the closed libraries.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
In terms of digitization, the criteria in the August 2006 library
plan noted that unique EPA materials--which, according to EPA
officials, refers to materials created by or for EPA--that are not
already electronically available in NEPIS would be digitized and made
available in NEPIS. At the time of our review, 15,260 titles had been
digitized, and EPA anticipates that a total of about 51,000 unique EPA
library materials from closed and open libraries will be digitized.
In terms of dispersal, EPA's library plan noted that a library
choosing to disperse its materials can send materials to one of the
EPA-designated repositories, other libraries in the library network,
EPA regional record management centers, other federal agency libraries,
state libraries and state environmental agency libraries, colleges and
university libraries, public libraries, or e-mail networks used
specifically to exchange library materials.
Finally, in terms of disposal, the OEI headquarters library and the
OPPTS Chemical Library disposed of some of their materials as a part of
the reorganization. EPA's library plan noted that certain materials not
claimed during the dispersal process could be destroyed. In total, the
OEI headquarters library has disposed of over 800 journals and books,
and the Chemical Library has disposed of over 3,000 journals and books.
Recognizing that libraries could function more cohesively as a
network, EPA established a new interim library policy in 2007 and
established uniform governance and management for the network. This
interim policy, among other things, (1) re-established the National
Library Program Manager position, which was left vacant from 2005
through 2007 and (2) resulted in 12 draft agency-wide library
procedures, including procedures on digitizing and dispersing library
materials, and developing a communication strategy. EPA officials told
us that they do not have a time frame for completing these procedures
but will complete them before the moratorium on changes to the network
is lifted. The January 2007 moratorium was imposed in response to
congressional and other concerns, and extended indefinitely in February
2007.
The future of the library network, its configuration, and its
operations are contingent on the completion of the final policies and
procedures, on EPA's response to directions accompanying its fiscal
year 2008 appropriation,\5\ and on EPA's 2008 library plan. In an
explanatory statement accompanying the fiscal year 2008 Consolidated
Appropriations Act, $1 million was allocated to restore the network of
EPA libraries that were recently closed or consolidated. The
explanatory statement also directed EPA to submit a plan to the
Committees on Appropriations within 90 days of enactment regarding
actions it will take to restore the network. Separately; EPA officials
told us that they are developing a Library Strategic Plan for 2008 and
Beyond, which details EPA's library services for staff and the public
and a vision for the future of the library network.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Pub. L. No. 110-161.
EPA Did Not Effectively Justify Its Decision to Reorganize Its Library
Network
EPA reorganized its library network primarily to save costs by
creating a more coordinated library network and increasing the
electronic delivery of library services. However, EPA did not fully
complete several analyses, including many that its 2004 study
recommended. In addition, EPA's decision to reorganize its library
network was not based on a thorough analyses of the costs and benefits
associated with such a reorganization.
EPA initiated its 2004 Business Case study because of ongoing
budget uncertainties and because of technological changes in how users
obtain information and how commercial information resources are made
available. While the study concluded that EPA's libraries provide
``substantial value'' to the agency and the public, it raised concerns
about EPA's ability to continue services in its present form. As such,
the study recommended that EPA take several actions to foster an
agency-wide discussion on the library network's future. In addition,
according to Office of Management and Budget guidance, a benefit-cost
analysis should be conducted to support decisions to initiate, renew,
or expand programs or projects, and that in conducting such an
analysis, tangible and intangible benefits and costs should be
identified, assessed, and reported.\6\ One element of this analysis is
an evaluation of alternatives to consider different methods of
providing services to achieve program objectives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Office of Management and Budget, Guidelines and Discount Rates
for Benefit-Cost Analysis of Federal Programs, OMB Circular A-94
(Washington, D.C.: Oct. 29, 1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, EPA did not fully complete these assessments before it
closed libraries and began to reorganize the network. According to EPA
officials, EPA decided to reorganize its libraries without fully
completing the recommended analyses in order to reduce its fiscal year
2007 funding for the OEI headquarters and regional office libraries by
$2 million. This claimed savings, however, was not substantiated by any
formal EPA cost assessment. According to EPA officials, the $2 million
funding reduction was informally estimated in 2005 with the expectation
that EPA would have been further along in its library reorganization
before fiscal year 2007. Furthermore, EPA did not comprehensively
assess library network spending in advance of the $2 million estimation
of budget cuts.
By not completing a full assessment of its library resources and
not conducting a benefit-cost analysis of various approaches to
reorganizing the network, EPA did not justify the reorganization
actions in a way that fully considered and ensured adequate support for
the mission of the library network, the continuity of services provided
to EPA staff and the public, the availability of EPA materials to a
wider audience, and the potential cost savings. In effect, EPA
attempted to achieve cost savings without (1) first determining whether
potential savings were available and (2) performing the steps that its
own study specified as necessary before moving forward.
EPA Did Not Fully Inform or Solicit Views from the Full Range of
Stakeholders on the Reorganization But Is Now
Increasing Its Outreach Efforts
Communicating with and soliciting views from staff and other
stakeholders axe key components of successful mergers and
transformations.\7\ We have found that an organization's transformation
or merger is strengthened when it (1) makes public implementation goals
and a timeline; (2) establishes an agency-wide communication strategy
and involves staff to obtain their ideas, which among other things,
involves communicating early and often to build trust, ensuring
consistency of message, and incorporating staff feedback into new
policies and procedures; and (3) adopts leading practices, such as
those for library services, to build a world-class organization. While
EPA did not fully take these actions during the library reorganization,
it is now reaching out to both EPA staff and external stakeholders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ GAO, Results-Oriented Cultures: Implementing Steps to Assist
Mergers and Organizational Transformations, GAO-03-669 (Washington,
D.C.: July 2, 2003). This report identified nine key practices and
related implementation steps that have led to successful mergers and
transformations in large private and public sector organizations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's August 2006 library plan did not inform stakeholders on the
final configuration for the library network or implementation goals and
a timeline. Through the library plan, EPA generally informed internal
and external stakeholders of its vision for the reorganized library
network, noting that EPA would be moving toward a new model of
providing library services to EPA staff and the public. However, EPA
did not provide enough information on how the final library network
would be configured or the implementation goals and timeline it would
take to achieve this configuration. For example, EPA did not inform its
staff or the public that OPPTS would close its Chemical Library and
that other libraries would reduce their hours of operation or make
other changes to their library services. According to OEI officials,
the plan was intended to provide a framework for how new services would
be provided and not to lay out the network's physical configuration.
Without a clear picture of what EPA intends to achieve with the library
network reorganization and the implementation goals and timeline to
achieve this intended outcome, EPA staff may not know if progress is
being made, which could limit support for the network reorganization.
Because EPA's library structure was decentralized, EPA did not have
an agency-wide communication strategy to inform EPA staff of, and
solicit their views on, the changes occurring in the library network,
leaving that responsibility to each EPA library. As a result, EPA
libraries varied considerably in the information they provided to staff
on library changes.
For example, management in only a few of the regions solicited
views from their regional staff through discussions with their regional
science councils--an employee group located in each region composed of
EPA scientists and technical specialists--or unions.\8\ In addition,
EPA generally did not communicate with and solicit views from external
stakeholders before and during the reorganization because it was moving
quickly to make changes in response to proposed funding cuts. Of the
libraries that closed, only the headquarters library informed the
public of the changes occurring at its library by posting a
notification in the Federal Register.\9\ EPA also did not fully
communicate with and solicit views from professional library
associations while planning and implementing its library
reorganization. EPA did meet with the American Library Association, a
professional library association, on a few occasions, but did so later
in the reorganization planning process. Without an agency-wide
communication strategy, staff ownership for the changes may be limited,
and staff may be confused about the changes. Furthermore, EPA cannot be
sure that the changes are meeting the needs of EPA staff and external
stakeholders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ In September 2007, the national EPA union held arbitration
talks with EPA. The EPA union won its unfair labor practice claim
against the agency. More specifically, the Federal Labor Relations
Authority administrative law judge ruled that EPA violated federal
labor law by failing to enter arbitration with the union regarding its
grievance about the library restructuring. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency v. American Federation of Government Employees. The
ruling also required the agency to post signs notifying employees that
EPA had violated labor law. On February 15, 2008, an arbitrator found
that EPA had violated provisions of the Master Collective Bargaining
Agreement by not engaging the union in impact and implementation
bargaining pertaining to the reorganization of its library network. EPA
v. American Federation of Government Employees Council 238, FMCS Case
No. 07-50725 (George Edward Lamey, Arbitrator).
\9\ 71 Fed. Reg. 54,986 (Sept. 20, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, EPA did not solicit views from federal and industry
experts regarding the digitization of library materials and other
issues. These experts could have provided leading practice information
and guidance on digitization processes and standards for library
materials. As such, EPA cannot be sure that it is using leading
practices for library services.
Recognizing the need to communicate with and solicit the views of
staff, external stakeholders, and industry experts, EPA recently
increased its outreach efforts. For example, EPA asked local unions to
comment on a draft of the 2008 library plan, and attended and presented
information at a stakeholder forum at which a number of professional
library associations were present. Furthermore, OEI started working
with the Federal Library Information Center Committee, a committee
managed by the Library of Congress, to develop a board of advisers that
will respond to EPA administrators and librarians' questions about the
future direction of EPA libraries.
EPA Lacks a Strategy to Ensure Continuity of Library Services and Does
Not Know Whether Its Actions Have Impaired Access
to Environmental Information
EPA does not yet have a strategy to ensure that library services
will continue and does not know the full effect of the reorganization
on library services. However, several changes it has made may have
limited access to library materials and services. According to our
review of key practices and implementation steps to assist mergers and
organizational transformations, organizations that are undergoing
change should seek and monitor staff attitudes and take the appropriate
follow-up actions. While EPA's library plan describes the
reorganization effort as a ``phased approach,'' it does not provide
specific goals, timelines, or feedback mechanisms so that the agency
can measure performance and monitor user needs to ensure a successful
reorganization while maintaining quality services. In addition, to
balance the continued delivery of services with merger and
transformation activities, it is essential that top leadership drives
the transformation. However, during the reorganization, EPA did not
have a national program manager for the library network to oversee and
guide the reorganization effort.
Several changes that EPA made to its library network may have
impaired the continued delivery of library materials and services. For
example, because of copyright issues, only unique reports produced by
or for EPA will be digitized in NEPIS--only about 10 percent of EPA's
holdings of books and reports. If the material is not available
electronically, EPA staff in locations where libraries have closed will
receive the material through an interlibrary loan--delaying access to
the materials from one day to up to 20 days. EPA also does not have a
plan to ensure the continuation of library services for the public,
such as State and local government environmental agencies,
environmental groups, and other nongovernmental organizations.
Furthermore, EPA may have inadvertently limited access to
information because it did not determine whether federal property
management regulations applied to the dispersal and disposal of library
materials and hence may have disposed of materials that should have
been retained. For example, the Regions 5 and 6 libraries gave
materials to private companies, and the OEI headquarters library and
the Chemical Library discarded materials without first determining that
they had no monetary value. EPA officials stated that it was unclear
whether library materials, such as books and journals, were subject to
federal property management regulations. EPA officials stated that they
will engage federal property management officials at GSA regarding what
steps should be taken in the future.
EPA Program Offices Are Responsible for Funding Their Libraries and
Their Reorganization Through Their Support Budgets
The program offices responsible for the EPA libraries in the
network generally decide how much of their available funding to
allocate to their libraries out of larger accounts that support
multiple activities. Until fiscal year 2007, library spending had
remained relatively stable, ranging from about $7.14 million to $7.85
million between fiscal years 2002 and 2006.\10\ OEI, which is the
primary source of funding for the regional libraries, typically
provides funding for them through each region's support budget, and
generally allows regional management to decide how to allocate this
funding among the library and other support services, such as
information technology. For fiscal year 2007, OEI management decided to
reduce funding for the OEI headquarters and regional office libraries
by $2 million, from $2.6 million in enacted funding for fiscal year
2006--a 77 percent reduction for these libraries and a 28 percent
reduction in total library funding. After $500,000 of the $2 million
reduction was applied to the headquarters library, the regional
administrators together decided that the remaining $1.5 million
reduction should be spread equally across all regions, rather than by
staffing ratios in each region or previous years' spending. The $2
million reduction for the libraries was included in the President's
fiscal year 2007 budget proposal for EPA. However, like most agencies,
EPA was included in the full-year continuing resolution, which held
appropriations near fiscal year 2006 levels. The continuing resolution
was enacted after EPA began reorganizing the library network. According
to EPA, OEI restored $500,000 to the library budget in fiscal year 2007
to support reorganization activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ These figures are based on estimates from EPA. We did not
independently determine their accuracy. Because EPA does not track
library funding, each library in the network provided estimates that
were based on past spending and enacted funding. However, libraries may
have varied in the type of spending data provided in terms of whether
the data included contract costs, salaries, and acquisitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When planning the reorganization, EPA recognized that the
responsible dispersal, disposal, and digitization of an EPA library
collection is a major project requiring planning, time, and resources.
However, EPA did not allocate funds specifically to help the closing
libraries manage their collections. According to EPA, the funding for
library closures was taken into account during the budget process. As a
result, the program or regional office responsible for the library used
its usual library funding available at the end of fiscal year 2006 to
pay for closing costs.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be
happy to respond to any questions that you and Members of the
Subcommittee may have.
Biography for John B. Stephenson
Mr. Stephenson is currently the Director of Natural Resource and
Environment issues for the U.S. Government Accountability Office--the
independent investigative arm of the Congress. In that capacity, he has
for the past eight years directed numerous studies and research
projects, issued hundreds of reports, and testified on many occasions
before several Senate and House Committees. His work has provided
invaluable assistance to the Congress in its oversight and legislative
role on diverse environmental protection issues such as clean air,
clean water, safe drinking water, chemical controls, toxic substances,
climate change, superfund, and hazardous materials spill prevention and
cleanup, as well as critical infrastructure protection.
He began his career in GAO's Cincinnati Field Office, and
transferred to GAO's Washington D.C. headquarters office in 1987 where
he worked on a variety of information technology and national and
international security issues. From April 1998-February 2000, he was
Deputy Staff Director for the Senate Special Committee on the Year 2000
Technology Problem for the Chairman (Senator Robert Bennett, R-UT), and
Vice Chairman (Senator Christopher Dodd, D-CT). In that capacity, he
ran the day-to-day operations of the Committee including orchestrating
over 35 hearings, preparing legislation, organizing briefings and floor
activities for the full Senate, working with the White House's Year
2000 Director and staff, and organizing numerous press and public
events. He returned to GAO in March 2000 where he was executive
assistant to the U.S. Comptroller General (the head of GAO) until
entering the Senior Executive Service in October 2000.
Mr. Stephenson holds a BS degree in Industrial Management from
Purdue University, an MBA from Xavier University, and is a graduate of
the Harvard Kennedy School of Government's Senior Executive Fellows
program. He lives in Fairfax Station, Virginia with his wife, his 11-
year-old daughter, and his 9-year-old son.
Chairman Miller. Thank you, Mr. Stephenson. Mr. Orzehoskie.
STATEMENT OF MR. CHARLES ORZEHOSKIE, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL
COUNCIL OF EPA LOCALS #238, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES
Mr. Orzehoskie. Good morning. I would like to thank
Chairman Miller, Congressman Sensenbrenner, and Members of the
Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight for this
opportunity to appear before you today.
My name is Charles Orzehoskie. I am President, AFGE Council
238, and I have worked for EPA for over 37 years, more than 20
of those years as a supervisor. I hold an engineering degree
from Illinois Institute of Technology, and a law degree from
DePaul University in Chicago. Our organization, AFGE Council
238, represents almost 9,000 employees of EPA, and 11 locals
throughout the country, and we strive to improve the working
conditions and agency efficiency.
For EPA to carry out our mission requires a deep
understanding of environmental science that EPA engineers and
scientists have historically utilized the EPA libraries and
library staff to assist them in that effort. Sadly, EPA library
services are no longer available to staff or to the general
public at two headquarters libraries and three regional
offices.
Yet, on February 6 of 2007, EPA Administrator Stephen L.
Johnson testified before the Senate Environmental and Public
Works Committee, stating: ``We discontinued walk-in service at
five of our 26 libraries, and reduced the hours of operation at
other libraries. However, the services provided remain
unchanged.''
Council 238 does not understand Administrator Johnson's
statement. For example, he must not have visited Chicago
recently, because the space where the library was located is
vacant. Even the furniture has been sold. How have the services
provided remained unchanged, particularly for any person who
does not receive EPA messages explaining the new library
procedures?
Administrator Johnson further testified, ``EPA saw a
decline in the walk-in traffic at many of our libraries,''
implying the public's demand for information had decreased. The
decline in walk-in traffic may be due, in part, to increased
security measures at federal buildings since 9/11, and EPA
budget reductions in public outreach programs, but the public's
interest in environmental issues remains strong.
At the same hearing, Leslie Burger, President of the
American Library Association, testified: ``Is the EPA library
plan based on end-users' needs? Apparently not.'' The Council
tried to work with the EPA on this issue, but we were
stonewalled. Management was apparently not interested in the
Agency's engineers and scientists had to say about EPA
libraries. Unfortunately, so many of this Administrator's
decisions appear to based on the President's Management Agenda,
PMA, and not on the mandate of Congress, the will of the
American people, or what would be best for accomplishing EPA's
mission.
We have many concerns about closing libraries. Let me just
summarize that common sense suggests that to make sound
scientific decisions, data and information are at the heart of
a good process, and closing libraries at this time appears to
work counter to that objective. We have been told that the
libraries were closed to save the government money, yet this
doesn't make sense. EPA's own Office of Environmental
Information did a cost-benefit analysis in 2004, which
estimated that EPA's library network saved Agency professional
staff 214,000 hours, a cost saving of approximately $7.5
million. The benefit-to-cost ratio was conservatively estimated
at 4.4 to one.
EPA management has stated that closing the libraries was
also an act of modernization. Hopefully, at some time in the
future, we will see positive results of modernization. However,
wouldn't it have made sense to have piloted the project, tested
how well digitization worked, and only then considered whether
there was a need for redundancy of hardcopy? More should have
been done before declaring ``Mission Accomplished,'' turning
off the lights, locking the doors, and tossing out documents.
When AFGE Council 238 first raised the issue of libraries,
EPA rebuffed the Council, saying the Union's request for input
was premature. In March of 2006, after EPA Region 5 announced
the regional library would close, we issued a demand to bargain
over the libraries, thinking the issue was now ripe for
negotiations. However, management again refused to bargain, and
instead, went ahead and dismantled EPA libraries.
On August 16, 2006, Council 238 filed a grievance against
EPA for failure to negotiate. Filed by Council 238 invoking
arbitration over the grievance after the Agency declined to
settle. Still, the Agency refused to bargain. On February 5,
2007, we filed with the Federal Labor Relations Authority
(FLRA) for the Agency's failure to pick an arbitrator.
FLRA Judge Pearson ordered the Agency ``to cease and desist
from failing or refusing to proceed to arbitration, or
interfering with its employees in their rights to exercise
their rights assured by the Federal Service Labor Management
Relations statute.'' Then, on September 25, 2007, an
arbitration was heard, and Arbitrator George E. Larney's
opinion was issued last month. The opinion found that the
Agency had violated applicable provisions of the union contract
when it acted to forestall and preclude engaging the Council in
bargaining. The Arbitrator ruled to sustain the grievance and
order the Agency to engage the Council in bargaining.
Arbitrator Larney stated in his finding: ``The evidence
reveals that the Agency stonewalled the Union with regard to
negotiations, let alone allowing the Union a real and viable
role in the library reorganization process.'' Arbitrator Larney
went on to state: ``If the Agency's conduct was not bad enough,
the Agency compounded the error of its ways by closing
libraries unilaterally without the benefit of legitimate Union
input.''
EPA's report to Congress on reopening the libraries is due
later this month. Yet EPA, even after Larney's ruling, has
failed to meet with the Council to negotiate any aspect of the
library closing. This type of behavior, where EPA ignores the
rights of its employees, must stop.
In conclusion, the EPA should depend on impartial research
and science to make informed decisions, and a first class EPA
library can help with those decisions. Council 238 would like
to see the libraries reopened and restored by the end of this
fiscal year, and we thank Congress for providing $1 million in
the fiscal year 2008 budget to reopen the libraries.
However, we are concerned that the funding may be
insufficient to get all of the libraries open, and there was no
funding to hire research librarians, a critical aspect of any
library, let alone a state of the art environmental library.
Finally, in almost four decades of working for EPA, I have
never experienced such an unprecedented level of political
consideration in the performance of EPA's missions. This
political influence threatens the integrity of EPA engineers
and scientists, and undermines the very mission of the Agency,
and must stop.
Thank you again for the opportunity to speak on behalf of
AFGE Council 238 and its almost 9,000 engineers, scientists,
and staff, which we represent.
I am happy to take any questions from the Committee.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Orzehoskie follows:]
Prepared Statement of Charles Orzehoskie
Good morning, Chairman Miller, Congressman Sensenbrenner and
Members of the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight. I thank
you for this opportunity to appear before you today to present AFGE
Council 238's views about the closure of EPA's libraries.
INTRODUCTION
My name is Charles Orzehoskie. I am President of the National
Council of EPA Locals# 238 of the American Federation of Government
Employees (AFGE). I have worked for EPA for over 37 years as a
professional engineer in the construction grants program, facilities
planning, and 208 plans under the Clean Water Act, and served as Chief
of EPA Region 5's Wetlands Enforcement Program. Over 20 years of my EPA
service has been as a supervisor, including two years on an Interagency
Personnel Agreement to the Indiana Department of Environment Management
as Chief of their Facilities Development Branch. I am a Licensed
Attorney in the State of Illinois, and have been a Registered
Professional Engineer in the States of Indiana and Illinois.
Additionally, I served two terms as the Vice President of the Illinois
Society of Professional Engineers, and have been a member of both the
American Bar Association and the Chicago Bar Association.
AFGE COUNCIL 238
AFGE Council 238 represents almost 9,000 employees of the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) who are first and foremost,
committed to the protection of human health and the environment, and
ensuring that our nation's environmental acts, laws and regulations are
carried out. AFGE Council 238's mission is to strive to improve
workplace conditions so that EPA employees have the opportunity,
support and tools needed to accomplish EPA's mission and advance in
their chosen field and respective careers.
AFGE Council 238 does this as our employees' exclusive legal
representative in national labor negotiations, and works to obtain
agreements which provide our members with a supportive work environment
and improved opportunities to work more effectively and efficiently for
the protection of human health and the environment.
EPA'S MISSION AND WHY LIBRARIES ARE IMPORTANT
EPA's mission is to protect human health and the environment. To
carry out that mission requires a deep understanding of environmental
science and technology. EPA engineers, risk assessors, and scientists
rely heavily on EPA technical information and have over the years
utilized EPA libraries to perform their jobs in an effective and
efficient manner. EPA library staff provide Agency professionals with
the latest research on cutting-edge environmental, homeland security
and public health issues.
In addition, EPA libraries conduct business searches for EPA
inspectors, investigators, and enforcement officers, providing a host
of other resources that cannot be found with a standard Internet
search. EPA technical library staff provide vital support services that
allow EPA employees to spend more time conducting inspections, writing
public health and environmental policies and reports, and enforcing and
implementing EPA regulations.
EPA LIBRARY CLOSURES
Sadly, EPA library services are no longer available to EPA staff or
the general public at two EPA Headquarters libraries and three Regional
libraries (Region 5 in Chicago, Region 6 in Dallas, and Region 7 in
Kansas City)--which serve 15 states. EPA libraries in Regions 1
(Boston), 2 (New York), 9 (San Francisco), and 10 (Seattle) have
reduced hours. The closure of EPA Headquarters' Office of Prevention,
Pesticides and Toxic Substances (OPPTS) library was a particularly
severe loss to the public, research institutes, as well as EPA
engineers, risk assessors, and scientists.
CLOSURE OF OPPTS HEADQUARTERS LIBRARY
The EPA Headquarters OPPTS Chemical Library was shut down on
October 20, 2006. It provided research services to EPA scientists who
review industry requests for the introduction of new chemicals into the
environment. Among other holdings, the library contained unique
toxicological studies on the potential effects of pesticides on
children, up-to-date research on genetically engineered chemicals and
other biotech products, and extensive literature on emergency planning
and chemical risk assessments.
EPA scientists often begin their reviews by looking at the effects
of similar chemicals or analogues--a technique hampered by closing the
library housing research on chemicals and their effects. Headquarters
EPA scientists now have fewer resources to conduct thorough analyses on
hundreds of new chemicals for which companies are clamoring for ``EPA
approval.''
When it was closed, the OPPTS library's valuable, paper-only
collection was moved into boxes, and stored in a Headquarters basement
cafeteria. EPA made no public announcement concerning its dismantling
of the OPPTS Library, nor was it mentioned in the ``EPA FY 2007
Framework'' as one of the several libraries slated to be shuttered. It
is a travesty that EPA closed this all important library critical to
the Agency's mission and the general public.
We concur with Leslie Burger, President of the American Library
Association and Director of the Princeton Library, when she testified
before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on February 6,
2007, ``In an age of global warming and heightened public awareness
about the environment, it seems ironic that the Administration would
choose this time to limit access to years of research about the
environment.''
WHY PUBLIC ACCESS TO EPA LIBRARIES IS CRUCIAL
Public access to EPA libraries is crucial because without it,
organizations such as the Lake Michigan Federation may never have come
into existence. While raising four children in Chicago's Hyde Park
neighborhood in the 1950s and 1960s, Lee Botts became involved as a
volunteer in several local issues leading up to taking a leadership
role in the campaign which in 1966 resulted in the creation of the
Federal Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore. In 1971, Ms. Botts founded
the Lake Michigan Federation. The Lake Michigan Federation was the
first independent citizens' organization dedicated to the protection
and preservation of a specific Great Lake. Part of the reason for Ms.
Botts' success was her frequent visits to the EPA Region 5 library in
Chicago. Today, the Lake Michigan Federation is known as the Alliance
for the Great Lakes, and has been instrumental in the effort to restore
the sixth largest lake in the world. EPA Region 5's library is now
closed, so I am concerned for the new Lee Botts of this country who may
not have access to a world-class environmental library.
IMPACT OF EPA LIBRARY CLOSURES ON STAFF
On February 6, 2007, EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson testified
before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, stating in
part, ``We discontinued walk-in services at five of our 26 libraries
and reduced the hours of operations at some other libraries. However,
the services provided remain unchanged.'' AFGE Council 238 does not
understand Administrator Johnson's statement based upon the fact that
there are no libraries in Region 5 (Chicago), Region 6 (Dallas), and
Region 7 (Kansas City) or at EPA Headquarters, particularly the OPPTS
library. In Chicago, the space is vacant; even the furniture has been
sold. How have ``. . .the services provided remain unchanged. . .''?
We surveyed some of our bargaining unit and they indicated adverse
impacts due to the closure of the EPA Library in their location. High
on the list of concerns and complaints was the loss of quick and direct
access by EPA Ecologists, Environmental Engineers, Environmental Health
Scientists, Environmental Scientists, Risk Assessors, and
Toxicologists, among others, to EPA studies, reports, and reference
materials. Many of our top engineers, risk assessors and scientists
find themselves either purchasing their own expensive reference texts,
or spending time in university libraries that might otherwise be better
spent if we had our libraries back.
High on the list of concerns in Chicago was the loss of the
specialized reference materials for the Great Lakes National Program
Office. Yet on February 6, 2007, EPA Administrator Johnson testified
that, ``Let me also assure you that unique EPA material has been
retained, catalogued, and is available to EPA and the public.'' Our
bargaining unit employees tell us they cannot access some of these
materials. Does EPA management know where all of the Great Lakes
National Program Office material is? Can they assure us that ALL of the
``. . .unique EPA material has been retained, catalogued, and is
available to EPA and the public?''
Administrator Johnson also testified on February 6, 2007, ``EPA saw
a decline in the walk-in traffic at many of our libraries,'' implying
that the public's demand for information had decreased. EPA libraries
were used as repositories for information on Superfund Sites, among
other things, which the general public has now lost access to in at
least four major metropolitan areas (Chicago, Dallas, Kansas City and
Washington, DC). The decline in walk-in traffic may be due in part to
increased security measures at federal buildings since 9-11. We also
believe that EPA budget reductions in public outreach programs have
contributed to a decline in walk-in traffic. However, I do believe that
the general public's interest in environmental issues is still strong.
I am left with the question as to whether or not EPA wants walk-in
traffic and a public engaged in environmental decision-making. If the
Agency really wanted to find out what the public wanted or needed from
EPA libraries, it should have publicly noticed its proposed changes to
library services AND held information sessions in the locations where
the libraries were either going to be closed or the hours reduced.
EPA employees have already experienced significant decreases in the
support necessary to maintain their ability to work effectively and
efficiently due to decreases in travel and training dollars. Now with
the decreases in networking support EPA libraries offered, their
ability to perform their jobs has been further diminished. The loss of
institutional memory, as well as the loss of expertise from
professional librarians in the Regions, hampers the scientific
decision-making process. The current Administrator maintains that he
wants decisions that are scientifically based, yet the ability of EPA
staff to accomplish sound science continues to be impaired. Is the real
goal to have even more of the technical assistance and evaluations
contracted out at higher cost to the taxpayer?
How much money can EPA possibly save by taking away reasonable
access to newswires and reports that inform Agency technical staff of
so many issues that impact EPA's mission, in a condensed and summarized
form? The idea of taking away EPA staffs' easy access to important
environmental journals is appalling. Certainly, it can be said that
EPA's library plan was not based on an assessment of the end-users
needs. On February 6, 2007, Leslie Burger testified, ``Is EPA's library
plan based on the end-users' needs? Apparently not. . .ALA doesn't see
what's being done as connected to users' needs in any way.'' AFGE
Council 238 agrees with Ms. Burger's testimony.
The Council tried to work with EPA management but was stonewalled.
Management was apparently not interested in what the Agency engineers,
risk assessors, and scientists had to say about EPA libraries. The
Administration's action in shuttering EPA Libraries appears penny wise,
pound foolish and a step backwards in protecting the environment.
Unfortunately, so many of the Administrator's decisions appear to be
based on the President's Management Agenda, and not on the mandates of
Congress, the will of the American people or what would be in the best
interest of accomplishing EPA's mission.
AFGE COUNCIL 238 IS CONCERNED:
<bullet> Because the $2 million budget cut for EPA libraries
was proposed by the President and the Office of Management and
Budget, but carried out without Congressional approval by EPA
management. AFGE Council 238 believes that the EPA library
closures reduces the effectiveness of EPA, and continues to
demoralize its employees.
<bullet> About the sudden, draconian manner, in which EPA
libraries were closed, with little regard to protection of
unique collections of technical reports and documents, such as
the Great Lakes collection. We consider it one more example of
suppressing information on environmental and public health-
related topics.
<bullet> Because we consider the EPA library closures to be an
``environmental justice'' (EJ) issue. At least four major
metropolitan areas have lost EPA libraries--Chicago (Region 5),
Dallas (Region 6), Kansas City (Region 7), and Washington, DC
(Headquarters). It is an EJ issue because people of color and
lower economic means have been impacted disproportionately by
these library closures since they rely more heavily on publicly
accessible services.
<bullet> In the interim, until digitization is completed, the
ability of EPA to respond to emergencies may well be reduced
because important reference materials are not available or will
take a significant time to be retrieved from storage or another
library.
<bullet> That the public will no longer have convenient access
to many of EPA's past reports and technical documents, even
though EPA management has indicated that the public will get
their information either from EPA hotlines, program staff
(which would require a Freedom of Information Act or FOIA
request), or from the EPA website.
<bullet> EPA management has assured Agency personnel and the
general public that all documents will be available ``on-
line,'' for easy retrieval. Yet, EPA's own National
Environmental Publications Information System has indicated
that thousands of documents have yet to be ``digitized.''
EPA'S RATIONALE--TO PROMOTE INCREASED EFFICIENCIES
Senior EPA managers touted the message that the $2 million budget
reduction, and subsequent library closures, would promote increased
``efficiencies,'' with virtually all EPA reports being available in an
electronic format. These ``savings'' were illusory, and nothing could
have been further from the truth. Here are some sobering facts
regarding the EPA library closures:
<bullet> EPA's Office of Environmental Information (OEI), in a
cost-benefit analysis completed in 2004 (``Business Case for
Information Services: EPA's Regional Libraries and Centers,''
EPA-260-R-04-001, January 2004), estimated that EPA's library
network saved Agency professional staff more than 214,000
hours--a cost savings of approximately $7.5 million. The
benefit to cost ratio was conservatively estimated at 4.4-to-1.
Despite this study indicating cost savings by maintaining these
specialized environmental libraries, EPA shuttered those same
libraries in a ``cost savings'' move. It is interesting to note
that this report stated, ``Librarians are found to save
professional staff as much as 16 hours ``per question
answered.'' Patron surveys also suggest that librarians save
professional staff approximately one hour ``per document
delivered.'' That adds up to huge hidden costs in wasted salary
dollars when you multiply EPA staffs' time to do their own
library searches. The report even explains why this happens:
``Library patrons do not always come with well-formed questions
or clearly articulated requests for specific information
resources. Rather, research is frequently a joint venture
between the patron and the librarian.''
I find it pretty sad that Agency management apparently ignored this
report in its frenzy to shutter EPA libraries. The Agency's own report
stated, ``Many of EPA's mission activities entail the need for rapid
and/or repeated access to relatively specialized collections of data,
scientific information and methods, and legal and legislative
information. Similarly, it is necessary for EPA scientists, economists,
attorneys, financial analysts, and other professional staff to stay
abreast of cutting-edge developments and state-of-the-discipline
information. The establishment of these collections enable EPA
professionals to save time during the research phase of their
activities, to conduct rapid turnaround research projects in response
to evolving events, and to complete research projects that might have
been stymied were unique and appropriate references not immediately
available.'' The report concluded that EPA libraries were ``. .
.clearly a source of substantial value to the Agency, its stakeholders,
and the public. Even employing the most conservative of assumptions,
benefit-to-cost ratios for core library services indicate that
libraries ``give back'' far more than they take in terms of Agency
resources. . ..''
As a result of the EPA library closures, we have literally
thousands of EPA staff conducting their own library searches.
This is not a cost-effective use of EPA employees' time. We
find the February 6, 2007, testimony of Ms. Leslie Burger
particularly on point regarding the need for librarians when
she stated, ``ALA understands that we are living in the 21st
century, an age when users can access much of what they need
from their own desk. . .. But the bottom line is that libraries
still need skilled professionals to a) assist users, b)
organize Internet access, and c) determine the best way to make
the information available to those users. When searching the
EPA site, one retrieves thousands of hits for a topic such as
``water.'' When qualifying the search by a date range the
results include items outside the date range. The user will
wonder about the veracity of the data and will need the
assistance of the librarian.''
<bullet> Some of EPA's library collections were dispersed
without establishing any standard procedures or criteria to
ensure that important documents were not lost. For instance,
the EPA Region 5 library in Chicago closed on September 30,
2006, and its collections were offered to other libraries. Ms.
Leslie Burger in her February 6, 2007, testimony stated ``What
this ``dispersement'' entails isn't exactly clear at this point
and what concerns us is how this information will be handled,
and therefore what type of long-term damage has been done to
the effectiveness of EPA and the ability of the American public
to find important environmental and government information.''
Can EPA management account for ALL of the documents and
materials from, for example the Great Lakes collection?
<bullet> The National Environmental Publications Information
System, EPA's repository of electronic documents, currently
holds over 25,000 documents. But the Agency has thousands more
documents that should be retained; most of these are not yet
available in any electronic format. EPA management has not
addressed the issue of how much it will cost to digitize these
thousands of reports, where the money will come from, or how
long it will take to complete the task.
<bullet> EPA's approach did not consider how university,
school, and municipal libraries will borrow paper copies of
EPA's documents through the interlibrary loan process.
<bullet> EPA's approach has deprived working-class people of a
user-friendly, well-staffed EPA library system that could
provide them with environmental and public health information.
MODERNIZATION OF EPA LIBRARIES
EPA management has stated that shuttering its libraries was an act
of modernization. As the saying goes, ``the devil is in the details.''
If AFGE Council 238 had been tasked with modernizing EPA's libraries,
we would have first consulted with the experts such as the American
Library Association, the Association of Research Libraries, and the
American Association of Law Libraries. We would have acknowledged up-
front that not all parts of each EPA's library collection could be
digitized, since much of it is copyrighted. We would have acknowledged
the abundance of specialized and unique materials to the EPA
collection--including reports paid for by taxpayers, maps and other
specialized formats, which would be and are very difficult and time-
consuming to digitize.
Ms. Leslie Burger stated on February 6, 2007, ``Before we begin the
costly digitization process, we always consider the needs of the
current and future user communities. Digital content must be created in
a fashion assuring that it will be usable 25 and 50 years from now. We
need to capture cataloging information, or what we call metadata, about
the digital resource so that we can find the digital object now and in
the future, or so that if we have to recreate it we know how we created
it the first time.''
Second, if we were tasked with digitizing EPA library materials, we
would have piloted the project; testing it out and discovering problem
areas and processes, as well as procedures that would need to be
followed to ensure accuracy and completeness of the digitization
process. Third, we would have ensured that all materials had first been
digitized and made available electronically, and only then would we
have considered whether the redundancy of hard copies was necessary or
in the best interest of the general public. All this and more we would
have done prior to declaring ``mission accomplished,'' shuttering EPA's
libraries, and tossing out documents--which in fact is what EPA did
when it shuttered its libraries.
Despite Administrator Johnson's testimony that ``. . .our library
modernization effort has and will continue to provide more people with
more access to EPA information, both online and through traditional
library services,'' feedback from bargaining unit employees has
indicated just the opposite. To date EPA's modernization effort has not
provided more people with more access to EPA information.
AFGE COUNCIL 238'S RESPONSE TO EPA'S LIBRARY CLOSURES
Administrator Johnson testified on February 6, 2007, ``We also plan
on continuing a strong network of physical libraries. Some will serve
as repositories to hold hard copies of our collection and some will
continue to provide walk-in services.'' The Agency's actions in closing
EPA libraries, reducing hours at other libraries and how they went
about accomplishing those changes were the reasons we wanted to sit
down and negotiate with EPA management and find a solution that would
be in the best interest of EPA and the employees we represent.
AFGE Council 238 tried to have an impact on this issue internally
by negotiating with EPA management. Senior Agency management rebuffed
the Council, saying that the topic was ``premature'' to negotiate
because no formal FY 2007 library plan had yet been adopted. On March
13, 2006, the EPA Region 5 Regional Administrator announced that the
Region 5 Library would close ``. . .in the near future.'' Therefore, on
March 16, 2006, AFGE Council 238 demanded to bargain procedures and
appropriate arrangements over the closing and major reorganization of
EPA's libraries. In spite of AFGE Council 238's Demand to Bargain, EPA
management went ahead with its dismantling of EPA libraries unchecked,
with no coherent plan in place.
On August 16, 2006, AFGE Council 238 filed a grievance against the
Agency for failure to negotiate with the Council over the closure of
the libraries. Since the Agency made no real effort to resolve the
grievance, on October 17, 2006, AFGE Council 238 invoked arbitration.
On February 5, 2007, the Council filed an Unfair Labor Practice (ULP)
with the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) because the Agency
refused to pick an arbitrator. On September 25, 2007, FLRA
Administrative Law Judge Richard A. Pearson ruled on the ULP and
ordered the Agency, among other things, ``. . .to cease and desist from
. . . Failing or refusing to proceed to arbitration. . .'' and ``. .
.in any like or related manner, interfering with, restraining or
coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights assured by the
Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.'' The September 25,
2007, FLRA Order also required EPA to post at its facilities where
bargaining unit employees represented by the Council are located,
copies of a notice to all employees that the EPA had committed a ULP
and their agreement to abide by the FSLMRS. EPA management has dragged
its feet complying with FLRA's Order to post the settlement agreement
nationwide. AFGE Council 238 continues to work with FLRA to resolve
this matter.
Coincidentally, on September 25, 2007, the arbitration was heard by
Arbitrator George E. Larney. On February 15, 2008, Arbitrator Larney
found that the Agency had violated applicable provisions of the Master
Collective Bargaining Agreement (MCBA) when it acted to forestall and
preclude engaging the Council in impact and implementation bargaining
pertaining to issues attendant to the reorganization of its Library
Network. The Arbitrator ruled to sustain the substance of the grievance
and ordered the Agency to engage the Council in impact and
implementation bargaining over issues attendant to the reorganization
of the Agency's Library Network in a timely manner. Such bargaining
should include all issues that directly affect and may potentially have
an adverse impact on the working conditions of bargaining unit
employees. Arbitrator Larney stated in his ruling last month, ``Thus,
the record evidence establishes with great clarity and without
contravention that from the very beginning of its initiative in FY
2003, to consider making changes to its Library Network and continuing
up until midway through FY 2006 when the Agency began laying the
groundwork to effect the changes that had already been determined by it
to implement, Management had precluded the Union, both on a national
and local level, from assuming any role in the planning and decision-
making stages relative to the reorganization of its Library Network
and, consideration of the possible potential impacts such a
reorganization would have on its bargaining unit employees. . ..'' [p.
60 of 81, February 15, 2008, OPINION and AWARD, EPA v AFGE Council 238
(FMCS Case No. 07-50725)]
Arbitrator Larney went on to state that ``. . .the record evidence
reveals that the Agency stonewalled the Union with regard to permitting
commencement of negotiations let alone allowing the Union a real and
viable consultative role in the library reorganization process.'' [p.
61 of 81, February 15, 2008, OPINION and AWARD, EPA v AFGE Council 238
(FMCS Case No. 07-50725)]
Arbitrator Larney continued by stating ``. . .As if the Agency's
conduct as evidenced by the above enumerated four (4) instances was not
bad enough, the fact that, in addition to precluding the Union from
entering into impact and implementation bargaining pursuant to its
contractual right to do so as provided for in Article 45 of the Master
Collective Bargaining Agreement (Jt.Ex.1), pertaining to the
reorganization of its Library Network, the Agency compounded the err of
its ways by instituting changes attendant to its reorganization
initiative unilaterally without the benefit of legitimate Union input.
Such unilateral changes were implemented over much of the time period
the Union was seeking to enter into impact and implementation
bargaining with the Agency up to and including the period of time
leading to this arbitral proceeding.'' [p. 66 of 81, February 15, 2008,
OPINION and AWARD, EPA v AFGE Council 238 (FMCS Case No. 07-50725)].
As of this date, we have not yet been able to schedule a meeting
with the Agency to discuss this ruling or Arbitrator Larney's Order.
AFGE Council 238 is concerned that EPA's actions tend to limit not only
EPA staffs' access to information, but also discourages the public's
access to EPA libraries and information.
NATIONAL PARTNERSHIP COUNCIL
On April 14, 2003, Administrator Christine Todd Whitman signed the
``EPA Labor-Management Partnership Strategic Plan and Operational
Guidance,'' which stated, among other things that: ``The overarching
goal of the Partnership Council is to increase collaboration between
EPA's labor unions and management thereby furthering the accomplishment
of the Agency's mission through improving job satisfaction and working
conditions for all employees and managers at all organizational levels
and locations.'' The Strategic Plan stated that: ``Rather than having
management make decisions and then negotiate with the union, the PDI
process involves the union early in the decision-making process, when
issues are at the formative stage. When PDI is used, the union and
management work together as a team to resolve issues to their mutual
satisfaction and interest.''
EPA management not only repeatedly refuses to adopt the principles
of pre-decisional involvement (PDI), but also refuses to engage the
unions in meaningful negotiations such as library closures, even though
they are required to do so by law and contract. For at least six years,
EPA management has repeatedly said that it wanted to engage Unions in
PDI as part of the NPC activities. Yet as of this date, AFGE Council
238 is unaware of any PDI activities emanating from the NPC, despite
numerous requests.
As a result of the failure of EPA management to work with us on the
library closures, as well as on a multitude of other issues, AFGE
Council 238 served notice on February 28, 2008, along with our Union
partners, that we were suspending any further involvement with the
National Labor-Management Partnership Council with EPA management. AFGE
Council 238 is particularly incensed by EPA's refusal to discuss, let
alone negotiate with us on the closure of EPA's libraries.
SOME OF THE LOW-LIGHTS OF EPA'S LIBRARY CLOSURES INCLUDE:
<bullet> EPA's library collections were dispersed before
establishing any standard procedures or criteria to ensure that
important documents were not lost.
<bullet> EPA did not have a complete inventory of all
documents prior to the closures, nor do we believe that they
have one now. Can EPA management account for the whereabouts of
ALL unique library documents prior to the day of shuttering?
<bullet> EPA's approach to closing its libraries has deprived
working-class people of a user-friendly, EPA-staffed library
system that provided them with environmental and public health
information. The general public, particularly minorities in
four major metropolitan areas have been impacted--Chicago,
Dallas, Kansas City and Washington, DC.
<bullet> AFGE Council 238 finds it ironic that EPA shuttered
its libraries when its congressionally mandated mission is to
protect human health and the environment; a scientific and
legal mission that requires ready access to the latest research
and information in the many scientific and technical fields.
<bullet> EPA failed to fulfill its contractual obligations
under the MCBA, as well as its statutory obligations under the
Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (5 U.S.C.
7101 et seq.), by failing to negotiate with AFGE Council 238 on
these closures.
CONCLUSION
EPA policy-makers, managers and senior executives should depend on
impartial, peer reviewed research and science to make informed
decisions. A valuable resource and research tool is a first class EPA
Library Network. AFGE Council 238 would like to see all EPA libraries
reopened and library services fully restored by the end of fiscal year
2008.
AFGE Council 238 thanks Congress for providing $1,000,000 ($983,500
after rescission) in the fiscal year 2008 budget to reopen the closed
EPA libraries. However, we are concerned that the funding may be
insufficient to get all of the closed libraries back to full service,
and will not address the reduced service at the remaining libraries,
nor the reduced periodical subscriptions. Unfortunately, much of the
funding will need to be spent on construction and repurchasing library
furnishings, such as shelving. For example, EPA Region 5 excessed its
library furniture in 2006, selling it for about $350. That furniture
was originally purchased in 1990-1991 for approximately $35,000, and to
replace that furniture now in 2008 could easily approach $100,000.
Most importantly, AFGE Council 238 points out that there was no
funding to rehire research librarians, a critical aspect of any
library, let alone a state-of-the-art environmental library. Ms. Leslie
Burger appears to support this position when she stated on February 6,
2007, ``Further, there are still traditional library users out there.
Not everyone does their searching via web-based search engines. Many
would still rather put their trust in the hands of a knowledgeable
library professional, someone who knows the materials inside and out.
It has been argued that the time of librarians is vanishing with the
rise of the Internet, but this is a case in point where that is just
not so. The EPA's environmental holdings are vast and dense, and a
simple search engine just isn't enough. With the loss of the brick-and-
mortar facilities comes the loss of the most important asset in the
library: the librarian. After all, what good is information if you
can't find it?''
AFGE Council 238 believes that reopening EPA libraries will require
aggressive oversight by Congress to ensure that the Agency successfully
reopens and restores them in a timely and effective manner. We urge
Congress to include explicit instructions that funding must be used to
reopen shuttered EPA libraries. AFGE Council 238 is also concerned that
authorizing the reopening of EPA libraries to provide public access
should include providing EPA staff with ready access to the latest
research and information in their respective scientific and technical
fields.
AFGE Council 238 offers its services to Congress to review and
comment on the plan that EPA is required to submit to the Committee on
Appropriations regarding actions the Agency will take to restore
publicly available libraries to provide environmental information and
data to each EPA region. The Agency is to submit its report to Congress
within 90 days of the signing of the appropriations bill on December
26, 2007.
We are also concerned about EPA's library closures since it appears
to be a phenomenon not restricted only to EPA. Library closures are, in
fact, happening at other federal agencies and departments. For example,
the National Institute on Drug Abuse closed its library in 2007 for
``budgetary reasons.'' The Housing and Urban Development Headquarters
Library was decreased in size by 60 percent; periodicals and monograph
materials were reduced by over 16 percent. The General Services
Administration Headquarters library closed in October 2006. We
understand that at the U.S. Geological Survey, budget constraints have
created concerns about the future of their library services as well.
Finally, I must state that in my over 37 years as a dedicated
federal civilian employee, I have never experienced such an
unprecedented level of political consideration in the performance of
EPA's mission. I express my sincerest concern that this political
influence threatens the integrity of EPA's Principles of Scientific
Integrity, and undermines the very mission of the Agency, which is to
protect human health and the environment. EPA must make decisions based
upon the best reasonably obtainable economic and technical information,
as well as sound science that has been peer reviewed. By initiating
these changes now, it would not only improve EPA staff morale, but also
help accomplish EPA's mission and strengthen the faith of the American
people in this world-class Agency.
Thank you again for this opportunity to speak on behalf of AFGE
Council 238 and the almost 9,000 EPA employees that we represent. I am
happy to take any questions from the Committee.
Chairman Miller. Thank you. Dr. Grifo.
STATEMENT OF DR. FRANCESCA T. GRIFO, SENIOR SCIENTIST, UNION OF
CONCERNED SCIENTISTS; DIRECTOR, SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY PROGRAM
Dr. Grifo. Good morning. My name is Francesca Grifo, and I
am a Senior Scientist and Director of the Scientific Integrity
Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, a leading
science-based nonprofit working for a healthy environment and a
safer world. Chairman Miller, Congressman Hall, thank you for
this opportunity.
In 2006, as we have heard, the EPA began to close or reduce
access to parts of its network of libraries as part of a
modernization plan. This process took items out of circulation
before making them available electronically, and did not fully
consider how to make the diversity of EPA's library holdings
accessible during the transition period and beyond.
We do not object to modernization per se, rather to the
ongoing lack of access to critical library resources,
deficiencies in stakeholder consultation, and lack of
transparency in the process, and the rapid pace of library
closures, in contrast to the slow rate of digitization of
library holdings.
The Scientific Integrity Program works to expose political
interference in Federal Government science, and to ensure a
federal scientific workforce able to serve the public interest.
Together with several eminent scientists, we recently released
a statement entitled ``Scientific Freedom and the Public
Good,'' that outlines the conditions needed by federal
scientists to do their jobs and serve the public good. Research
support systems such as libraries are one such necessary
condition for a thriving federal scientific enterprise.
In order to fulfill its mission to protect human health and
the environment, the EPA must rely on up to date scientific
information, as well as historical materials. Despite the
increasing availability of information on the Internet, world
class academic and scientific institutions are maintaining and
expanding their libraries, with the understanding that they are
the bedrock of scholarship and scientific research. Without
ease of access to information, the efficiency and accuracy of
EPA's determinations are under threat.
In the fall of 2006, we mobilized our network of scientists
and citizen-activists to call Administrator Johnson's office
and demand a halt to the closures. UCS activists made nearly
8,000 phone calls. We have continued to monitor the situation,
and have met twice with EPA's Office of Environmental
Information. Despite these meetings, in the 14 months since we
stopped phoning Administrator Johnson, we have seen very little
progress. Our main concern continues to be that the EPA
libraries are a valuable and cost-effective resource for both
the Agency and the public, and that nearly a year and a half
after their closures, the system that currently replaces them
is inadequate.
We decided to go to the scientists themselves.
Approximately nine months after the closure, we asked the
scientists at the EPA what they thought; 555 scientists agreed
or strongly agreed that the recent changes and closures in the
EPA library system impaired their ability to do their jobs.
When we went to the scientists from Regions 5, 6, and 7, where
the libraries had closed, half the respondents agreed or
strongly agreed that library closures impaired their ability to
do their jobs.
A number of EPA scientists also provided written comments
on the closures. One scientist stated: ``The library must also
be reopened. Since its closure, some journals are just no
longer accessible.'' Another wrote: ``EPA program offices use a
lot of scientific information. Reduced library access is
crippling.'' And there are more comments in my written
testimony.
These results show that contrary to EPA's claims, the
libraries are an important resource for EPA employees, and that
desktop subscriptions, digitization, and the interlibrary loan
service are an imperfect replacement. Essential resources, such
as copyright reference books and older volumes of scientific
journals, cannot be reproduced online. Plans for access to data
and documentation that came from contractors, or form the basis
for guidance or determinations, are unclear. The interlibrary
loan system is slower than visiting a local library, and cannot
replace librarians, browsing, or the spontaneous, informal
learning that takes place in a library.
Almost a year and a half later, we still do not know the
current status of the digitization process, if skeletal
reference collections might be restored, how many librarians
have been lost and any plans for their replacement, what level
of access is available for materials in repositories, such as
older documents, microfilm, and documents generated by EPA
contractors, if there are adequate provisions to ensure access
to digitized documents for people with disabilities, the status
of the OPPTS Chemical Library, and any plans to digitize those
materials, and perhaps most importantly, we don't have a firm
deadline for when full, efficient access to needed library
resources will be restored. Large problems persist, and no
specific timeline for addressing them has been put forth.
The Union of Concerned Scientists urges Congress to
continue its oversight of the EPA and Administrator Johnson
until full access to EPA library materials is restored.
Transparency of library decisions, stakeholder consultations,
and protections for scientists who publicly raise concerns
about the libraries are important issues, and are addressed in
my written testimony.
In conclusion, regardless of the timing and manner of the
eventual reopening of portions of the library network, there
are three immediate actions that must happen now. The first, a
basic reference collection and a librarian should be restored
to scientists in Regions 5, 6, and 7, EPA headquarters, and the
OPPTS Chemical Library. Second, the EPA must set and meet a
firm deadline for completion of the digitization of all EPA
documents. And third, the EPA must set and meet a deadline for
full public access to all the rest of EPA's informational
holdings.
We look forward to working with Congress on bipartisan
legislation and other reforms, to restore scientific integrity.
And I will be happy to answer any questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Grifo follows:]
Prepared Statement of Francesca T. Grifo
Good morning, my name is Francesca Grifo. I am a Senior Scientist
and the Director of the Scientific Integrity Program at the Union of
Concerned Scientists, a leading science-based nonprofit working for a
healthy environment and a safer world. Chairman Miller, Ranking Member
Sensenbrenner, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to share our work and concerns regarding the closures of
libraries at the Environmental Protection Agency.
Introduction
In summer 2006, the EPA closed or reduced access to parts of its
network of 27 libraries, thereby reducing the public's ability to use
to a valuable source of information and making it more difficult for
hundreds of EPA employees to do their jobs of protecting human health
and the environment. EPA officials claim the closings are part of a
modernization plan, and that all library materials will eventually be
available online. Unfortunately, the process adopted by the EPA for
modernizing the library system was backwards and mostly non-transparent
to stakeholders concerned about the ability of the EPA to do its work.
We do not object to modernization per se, rather to the woefully
dysfunctional way the EPA sought to undertake it.
The Scientific Integrity Program at the Union of Concerned
Scientists works to expose political interference in the work of
Federal Government scientists and to push for reforms that ensure the
free flow of scientific information between the government and the
public. We recently released a statement entitled ``Scientific Freedom
and the Public Good'' that outlines the conditions needed by federal
scientists to do their jobs and serve the public good. Quality research
support systems, such as libraries, are a necessary condition for a
thriving scientific enterprise at federal agencies.
In order to fulfill its mission to protect human health and the
environment, the EPA must rely on accurate, up-to-date scientific
information as well as the findings of earlier studies. Scientists
build their research on the findings of those who came before them.
Libraries are the source of much of this intellectual wealth. To make
the best scientific determinations, scientists need access to
information regarding the health effects of toxic substances, records
of environmental change over time, impacts on specific regions or
communities and many other issues. Despite the increasing availability
of information on the Internet, world-class academic institutions are
maintaining and expanding their libraries with the understanding that
such institutions are the bedrock of scholarship and scientific
research. Without ease of access to information, the efficiency and
accuracy of EPA's scientific determinations are under threat--with
potentially serious consequences for public health and the environment.
We have been concerned about the fate of the EPA Libraries since
the closures were first announced. Once the closures began in the fall
of 2006, we mobilized our network of scientists--activists who signed
our scientist statement on scientific integrity--to call administrator
Stephen Johnson's office and demand a halt to the closures.
Over the course of several weeks UCS activists made nearly 8,000
phone calls to EPA headquarters. We believe that this outcry from the
scientific community, together with attention from both the House and
the Senate, the EPA employee unions, the library community and other
non-profit organizations was instrumental in convincing the EPA to stop
and reassess its plan for the library network. Since that initial
flurry of activity, we have continued to monitor the situation and have
met twice with officials in EPA's Office of Environmental Information
(OEI) to voice our concerns.
Despite these meetings, in the 14 months since our phone offensive,
we have seen very little progress in repairing the damage already done
to the library network. Our main concern continues to be that the EPA
libraries are a valuable and cost-effective resource for both the
agency and the public, and that the system that currently replaces them
is sadly inadequate.
Survey Results
To assess the impact of the library closures on EPA's workforce,
UCS surveyed scientists at the EPA in July of 2007. The survey results
show:
<bullet> 555 scientists (35.6 percent of survey respondents)
agreed or strongly agreed that the ``recent changes and
closures in the EPA library system have impaired my ability to
do my job.''
<bullet> This opinion was especially prevalent among
scientists in Regions 5, 6 and 7, which had their libraries
closed. 86 scientists, or nearly half of the survey
respondents, agreed, however the impact of the closures was
felt across the entire EPA.
A number of EPA scientists also provided written comments on the
library closures. One scientist stated ``The library must also be re-
opened. Since its closure, some journals are just no longer
accessible.'' Another explained why libraries are necessary, saying
``EPA program offices [. . .] use a lot of scientific information.
Reduced library access is crippling'' while yet another called the loss
of library facilities ``ludicrous.''
Other quotes from EPA scientists include--
<bullet> ``Give us back our library.''
<bullet> ``Re-open libraries.''
<bullet> ``Restore the libraries.''
<bullet> ``Libraries with the technical support staff should
be restored.''
<bullet> ``Bring back the two EPA libraries at Headquarters
that were closed. Many journal articles are now available
online, but these go back only about 20 years. Unfortunately, a
large number of bound journals from the collection were
discarded.''
<bullet> ``The . . . loss of EPA libraries are bleeding down
the EPA's technical knowledge base and our ability to provide
or share the skills and knowledge that are critical to overall
mission success.''
<bullet> ``Proper facilities, including re-establishing EPA's
network of libraries is essential to give staff sufficient
access to information.''
<bullet> ``Restore . . . library and other research resources.
. .''
<bullet> ``Have access to tech resources and in a timely
fashion (includes library/lit search issues).''
<bullet> ``Stop slashing services that made the EPA what it
was (library closings are just one of many. . .).''
<bullet> ``Give us back our library. . .''
<bullet> ``Better support for ORD, libraries (regional and
others). . .''
In addition some scientists described progress:
<bullet> ``BTW--while I loved the library, the new service
that was set-up for requesting materials via the Internet is
great, quick and responsive.''
<bullet> ``The RTP Interlibrary Loan facility has been very
good in obtaining articles and pages in books as the need has
arisen.''
These results show that, contrary to the EPA's claims, the
libraries are an important resource for EPA employees and that the
Interlibrary Loan service is an imperfect replacement, that may work
for certain employees, but not for all.
A Backwards Process
The process by which EPA closed the libraries was backwards. The
closing of the physical library should be the very last stage of a
well-thought-out modernization plan, if and only if it is determined
that the physical library is truly extraneous. Unfortunately, closing
the EPA libraries was the first step and the driver of all subsequent
decisions. UCS supports the digitization of those EPA documents that
can legally be made available on the Internet, but again that process
should be complete before the physical materials are discarded or
placed in a repository. Thousands of EPA documents are currently
stranded in digitization limbo for the indefinite future.
Furthermore, digitization cannot fully replace all the resources
provided by a physical library. Essential resources, such as
copyrighted reference books and older volumes of scientific journals,
cannot be reproduced online yet are potentially invaluable for the day-
to-day work of EPA's scientists. The Interlibrary Loan system is a
possible solution for some of these problems, but it is undoubtedly
slower than a local library and, for commonly used materials,
considerably less efficient. Nor do interlibrary loans replace browsing
or the spontaneous informal learning that takes place in a library.
Our survey indicates that the current system is not meeting the
needs of hundreds of EPA scientists. The EPA should carry out a
comprehensive, transparent assessment of the information needs of its
staff to determine which locations have a need for a full-service
library, which need basic reference collections and which can make do
with the current system. EPA's library specialists are valuable
resources in their own right and their expertise in answering research
and reference questions has been shown to save the EPA millions of
dollars of staff time. Any information needs assessment should consider
the best way to provide access to EPA librarians to all of EPA's staff.
Changes to the library system impact the wider public and the
information that is available to them. The EPA libraries are used by
community environmental justice groups, historians, independent
researchers, and others. Any changes to the library system should be
done in a fully transparent and open manner and the EPA should solicit
comment from the various stakeholder groups with an interest in the
library network.
Finally--all of this has taken far too long. Almost a year and a
half is too long to be without these critical materials.
Outstanding Questions
After two meetings with OEI officials, many questions remain about
the future of EPA's library network:
<bullet> What is the current status of the digitization
process? When will all the unique documents be available?
<bullet> Copyrighted material can never be part of the EPA's
digital library. While an interlibrary loan system will address
some of these needs, it may not efficiently address the needs
of all EPA staff. EPA officials have told us skeletal reference
collections might be restored in each region. Has this
happened? If not, when will it happen? Will stakeholders be
involved in decisions regarding the composition of these
collections?
<bullet> The EPA's own internal documents highlight the
monetary savings derived from having trained professionals
assist staff. Have librarians been lost? Will the general
public be allowed access to librarians when the closed
libraries reopen? In the interim? If so, how and when?
<bullet> What level of access is currently available for all
materials moved to the repositories, including older documents,
documents on microfilm and documents generated by EPA
contractors? When will full access be restored?
<bullet> Have adequate provisions been taken to ensure access
for people with disabilities?
<bullet> What level of access will the public have to
materials in the repositories?
<bullet> Will the OPPTS chemical library be re-opened? Are
there plans to digitize the materials from that library and
make them available online? Will those materials be available
through the repositories and Interlibrary loans? If so when?
Solutions
While we believe it is possible that senior library officials do
seek to remedy the situation and address these questions, it has been
seventeen months since the closures began. Large problems persist and
no specific timeline for addressing them has been put forth. Congress
has allocated funds to re-open some of the closed libraries, yet it
remains unclear how long that process will take. The Union of Concerned
Scientists urges this committee to continue its oversight of the EPA
until adequate access to EPA library materials is consistently
available to EPA employees and the public.
Immediate Actions
Regardless of the timing and manner of the eventual re-opening of
portions of the library network, there are three actions that must be
taken by the EPA immediately:
<bullet> A basic reference collection should be restored to
scientists in Regions 5, 6 and 7, EPA Headquarters and the
Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances (OPPTS).
The contents of these collections should be determined by a
quick assessment of the needs of scientists and research groups
in those regions. This is not a replacement for a more
comprehensive assessment, or for the possible re-opening of
those libraries, but is instead a stop-gap measure to provide
the necessary resources for EPA employees in the meantime.
<bullet> The EPA must set a firm deadline for completion of
the digitization of all EPA documents and meet it.
<bullet> The EPA must commit to full public access to EPA's
informational holdings. At a minimum this should include making
materials available through OCLC and Interlibrary Loan and
providing staffing and hours when members of the public may
access materials in all the repositories.
Transparency of Library Decisions
<bullet> The EPA should open up its decision-making process
regarding agency informational needs to public scrutiny.
Information on plans for the library network should be
available on the EPA's website and should include timelines for
digitization and access to information, details on the
digitization process, and the names of responsible parties.
Stakeholder Consultations
<bullet> The EPA should undertake a comprehensive assessment
of the information needs of its workforce, including scientific
and legal staff, and should design its library modernization
plans with those goals in mind.
<bullet> The EPA should also routinely consult with outside
stakeholders, including community groups, independent and
academic researchers, and the library community, to ensure that
decisions regarding its library network conform to best
practices and ensure continued public access to information.
Whistleblower Rights
<bullet> In passing reforms to the Whistleblower Protection
Act that include significant protections for government
scientists, the House of Representatives has sent a strong
signal that scientific openness and access to information
should be core agency values and that scientists who speak out
deserve protection. The staff of the EPA should have the right
to publicly raise their concerns about the loss of the
libraries.
We look forward to working with the 110Congress on bipartisan
legislation and other reforms to restore scientific integrity to
federal policy-making.
Biography for Francesca T. Grifo
Francesca T. Grifo, Ph.D., is the Senior Scientist and Director of
the Scientific Integrity Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists
(UCS). The Scientific Integrity Program works to defend government
science from political interference.
Dr. Grifo came to UCS in 2005 from Columbia University where she
directed the Center for Environmental Research and Conservation
graduate policy workshop and ran the Science Teachers Environmental
Education Program. Prior to that, she was Director of the Center for
Biodiversity and Conservation and a curator of the Hall of Biodiversity
at the American Museum of Natural History in New York.
Dr. Grifo edited and contributed to the books Biodiversity and
Human Health and The Living Planet in Crisis; biodiversity science and
policy. In addition to her scholarly work, Dr. Grifo was the manager of
the International Cooperative Biodiversity Groups Program at the
National Institutes of Health. She was also a senior program officer
for Central and Eastern European for the Biodiversity Support Program,
a consortium of the World Resources Institute, the Nature Conservancy,
and the World Wildlife Fund; and an AAAS Fellow in the Office of
Research at the Agency for International Development.
Francesca earned her Ph.D. in botany from Cornell, and a BA in
biology from Smith College. She currently holds adjunct appointments at
Columbia and Georgetown.
Chairman Miller. Thank you, Dr. Grifo. Mr. Rettig.
STATEMENT OF MR. JAMES R. RETTIG, PRESIDENT-ELECT, AMERICAN
LIBRARY ASSOCIATION; UNIVERSITY LIBRARIAN, UNIVERSITY OF
RICHMOND
Mr. Rettig. Chairman Miller and Congressman Hall, thank you
for inviting me today to speak on behalf of the American
Library Association. My name is Jim Rettig. I am University
Librarian at the University of Richmond in Virginia. I am also
President-Elect of the American Library Association, the oldest
and largest library association in the world, with some 66,000
members.
The importance of this hearing and the gravity of the
situation has caused the American Association of Law Libraries
to support my testimony and the stance of the American Library
Association.
Overall, the key issue to determine is whether or not EPA's
library plan is based on users' needs. Our sources have
repeatedly told us that EPA has not reached out to the EPA
library user community, the thousands of scientists,
researchers, and attorneys who use these resources daily, as
well as members of the public, who have benefited greatly from
access to these unique collections.
In light of that, I would like to address two issues.
First, the vital importance of access to scientific,
environmental, legal, and other government information for EPA
employees, scientists, and the American public. Second, the
necessity for the information specialists, the staff librarian,
to ensure the most effective access to this information.
Because there are fewer libraries and professional library
staff, scientists and the public will have less access to this
information.
So, let me first address the loss of valuable environmental
information. As one recently retired EPA librarian described
it, the EPA libraries once functioned as a virtual national
library for the environment. Because of its networking, both
technical and human, an interlibrary loan and reference
services, users of any EPA library had access to the
collections of all other sites. This cost-effective structure
provides wide access for staff and public.
Now that some of these regional libraries and the Chemical
Library here in Washington, D.C. are closed, key links have
been removed from the chain, weakening the whole. All EPA
library users suffer, not just those near closed facilities.
Further, the library community is deeply troubled by the
dispersing of materials from the closed libraries. What this
dispersement entails is not clear. We are concerned about how
the dispersed information has been handled, causing long-term
damage to EPA's effectiveness and the ability of the American
people to find important environmental and government
information.
Preservation of digital assets is also very important.
Without more detailed information about the EPA's digitization
project, we cannot assess whether it is digitizing the most
appropriate materials, whether there is appropriate metadata
and cataloging to make sure that people can access the digital
materials, or whether the technology that will be used to host
the digital contents meets today's standards.
While EPA has met with ALA staff on several occasions to
discuss this issue, it has consistently failed to act upon the
advice that came as a result of these meetings. This experience
with EPA underscores the need for the executive branch to
develop and implement effective and consistent approaches for
how government agencies undertake digitization of government
records and publications, and how they provide access to these.
The process of library improvements and/or closures, which
directly impacts access to these government materials, must be
coherent and user-focused, with proper planning and oversight
of the process.
Our second concern is what this means for EPA's information
specialists, its librarians. ALA understands that in the 21st
Century, people can access much of what they need from their
own desks. We also understand how complicated and costly the
move to digitization can be. But the bottom line is that
libraries still need skilled professionals to assist users, to
organize Internet access, to determine the best way to make
information available to those users, and to assure that
digitization projects adhere to standards.
Furthermore, traditional library users who are not
comfortable with web-based search engines put their trust in a
knowledgeable library professional. The EPA's environmental
collections are vast and deep, and a search engine just isn't
enough. With the loss of the brick and mortar facilities comes
the loss of the most important asset in the library, the
librarian. After all, what good is information if you can't
find it?
The future clearly calls for a hybrid, where not every
single item or service is online, nor is everything confined to
a physical structure. The hybrid's backbone is the profession
of skilled, knowledgeable, and helpful information specialists,
librarians.
In closing, ALA asks this committee to request EPA to
discuss with stakeholders how best to meet user needs and plan
for the future, base its actions upon these users' needs,
stabilize an inventory of the collections that have been put in
storage, develop and implement a government-wide process to
assist agencies to design effective digitization programs, and
reestablish the standard that Federal Government librarians
manage Federal Government libraries.
We appreciate your responsiveness, and look forward to
determining how we can save these collections, assure library
service for users, and maximize access to important
environmental information for staff, scientists, and the public
at large.
Thank you again for this opportunity to speak on behalf of
the American Library Association. I will be happy to take
questions from the Committee.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rettig follows:]
Prepared Statement of James R. Rettig
Chairman Miller, Congressman Sensenbrenner, and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me today to speak on behalf of the
American Library Association (ALA). I sincerely appreciate the
opportunity to comment on the closure of libraries in the EPA network.
My name is Jim Rettig, and I am the University Librarian of the
University of Richmond (VA). I am also the President-elect of the
American Library Association, the oldest and largest library
association in the world with some 66,000 members, primarily school,
public, academic, and some special librarians, but also trustees,
publishers, and friends of libraries. The Association provides
leadership for the development, promotion, and improvement of library
and information services and the profession of librarianship to enhance
learning and ensure access to information for all.
The importance of this hearing and the gravity of the situation has
caused the American Association of Law Libraries (AALL) to support my
testimony and the stance of the American Library Association. AALL is a
nonprofit educational organization with over 5,000 members nationwide
who respond to the legal information needs of legislators, judges, and
other public officials at all levels of government, corporations and
small businesses, law professors and students, attorneys, and members
of the general public.
Given the library community's mission, it should come as no
surprise that ALA has been so outspoken in its criticism of these
closures.
Overall, from the library standpoint, the key issue to determine is
whether or not the EPA's library plan is based on the end-users' needs.
We think not. Our sources have repeatedly told us that there has been
no outreach to the EPA Library user community--comprised of the
thousands of scientists, researchers, and attorneys who use these
resources on a daily basis, as well as members of the public who have
benefited greatly from access to these unique collections. Indeed,
there has been a lot of talk about getting information to a ``broader
audience,'' which EPA has repeatedly claimed is its primary goal, but
how do the steps being taken by EPA accomplish that? ALA doesn't see
how what's being done is connected to users' needs.
In light of that, I would like to address two issues:
<bullet> First, the vital importance of access to scientific,
environmental, legal, and other government information for EPA
employees, scientists and the American public. In the course of
shutting down these libraries, has valuable, unique
environmental information been lost or discarded?
<bullet> Second, the necessity of the information specialist--
the staff librarian--to ensure the most effective access to
this information. Because there are fewer libraries and
professional library staff, scientists and the public will have
limited access to this information. In an age of heightened
public awareness about the environment, it seems ironic that
the Administration would choose this time to limit access to
years of research about the environment.
So let me first address the loss of valuable environmental information.
Libraries and other cultural heritage institutions (archives,
museums, and historical societies) have been digitizing collections for
nearly 20 years. The digital resources provide access 365 days a year,
24 hours a day, regardless of where a user lives or works. Geographic
and political boundaries disappear. These digital resources meet
international and national standards and are created by librarians,
archivists, museum professionals, and representatives from the
photographic and audio industry, public broadcasting, and computer
industry.
As one recently retired EPA librarian described it, the EPA
libraries have been functioning like a virtual National Library on the
Environment. (Indeed, the EPA was at one time a leader in providing
public access to critical information in their collections.) This
``virtual'' EPA library network functioned as a single national system.
Because of its networking (both technical and human) and interlibrary
loan and mutual reference services, users in any EPA library had access
to the collections at all other sites. This structure is cost-effective
and provides wide access for staff and for the public.
Now that some of these regional libraries and the pesticide library
are closed, key links have been removed from the chain, thus weakening
the whole system. All EPA library users suffer, not just those closest
to the closed facilities. Where will people look for information about
their drinking water? Or which pesticides are safe? Or how much
pollution is in the air of their hometown? These issues are of the
utmost importance; our health and safety depend on them!
In a plan that was best described as ``convoluted and
complicated,'' materials from closed EPA libraries have been boxed and
sent to other locations where they are slowly being re-cataloged and
then sent back to the Headquarters Library here in Washington, DC--a
library that is now closed and that has no room to house these
resources. Other materials have been sent to Research Triangle Park or
the National Environmental Publications Internet Site (NEPIS) in
Cincinnati where they are slowly being digitized.
Before libraries begin a costly digitization project, we always
consider the needs of the current and future user communities. Digital
content must be created in a fashion assuring that it will be usable 25
and 50 years from now. We need to capture cataloging information--which
we call metadata--about each digital resource so that we can find these
resources now and in the future. Furthermore if we have to recreate a
resource the metadata tells us how we created it the first time, giving
us information such as what camera or which scanner we used to create a
digital image. All that information goes into the metadata, along with
the title, descriptive keywords, and publication data.
Further, the library community is deeply troubled by the
``dispersing'' of materials from the closed regional libraries and the
pesticide library here in Washington, DC. What this ``dispersement''
entails isn't clear at this point. We are concerned about how this
information has been handled, causing long-term damage to the EPA's
effectiveness and the ability of the American public to find important
environmental and government information.
Unfortunately, there continues to be a lot that we don't know:
exactly what materials have been being shipped around the country,
whether there are duplicate materials in other EPA libraries, whether
these items have been or will be digitized, and whether a record is
being kept of what is being dispersed and what is being discarded. We
remain concerned that years of research and studies about the
environment may be lost forever.
Will digital documents be listed in the Online Computer Library
Center (OCLC), an international database of the holdings of more than
41,555 libraries in 112 countries, making them available to other
research institutions? Is there metadata or cataloguing being created
to ensure that digital documents can be easily located on the web? What
will happen to the OCLC holdings information of the closed libraries?
EPA representatives have discussed the creation of a premier
digital library for the 21st century and making content from the EPA
libraries available to the general public as well as to EPA scientists.
To do that, the EPA will need what libraries call a web-enabled Digital
Asset Management system, which cannot only display the full range of
digital resources that are being converted but also the digital
resources of the future: audio, video, simulations, etc. Digital Asset
Management systems, or DAMs, provide the public with tools to locate
and display digital resources, but these systems can also allow the EPA
to provide access to authorized users. For example, if there is a
publication that contractually can only be viewed by the EPA
scientists, the EPA could digitize it, put it in the database, make the
metadata searchable, but allow it to be viewed only by those authorized
to view it. The DAM controls all of that through its authentication
system.
Preservation of digital assets is also very important. There are
already many stories of digitized collections that have been saved on
CDs, and when organizations have tried to access them the content is
not viewable. CDs and DVDs are fine transport media, but no longer are
they considered acceptable media for preservation. Networked storage
combined with retention of two or three physical copies in different
repositories is best preservation practice.
Without more detailed information about the EPA's digitization
project, we cannot assess whether it is digitizing the most appropriate
materials, whether there is appropriate metadata or cataloging to make
sure that people can access the digitized materials, and that the
technology that will be used to host the digital content and the
finding software meets today's standards. In the age of digital media
it has become easier and easier for information to simply get lost in
the shuffle, and there is no way of knowing if that's the case here.
Certainly, not all parts of each EPA library collection can be
digitized; they probably have some materials that are copyrighted, for
example. But there is so much specialized and unique material--
including reports already paid for by taxpayers--and we do not know if
these are part of the digitization projects. Further, we do not know
about how their maps or other specialized formats have faired, formats
that are very difficult and time-consuming to digitize.
In their haste to close down libraries and meet a fiscal deadline
without a clear plan, EPA has created arbitrarily established
deadlines. We continue to hear allegations from former and current EPA
staff, who do not wish to be identified, that hundreds of valuable
journals and books may have been destroyed. These staff members are
concerned that materials which are unique to EPA (and in some cases
exist nowhere else in the world) are no longer available.
EPA has also claimed in the past to have been following ALA
guidelines in its reorganization of holdings. In fact, as far as we can
tell, that meant visiting the ALA website and using our very general
guidelines about ``weeding'' library collections. Weeding is the
process of periodically removing materials from a library's collection.
Materials are weeded because they are out of date, in poor condition or
are unneeded multiple copies. ALA's weeding standards were never
intended for application in a digital environment.
While EPA has met with ALA staff on several occasions to discuss
this issue, it has consistently failed to act upon the advice that came
as a result of these meetings.
This experience with EPA underscores the need for the Executive
Branch to develop and implement effective and consistent approaches for
how government agencies undertake digitization of government records
and publications and how they provide access to them. The process of
library improvements and/or closures--which directly impacts access to
these government materials--needs to be coherent and user-focused, and
there must be proper planning and oversight of the process. The
government is the largest single producer of information, and the
information it produces is vital to public health and safety. As a
consequence, it is critically important that instead of a growing
patchwork of agency programs emerging--which may fail to satisfy user
information needs--that we put in place, effective and efficient public
access programs to reap the benefits of the digital environment.
Our second concern is what this means for the EPA's information
specialists, its librarians.
ALA understands that we are living in the 21st century, and users
can access much of what they need from their own desks. In the digital
environment the librarian's role is changing. We also understand how
complicated and costly the move to digitization can be. But the bottom
line is that libraries still need skilled professionals to a) assist
users, b) organize Internet access, c) determine the best way to make
the information available to those users, and d) assure that
digitization projects adhere to standards. When searching the EPA site,
one retrieves thousands of hits for a topic such as ``water.'' When
qualifying the search by a date range the results include items outside
that date range. The user will understandably wonder about the veracity
of the data and will need the assistance of a librarian.
Librarians are also needed to design the interfaces. The web makes
it possible to design customized interfaces--one for scientists, one
for teachers and students, and one for the general public.
Further, there are still traditional library users out there. Not
everyone does their searching via web-based search engines. Many would
still rather put their trust in the hands of a knowledgeable library
professional, someone who knows the materials inside and out. It has
been argued that the time of librarians is vanishing with the rise of
the Internet, but this is a case in point where that is just not so.
The EPA's environmental collections are vast and deep, and a simple
search engine just isn't enough. With the loss of the brick-and-mortar
facilities comes the loss of the most important asset in the library:
the librarian. After all, what good is information if you can't find
it?
The future clearly calls for a hybrid, where not every single item
or service is online, nor is everything confined to a physical
structure. And the backbone of it all is a profession of skilled,
knowledgeable, and, most importantly, helpful information specialists:
librarians.
In closing:
ALA asks that this committee request EPA to:
a) Discuss with stakeholders on how best to meet user needs
and plan for the future;
b) Base its actions upon these users' needs;
c) Stabilize and inventory the collections that have been put
in storage;
d) Develop and implement a government-wide process to assist
agencies to design effective digitization programs; and
e) Reestablish the standard that Federal Government librarians
manage Federal Government libraries.
We appreciate your responsiveness and look forward to determining
how we can save these collections, stabilize the library services for
users and understand how best to maximize access for staff, scientists,
and the public at large to important environmental information.
Thank you again for this opportunity to speak on behalf of the
American Library Association, and I am happy to take any questions from
the Committee.
Biography for James R. Rettig
James Rettig currently serves as university librarian at the
University of Richmond in Virginia. During 2007-2008 he is serving as
President-elect of the American Library Association, the world's oldest
and largest library association. He has held numerous leadership
position in the American Library Association, including a term on its
Executive Board 2003-2006. Since 1976 he has held reference librarian
and library administrative positions at Murray State University (KY),
the University of Dayton (OH), the University of Illinois at Chicago,
the College of William and Mary (VA), and the University of Richmond.
He has published and lectured widely on issues in library reference
service and has received awards for his work in that field. He is
listed in Who's Who in America, 2008, 62nd ed. He is married, the
father of three adult children, and is a resident of Williamsburg,
Virginia (Virginia 1st Congressional District).
Chairman Miller. Thank you, Mr. Rettig.
I understand the reason that we are being summoned to the
Floor is not a vote, but at 10:30, there will be a moment of
silence for the American servicemen and women who have died in
Iraq, so obviously, all of us, Mr. Hall and Ms. Johnson and I
would want to be there for that.
So, Ms. O'Neill, I think we can get your testimony in, and
still have time to get to the Floor.
Ms. O'Neill.
STATEMENT OF MS. MOLLY A. O'NEILL, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION, THE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL
INFORMATION (OEI); CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER (CIO), U.S.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Ms. O'Neill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. Thank
you for the opportunity to testify today about the progress EPA
is making on strengthening its national library network, and
ensuring that the information our employees and the American
public need to make sound decisions about the environment is
made available to them.
Let me begin by saying that I am fully committed to
enhancing the EPA national library network and providing the
broadest possible access to environmental information for EPA
staff and the public. As EPA's CIO, I am very much aware of the
opportunities that technology offers us to make more
environmental information accessible to an ever growing number
of users, both EPA staff and the public, regardless of their
location.
However, I also understand that some users need access in
more traditional formats, and that our professional librarians
play a valuable role in assisting our library users. The
network is comprised of 26 libraries, and provides multiple
methods for delivering information services: walk-in access to
collections and assistance, online resources, and interlibrary
loans. To ensure that the network was evolving and keeping pace
with the newer demands from a growing, diverse customer base,
EPA began reexamining its library model in 2003, to identify
new ways to deliver library service and meet customer needs in
a cost-effective manner.
While EPA implemented changes in the walk-in services in
some locations in 2006, we continued to provide a full range of
library services to EPA staff and the public. EPA appreciates
the thorough review the Government Accountability Office
recently conducted of the EPA library network operations. We
recognize the importance of transparency in our library
planning processes, and we worked hard to cooperate and assist
the GAO during this review.
The Agency has already taken many steps to address the
recommendations made in the GAO review. We placed a 90 day
moratorium on any changes at our libraries in mid-December
2006, in response to concern raised by a number of our
stakeholders. In late February 2007, this moratorium was
extended indefinitely in an effort to work more closely with
various concerned groups.
Since then, EPA has taken many steps to improve governance
and coordinate across EPA on enhancing these services. In early
2007, the EPA issued an interim national library network
policy, assigning the overall responsibility of the library
network to me, the Assistant Administrator of the Office of
Environmental Information. The policy established uniform
governance and management for the network, applicable to all
headquarters and regional offices that provide library
services. To implement the policy, a number of network-level
procedures and standards are being developed that will ensure
commonality in the way libraries operate across the network.
At the same time the policy was issued, EPA hired a highly
qualified professional librarian, with many years of
experience, as the Network National Program Manager. The new
Program Manager coordinates all network activities, and
provides strategic direction on planning, operations, and
outreach efforts.
EPA also increased outreach to outside parties on our
library operations and plans. We participated in a number of
meetings and conferences with professional associations such as
ALA, the Special Libraries Association, and the Union of
Concerned Scientists. The Agency has stepped up coordination
with other federal agencies on library operations. My staff is
working closely with the Federal Library and Information Center
Committee, FLICC, at the Library of Congress, on our plans for
the future of the network. FLICC has selected a Board of
Advisors, composed of federal library managers, to work
directly with the network to advise us on procedures,
operations, and future directions.
I want to assure the Subcommittee that as EPA implemented
improvements to the network, we continued to provide library
services to our customers. Customers continue to have access to
documents, either in person or via interlibrary loans. They
received help in answering reference and research questions,
and the Agency continues to enhance our offerings available
from our digital libraries.
EPA employees now have electronic access to more than
120,000 resources from their desktops. Also, we established
agreements between several of our libraries and the Centers of
Excellence within the network to allow us to leverage the
expertise available from other locations. Users of the services
offered via these agreements report high satisfaction with the
quality and timeliness of these services.
Moving forward, EPA continues to develop a long range plan
for a strong and effective library network, and we continue to
solicit input from both internal and external customers. In
recognition of our goal to provide the service our customers
need, we will be conducting a formal needs assessment to inform
future planning of the network. Of particular importance is
assuring EPA staff have access to the information they need to
do their jobs, and EPA is committed to working collaboratively
with EPA staff and union representatives on future changes to
the library network that may impact employees.
As part of the planning efforts, EPA is currently working
on a report to Congress pertaining to EPA's libraries requested
in the report language on the Consolidated Appropriations Act
of 2008. The report language directs the EPA to restore the
network of EPA libraries recently closed or consolidated, and
submit a report to the Committees on Appropriations regarding
the actions it will take to restore publicly available
libraries to provide environmental information and data to each
EPA region within 90 days of the enactment.
EPA's report will describe the Agency's plans to ensure on-
site support in each EPA region, the EPA Headquarters Library,
and the Office of Pollution and Pesticides and Toxic
Substances, our Chemical Library.
Finally, EPA is committed to examining ways to provide even
greater access to environmental information to meet customers'
needs. I believe that all of the Agency's information access
services, be they through EPA libraries, the EPA website, or
other Agency mechanisms, are components of a broader canvas
that supports our commitment to provide access to environmental
information.
On behalf of Administrator Johnson, thank you for inviting
me to speak with you today about our EPA national library
network and our ongoing efforts to strengthen it to make it a
premier environmental library network.
I am happy to address any questions that the Committee
might have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. O'Neill follows:]
Prepared Statement of Molly A. O'Neill
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the
Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today about the
progress EPA is making in strengthening its National Library Network
and ensuring that the information our employees and the American public
need to make sound decisions about their environment is available to
them. This testimony reflects my dual roles as the Chief Information
Officer (CIO) at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and as
the Assistant Administrator of the Office of Environmental Information
(OEI), where the National Library Network is now one of the programs I
oversee.
Introduction
Let me begin by saying that I am fully committed to enhancing the
EPA National Library Network (Network) and providing the broadest
possible access to environmental information for EPA staff and the
public As EPA's CIO, I am very much aware of the opportunities that
technology offers us to make more environmental information accessible
to an ever growing number of users, both EPA staff and the public,
regardless of their location. However, I also understand that some
users need access in more traditional formats and that our professional
librarians play a valuable role in assisting our library users. Our
vision is to be the premier model for the next generation of federal
libraries by enhancing our electronic tools to complement our
traditional library services.
The Network is comprised of twenty-six libraries, and provides
multiple methods for delivering information services--walk-in access to
collections and assistance, on-line resources, and interlibrary loans.
To ensure that the Network was evolving and keeping pace with newer
demands from a growing, diverse customer base, EPA began reexamining
its library model in 2003 to identify new ways to deliver library
services and meet customer needs in a cost-effective manner. While EPA
implemented changes in walk-in services in some locations in 2006, we
continued to provide the full range of library services to EPA staff
and the public.
EPA appreciates the thorough review the Government Accountability
Office (GAO) recently conducted of the EPA Library Network operations.
EPA recognizes the importance of transparency in our library planning
processes and worked hard to cooperate and assist GAO during its
review. The Agency has already taken many steps that address the
recommendations made in GAO's review.
Enhancing EPA's Library Network
We placed a 90-day moratorium on any changes at our libraries in
mid-December 2006 in response to concerns raised by a number of
stakeholders. In late February 2007, this moratorium was extended
indefinitely in an effort to work more closely with various concerned
groups. Since then, EPA has taken many steps to improve governance and
coordination across EPA on enhancing library services.
In early 2007, EPA issued an interim National Library Network
Policy assigning the overall responsibility for the Library Network to
the Assistant Administrator of the Office of Environmental Information.
The policy established uniform governance and management for the
Network, applicable to all headquarters and regional offices that
provide library services. To implement the policy, a number of Network-
level procedures and standards are being developed that will ensure
commonality in the way libraries operate across the Network.
At the same time the policy was issued EPA hired a highly qualified
professional librarian with many years of experience as the Network
national program manager. The new program manager coordinates all
Network activities, and provides strategic direction in all planning,
operations, and outreach efforts. These actions have been instrumental
in strengthening our network of librarians.
EPA also increased outreach to outside parties on our library
operations and plans. We participated in a number of meetings and
conferences with professional associations such as the American Library
Association, the Special Libraries Association, and the Union of
Concerned Scientists. Whether as speakers at national meetings,
exhibitors during the meetings, or in open conversation with
association staff or members, we have requested input on Network
operations, service delivery and future plans for the Network. We have
also provided additional information online for the general public
about our library operations and future plans.
The Agency has also stepped up coordination with other federal
agencies on library operations. My staff is working closely with the
Federal Library and Information Center Committee (FLICC) at the Library
of Congress on our plans for the future of the Network. FLICC has
selected a board of advisors composed of federal library managers to
work directly with the Network to advise us on procedures, operations,
and future directions.
I want to assure the Subcommittee that as EPA implemented
improvements to the Network, we continued to provide library services
to our customers. Customers continued to have access to documents,
either in person or via interlibrary loans. They received help in
answering reference and research questions, and the Agency continues to
enhance our offerings available from our digital libraries. EPA
employees now have electronic access to more than 120,000 resources
from their desktops. Also, we established agreements between several of
our libraries and Centers of Excellence within the Network to allow us
to leverage the expertise available from other locations. Users of the
services offered via these agreements report high satisfaction with the
quality and timeliness of these services. For example, a 2007 survey of
federal customers who requested literature searches rated EPA high in
the relevance, timeliness and completeness of results.
Moving Forward
EPA continues to develop a long range plan for a strong and
effective Library Network, and will continue to solicit input from both
internal and external customers. In recognition of our goal to provide
the service our customers need we will be conducting a formal needs
assessment to inform future planning for the Network. Of particular
importance is ensuring EPA staff has access to the information they
need to do their jobs, and EPA is committed to working collaboratively
with EPA staff and union representatives on future changes to the EPA
Library Network that may impact employees.
As part of the planning efforts, EPA is currently working on a
Report to Congress pertaining to EPA libraries requested in the report
language on the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008. The report
language directs EPA ``to restore the Network of EPA libraries recently
closed or consolidated. . .'' and ``to submit a report to the
Committees on Appropriations regarding actions it will take to restore
publicly available libraries to provide environmental information and
data to each EPA region within 90 days of enactment of this Act.''
EPA's report will describe the Agency's plans to ensure on-site support
in each EPA Region, the EPA Headquarters Library, and the Office of
Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances (OPPTS) Chemical Library.
Finally, EPA is committed to examining ways to provide even greater
access to environmental information to meet customers' needs. I believe
that all of the Agency's information access services, be they through
EPA libraries, the EPA Website, or other Agency mechanisms, are
components of a broader canvas that supports our commitment to provide
access to environmental information. To solicit input on how EPA might
enhance access to information, the Agency is conducting a National
Dialogue with key stakeholders over the next several months. Based on
this input, EPA plans to develop a long term Strategy for enhancing
access to environmental information, including library services.
Conclusion
On behalf of Administrator Johnson, thank you for inviting me to
speak with you today about the EPA National Library Network and our
ongoing work to strengthen it and make it the premier environmental
library network in the country. I would be happy to address any
questions that you may have at this time.
Chairman Miller. Thank you, and our questioning will take
place after we return from the Floor, so we are at ease.
[Recess.]
Discussion
Access to EPA Library Services
Chairman Miller. Well, the moment of silence was a little
more optional than I had thought. There was not every Member
present, but I am glad that I was able to go and join in it,
and I apologize for the disruption.
Mr. Hall, in what I assume was sincere compliments of my
renown as a lawyer, I am reminded that judges, in North
Carolina at least, tell juries that they should judge the
evidence not by its quantity, but by its quality and convincing
force, but Ms. O'Neill, I still cannot help but notice that you
are badly outnumbered, that every--all of the other witnesses
tell a very different tale. Their testimony was very different
from yours.
In your testimony, you discussed the future network
services that would bring EPA materials to EPA employees and to
the public, including the scientists who rely upon the EPA
libraries, but your testimony is relatively silent, or soft-
spoken, on what is available today, other than to say broadly
that EPA continues to make, and to provide the full range of
library services to EPA staff and the public.
And that certainly sounds like there has been no change in
the access that the EPA staff has or the public has to EPA's
library materials. Is that your testimony?
Ms. O'Neill. Well, let me clarify, that is my testimony,
but let me clarify. I think the services are there. They may be
different, in terms of the libraries where we have closed the
walk-in service, where there was obviously a physical librarian
there. And that service is still there, in terms of being able
to have reference checks and research and obtaining
information, they just go through a different mechanism. So,
where we don't have the physical presence of the library, the
EPA staff have a number and a website to go to, to actually get
some services for help, and we have Centers of Excellence where
we have librarians there helping them find information that
they need.
Availability of Library Materials
Chairman Miller. And is it your testimony that all the same
materials are available that were available before?
Ms. O'Neill. I can't testify that all the materials, all
documents and materials are there that they were there before,
but the key, unique documents are available to them.
The other thing is that we have arrangements with other
libraries, so if they were general documents that we have, in
our libraries, we had a lot of general documents, whether they
be magazines or something that can go to a public library, but
we have tried to ensure that they have as much as, there as we
possibly can, based on the need.
Chairman Miller. There has been considerable testimony, and
I think part of the GAO's findings, that some materials were
just thrown away. Did you keep a catalog of what was thrown
away?
Ms. O'Neill. It is not, to my knowledge, nothing was thrown
away. There were some things that were outdated, that they went
through, we had guidelines for each, excuse me, for each of the
regional office to have, in terms of as they went through the
materials in their portfolio of things, if this is a document
that is unique, it needs to be tagged for digitization, and we
also need to make sure it goes, and to see if we have a copy in
our central repository.
Where there were journals, where we had other copies in
other locations, they were tagged for recycling. I don't know
of anything that was actually--or we were, we offered those
materials up to other libraries first.
So, there was a whole process that went through this, in
terms of what to do with the materials that were either
duplicative in nature, or that no one wanted, or they weren't
unique to EPA.
Chairman Miller. Okay. Mr. Orzehoskie, I----
Mr. Orzehoskie. Yes, sir.
Chairman Miller. Apologize for difficulty----
Mr. Orzehoskie. Everyone in my life has had difficulty with
my name.
Chairman Miller. Well, that is reassuring. I grew up in the
South, there was not a lot of ethnic diversity. Everyone kind
of came from Northern Europe or from Africa, but had European
names, and had done that a long time ago. And so, I am less
familiar than some Members in dealing with ethnic names or not
Northern European and Western European names.
If I don't act as country, it is----
Mr. Orzehoskie. You did very well.
Chairman Miller.--it is because until recently, I have
lived exclusively in North Carolina, and have not had to act
Southern, because I simply was Southern. So, I don't have quite
the practice in acting Southern.
Mr. Orzehoskie. Well, my son lives in Louisiana, so I do, I
know what you are talking about.
More on Access to EPA Library Services
Chairman Miller. You have said that the access to EPA
services--or do you agree that access to services and resources
have not really changed since the beginning of Fiscal Year
2007?
Mr. Orzehoskie. Well, I think at Region 5, they have
changed dramatically. Now, I can't--you know, I don't use the
library in my current position much as a Union person. I have
talked to some Union members that have had difficulty accessing
some information, but the library itself is totally gone. I
mean, the area where the library was is an empty room. Even the
bookshelves and the materials are gone, and there is no
reference librarian in Region 5 that I know of.
Chairman Miller. All right.
Mr. Orzehoskie. We were told that we could get some
information from Cincinnati if we wanted to, but now, I hear we
can go down to the street to our public library and get it, but
I don't know how many people will be walking in and out of our
offices and going down to the public library on a regular
basis.
Chairman Miller. You could, however, pick up John Grisham's
latest there.
Mr. Orzehoskie. Yes.
When Did EPA Develop Library Commonality Procedures and
Outreach?
Chairman Miller. Ms. O'Neill, you have just, in your
printed testimony, I think, in the answer to the previous
question, you said that EPA was developing network standard
procedures to ensure commonality, you were hiring highly
qualified professional librarians to coordinate the network,
that you had increased outreach to outside parties, and you
were conducting a formal needs assessment to plan for your
future service.
Did you do all of that before implementing the closures, or
is that something you are doing now?
Ms. O'Neill. We haven't started the formal needs
assessment. That is something that we plan on doing very, in
the short, in the near future. It has come out of our working
with our Union, excuse me, with our library network. This is
something that our librarians have mentioned that we need to do
collectively, and we are committed to doing that.
So, we have been trying to engage in discussions with our
librarians throughout the country, and what, really where we
need to go, and that is one of the suggestions that came out.
That is why I was really glad to hear it in the testimony from
two other testimonies here, because that is on our queue to do.
In terms of reaching out, I can only speak to say that we
did do some outreach, but we have done a lot more in the last
year. I can tell you that.
Chairman Miller. So, the sense I get from all the other
witnesses is that, as you have just said, it really began after
EPA had already implemented the closures and the cutbacks.
Would it not have made sense, a great deal more sense, to do
that before implementing the budget reductions and the
closings, rather than after?
Ms. O'Neill. Well, let me just be real clear here, just for
the record. I must say that I started at EPA in January of
2007, so what I speak about is what I have been told, and what
I have read about. There was outreach before the closures of
the libraries, but I can't tell you, but since January, there
has been additional outreach from the libraries, so I think it
has been documented that we didn't do any, and I don't think
that that is true. I think that we did do some outreach to
different communities, in terms of getting some ideas.
A lot of the--was mentioned earlier about some of the--we
started looking at this, I think, back in 2003, and as part of
that, we did look at other procedures that were out there, from
different associations, and we did talk to some of these
associations during, over the course of those years as well.
Chairman Miller. I assume that all of the other witnesses
would have been the outreachees?
Mr. Orzehoskie. Well, you know, I know they have never
reached out to the Union, and I think my testimony reflects
that, and that we have had to file grievances, and you know,
Unfair Labor Practices, just to get where we are, and even
after getting an Arbitrator to agree to an issue in negotiating
with us, they still haven't.
Chairman Miller. Okay. Mr. Stephenson.
Mr. Stephenson. Think about what was just said by EPA. They
are in the process of thinking about doing a needs assessment
to determine what their users need right now. Why wouldn't you
do that first? That is what their own 2003/2004 study
recommended. How can you assess your inventories of materials
and decide what you need and don't need, and throw anything
away or not before you do that?
And Ms. O'Neill doesn't know whether they threw out any
materials. We don't know whether they threw out any materials,
because they haven't inventoried their materials to determine
what best to do with them. The whole thing is kind of
backwards. We are closing libraries first, as I said, and now,
we are beginning to do the analysis that should have been done
in the first place.
Chairman Miller. The GAO is generally noted for very
temperate, qualified, cautious reports.
Mr. Stephenson. Fact-based.
Chairman Miller. Fact-based. I think if Harry Truman wanted
to find a one-handed economist, he probably would have
certainly wanted to find a one-handed GAO employee, but you
seem to be one-handed on this.
Dr. Grifo, what has been your experience in outreach? I
assume that the Union of Concerned Scientists or your members
would have been one of the important clients, and what contact
did you receive, and what are you receiving now?
Dr. Grifo. We actually didn't receive any, prior to our
initiation of contact. I mean, it was only after we generated
the phone calls, and they essentially, you know, called us and
begged us to stop, to make the phone calls stop so they could
use that phone line, that we actually met with them, and began
our dialogue. There was nothing ahead of time.
Chairman Miller. Okay. Mr. Rettig.
Mr. Rettig. The closings brought this to ALA and ALA
members' attention, and we have been concerned ever since, and
remain concerned. There are many resources for planning
digitization projects right here within the Federal Government.
The National Science Foundation Institute for Museum and
Library Services, the National Endowments Humanities have made
grants of millions and millions of dollars over the years to
develop the standards for digitization and digital libraries.
Chairman Miller. And my time has expired. Mr. Hall is
recognized for five minutes.
EPA Actions Since the Senate Hearings
Mr. Hall. Well, I don't--I am not sure I have any
questions. I have been gone, and I don't know what has been
asked. I hate to be repetitious, but I do know the importance
of libraries, and I know that that there is some problem here,
and I am not sure what the problem is, but I think this is a
good place to work it out, and hammer it out, and find out what
has happened, and what ought to happen, and how you can make
that happen. And I presume that is the Chairman's intent, is to
get to the bottom of it, not to set blame or punish anyone, but
to, how to improve it, and make something work. Libraries, the
Southern Association, when they go to university, they are the
accrediting entity of state colleges and universities, when
they go anywhere to any university to talk about granting them
a doctoral program, the very first place they go is to the
library, and that is how important it is, and that is how very
important probably this hearing is, so I guess the only way I
can be helpful, and there is no one here to be helpful but me
on this side of the docket, so I am about the best we got going
right now.
If libraries have changed over the last 10 or 15 years,
that may ought to be some input. If attendance to their use has
dropped in recent years, maybe that ought to be talked about.
If there is any efforts to engage or not to engage internal APA
constituency like scientists unions or external users, I would,
maybe that is important, and maybe this Chairman has gone into
all that while I was not here, but I might ask to Ms. O'Neill,
what has EPA done since last year's hearing with the Senate to
take steps to rectify whatever the problems are, whether you
agree they exist or not?
Ms. O'Neill. Since I think the hearing in SEPW was February
of 2007, I was there, I believe, and I can't remember if it was
before or after that we put the--it was right around the same
time, we put the--there had been a 90-day moratorium put out in
December for making any changes to the library. That includes
through any more recycling or taking collections away and
things like that, going through the criteria to do that.
Given where we were, and a lot of the concerns that were
out there, and quite frankly, because we also want to make sure
that we are doing things in a way that makes sense, and in a
direction that is the correct direction, in around February, I
don't know the exact date, we put another moratorium out
indefinitely, and that has not lifted, so there haven't been
any changes since then.
So, we haven't had any changes, in terms of reducing hours,
or closing any libraries since late 2006. The only thing that
we asked them to do is just continue to look at those unique
documents, so that when we do do digitization, that we will be
ready to do that for those--in libraries that hadn't closed. We
had already gone through that for the library closed.
Mr. Hall. Is that for those that the Chairman laid out in
his opening statement? Have you addressed those concerns while
I have been gone?
EPA Report to Congress
Ms. O'Neill. In my testimony, I think I tried to tell what
we were trying--what we were doing. Right now, we are in the
process of finalizing a report to Congress that will put
together the plan for how we are going to reestablish the
physical libraries in the regions that have closed, as well as
in our headquarters and Chemical Libraries that closed, so we
are working very closely with the regions and headquarters to
make sure we do that, in a way that makes a lot of good sense.
And based on what we have learned over the last year, as
well, and beyond that, we want to make sure that plan addresses
the libraries that maybe reduced their hours and made some
changes last year that maybe didn't close, but that we
established some minimum standards for our entire network.
Mr. Hall. And have you shared that plan with those that are
testifying here?
Ms. O'Neill. Not yet. The plan is not due until the end of
March. So, it is coming, and we are on schedule to deliver
that.
Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, I guess I would ask unanimous
consent for Mr. Sensenbrenner to send whatever questions. He
will read the testimony, and then, he will have some questions.
I don't really have any further questions for the witness, and
I thank you very much.
Chairman Miller. Without objection, Mr. Sensenbrenner's
questions will be submitted to all of you to answer.
After--I do disagree with my distinguished colleague about
the purpose of oversight hearings. Sometimes, it is to place
blame. That is one of the things oversight does, is look at
what has happened, and when what happened shouldn't have
happened, yes, place blame, criticize harshly what has
happened. If there is no consequence to bad conduct, it will
happen again and again. I know there are some time, Mark
McGwire leaps to mind, who say let us not dwell on the past.
Let us look to the future. But if we don't look to the past and
place blame, if blame is merited, then it will happen again,
without consequence.
I understand that the report will be due at the end of
March, and you all will be given some opportunity to respond
before it is produced. It sounds like you are not going to have
very long to respond. How long would you expect, Ms. O'Neill,
how much time will the various interested parties, the
stakeholders, to use the jargon, have to review the document
before it is final?
I believe you just said that it would be, it was due at the
end of March, that is this month, and they hadn't received it
yet. Would they be given an opportunity to comment before it
was released? Is that right?
Ms. O'Neill. I would have to check and see what the entire
schedule is, but this is----
Chairman Miller. I am sorry, what did you say?
Ms. O'Neill. I am sorry. I would have to check to see what
the schedules, in terms of where we are in our internal review
right now, which is where we are right now. We were planning, I
know, briefing the Union on this. We were waiting for the
arbitration hearing to see how things were done, and to also,
what we needed to do, in terms of getting this out. But I have
to tell you, I mean, internally, we have been spending a lot of
time trying, within our own organization, trying to figure out
what we can do, in terms of each of these regional areas.
They are all different, and as many of you mentioned here,
Region 5, we have the libraries physically gone. In Region 7
and 6, we have--so, we have to establish a brand new library,
and some of the other regions, we have to--we have different
concerns, and we have been spending a lot of time with--in the
places that we have closed, to figure out what we can do.
Chairman Miller. And the report is, the report to Congress
is due at the end of this month, and if you are not talking to
the employees of the EPA, if you are not talking to scientists
who are the clients of the libraries, if you are not talking to
the librarians, who are you talking to?
Ms. O'Neill. We are talking to those people. In fact, we
have been working with our library network. We have been
working with the management. We have internally been working
very hard on this, and we have been briefing, I know we are
briefing some of these organizations, in terms of what the
plans are. I am not sure we have gotten to all of them.
Effect of Library Closings on EPA Employees
Chairman Miller. Mr. Orzehoskie, in my opening statement, I
said that my understanding what was the abrupt closing and
boxing up of materials had hobbled EPA's employees' ability to
do their job. Could you--and that was based upon what I
understood from your testimony and from others, but could you
kind of give us a sense of the practical effect of the closings
and reduced services available from the libraries, the
practical effect it has on EPA's employees' ability to do their
job?
Mr. Orzehoskie. Well, it has an array of effects, and I am
not the best to be a library expert. I am a Union guy, but I
have talked to some of our people, and we had testimony at our
arbitration. And the main thing, in general, is that there is
no place to go, within EPA Region 5 offices, to get library
assistance, okay.
We are told, and I have talked to some people who can get
help through Cincinnati over the telephone, or through the
computer network, to get some research. It takes days, now, so
when you are doing something that is really timely, those
delays can be very critical. If you are going to be testifying
at an enforcement hearing the next day or two days later, you
may not have time to wait to go to a remote location and get
your information.
I have had people tell me that some of the technical
journals that are not necessarily reproducible, because they
are copyrighted, and some of the technical reference material,
individuals have actually purchased, because they can't wait
for delays, and in some cases, can't get it digitized anyway.
Those kinds of things.
And if you saw the picture that was up there of all those
boxes, I mean, if you wanted one of the documents in that box,
how would you get it?
Chairman Miller. How would you know where it was?
Mr. Orzehoskie. Exactly.
Chairman Miller. Dr. Grifo.
Progress Report on Digitization
Dr. Grifo. I think it is interesting that, you know, we
still haven't heard a progress report on the digitization. I
mean, we are talking about, okay, these libraries are gone,
they are physically not there, and we have talked about the
kinds of things that are replacing them, I mean, the desktop
libraries, the digitization of some things, and so on, the
interlibrary loan system. But I think it is important to
understand, and this number comes from one of the EPA's own
documents, that those things, even when that digitization is
complete, even when those documents, those unique documents,
which are really all EPA documents, are made available
electronically, that that is really less than one percent of
the holdings of the libraries.
So, I think our concern is with all of these other
documents. I mean, there are, you know, reference materials,
copyrighted materials, older journals. I mean, there is a whole
long list of things, particularly, you know, documents produced
by contractors, documents produced specifically for guidance,
as background for guidance and determinations. I mean, if we
think back to the complexity of the mandate of the
Environmental Protection Agency, I may not have the number
exactly right, but it is something like, you know, 14 pieces of
legislation that govern this Agency, and many of those have
very specific instructions about best available science,
science-based information, and how is this to happen if these
things, if these very important resources have been essentially
in limbo, inaccessible, you know, unreachable, unusable for now
going on, what, 17 months, a very long time? How many decisions
have been made in that 17 months without the best available
science there for them to be used?
Chairman Miller. Thank you. I know the red light has come
on, but Mr. Stephenson, I would like to give you a chance to
address this as well. Your point of view is not that of a
stakeholder, but someone who has, I assume, entered upon the
question without preconception.
Mr. Stephenson. Well, in these cases, we rely on others
with their expert opinion, and I think Dr. Grifo mentioned that
they did a survey of EPA's own scientists, and they admitted
that it impaired their ability to do their job. The Federal
Arbitrator, when he rendered his decision, said that was one of
the factors in his decision, that EPA's actions affected the
employees' abilities to do their jobs. So, you don't have to
believe GAO. We didn't have to find anything original.
There is all kinds of evidence out there that, in fact,
these documents are in limbo, and--or there is one percent or
not. EPA at this point doesn't know what it should digitize,
and what it should not digitize. Should it make a PDF file out
of it? Should it make a searchable file out of it? It hasn't
inventoried what it has, and gone through the process of
determining what makes the most sense for this individual
document.
Chairman Miller. My time has expired. Mr. Hall.
Mr. Hall. Well, I am not here to, as a protector of EPA,
nor as an admirer of EPA. I have, I represent a state that is
an energy state, and we have had a lot of problems with the
EPA, and seeking answers to them, and when they wouldn't give
us answers, we have sent up amendments to give them 30 days to
say yes or no, and not caring whether they said yes or no, but
to give us an answer we could appeal from.
And that really hasn't worked too well, so--but I want to
be fair with the lady that is here to offer her knowledge and--
of the past, and what is present, and what they intend to do,
and then, I guess that is the duty of this Chairman, and of
those of us who are asking you questions, to lay that out, and
to be helpful to you if we can be, to pull you together, and
give us instructions, and if it, your purposes here to tell us
whether we need further legislation, what to do about the
future, and I haven't heard anybody say, or make any
suggestions on that, but I haven't been here, so you might have
made your suggestions.
But I have found EPA hard to deal with, and I wouldn't take
an appointment as the Administrator of EPA if it paid $10
million a year, because there is no way in the world you can do
your job. If you do what Congress tells you to do, you are
going to get sued, and if you don't, you are going to get sued.
So, it is a tough situation.
I think they could be better in answering and giving
definite answers, and not stall anybody that wants to build a
$100 million refinery when gas prices are going to $4 a gallon,
when they want an approval of a request for a permit, and just
not to act on it, because you can't appeal on a no action. You
have to have either a turn down or an approval, and we set it
up to where if they made, and I think it is in the Energy Act a
year and a half ago, had an amendment there that said if we
made a request, or industry made a request to build or to
upgrade a refinery, that they would have 30 days, EPA would
have 30 days to answer that, not caring if they said yes or no,
because you can appeal from what they do. You can't appeal from
nothing, and somehow, EPA was strong enough to knock that out,
and we didn't get that in that Act.
But I am not here to uphold EPA, but to be fair with Ms.
O'Neill, and give her a chance to answer any questions that you
all have set up, and Mr. Sensenbrenner will look at the
information that you have, that will go of record. The Chairman
will see that all of your testimony goes into the record, and
your presentation that you read from initially, and he will
have some questions.
So, Mr. Chairman, I don't have anything further to say. I
yield back my time, and I thank you for it.
Chairman Miller. Thank you, Mr. Hall.
More on EPA's Report to Congress
Ms. O'Neill, I have a few more questions about the report
that will be due in just a couple weeks, that you spoke about a
minute or two ago. Who precisely is participating in preparing
the report?
Ms. O'Neill. Excuse me. We have been working with our, at
OEI, obviously, we take the lead. Our Office of Environmental
Information takes the lead to do the response, so we are
working closely with our library network, as well as, with our
network of libraries for the----
Chairman Miller. Which--well----
Ms. O'Neill.--as well as the regions and the headquarters
and the Chemical Library that are affected with this.
Chairman Miller. Well, I think my question what I am trying
to get at is exactly which EPA employees are preparing the
report, doing the work and putting it together?
Ms. O'Neill. There are people from my staff, and there are,
I am not sure if there are, who is actually writing it beyond
that, in terms of the library network, that they have written
parts of, but a lot of my staff are.
Chairman Miller. So, it is your office that is preparing
it.
Ms. O'Neill. That is correct.
Chairman Miller. Okay. And it will be ready in two weeks,
or----
Ms. O'Neill. Yes.
Chairman Miller.--17 days, whatever is left.
Ms. O'Neill. Yes, we will be responsive.
Chairman Miller. Okay. And to whom are you submitting it
for review before it is released?
Ms. O'Neill. I believe we are, and I apologize for not
knowing the full process here, this is the first time I have
had to do an appropriations response, so I know right now, it
is an internal review with our Office of Financial, or
Financial Officer right now, just to make sure it is an
appropriations request, to see if we have fully answered the
request.
Chairman Miller. What about OMB?
Ms. O'Neill. I don't know. I am assuming it is going.
Chairman Miller. You are assuming?
Ms. O'Neill. It is going.
Chairman Miller. That OMB will see it.
Ms. O'Neill. I don't know for a fact.
Is EPA Briefing Stakeholders on the Report?
Chairman Miller. Okay. A moment ago, Ms. O'Neill said that
stakeholders were being briefed in advance. Is that correct?
Ms. O'Neill. To my knowledge, I believe we talked about
this yesterday in my, in one of my briefings, that we were
going to reach out to--if we had time, obviously, if we had an
opportunity to reach out to the--if there is a union meeting
set up or something to reach out and talk to the unions,
because we talked about, when the arbitration hearing came
down, what we can do, in terms of telling them what was going
to be in the plan.
Beyond that, quite frankly, I will have to get back to you
on specifically who else we have reached out to, external to
EPA.
Chairman Miller. Mr. Orzehoskie, have you been briefed,
or--do you know if the AFGE has been briefed or consulted in
any way?
Mr. Orzehoskie. As far as I know, AFGE has not been
briefed. I know I personally have not.
Chairman Miller. Right.
Mr. Orzehoskie. And I think that is my concern, she said if
we had time. You know, we went to arbitration. We have a
Federal Arbitrator say they are supposed to negotiate with us,
and she says if they have time, they might talk to us.
Chairman Miller. And that time would come in the next two
weeks. Ms. O'Neill said if there was a meeting already
scheduled or not. Could you schedule a meeting just for this?
Mr. Orzehoskie. Well, certainly.
Chairman Miller. All right. I thought you might be able to
work that into your schedule. How about Dr. Grifo, has Union of
Concerned Scientists or scientists individually been consulted,
briefed, that you know of?
Dr. Grifo. Not to my knowledge, but we would be happy to
set up a meeting on a moment's notice, almost.
Chairman Miller. All right. Well, it sounds like that is
what you will get.
Dr. Grifo. That is okay.
Chairman Miller. You might want to clear your calendar for
March 30 and 31.
Dr. Grifo. Good enough.
Chairman Miller. Mr. Rettig, how about you. How about the
librarians?
Mr. Rettig. Well, the ALA Washington office staff would be
the contact for that, and they have not informed me of any such
discussions to date.
Chairman Miller. Would you expect that they would?
Mr. Rettig. We certainly hope so, and we would be very
willing to enter into dialogue.
Chairman Miller. Okay. But would you expect that the
Washington office would have told you, would have mentioned it
to you?
Mr. Rettig. I don't know how many times I have spoken with
staff at the Washington office this week. It would have come up
then, I am sure.
Chairman Miller. Okay. It seems like something might come
up, particularly since you were testifying today. And you might
want to suggest to the librarians that they keep the 30th and
31st of March free as well for consultation before the report
is released.
Effect of Librarian Loss on EPA Employees
Mr. Rettig, I know I asked Mr. Orzehoskie and Dr. Grifo
about the--how the day to day work of EPA employees and
scientists was affected by the closing and limiting of the
libraries, but how is the loss of librarians, what role do they
play, and how does that affect employee effectiveness, and the
effectiveness for scientists in doing their research?
Mr. Rettig. Librarians bring an added value to any
organization that operates on information. Not every scientist
can know where all of the information that might be relevant to
his or her work is available. This is what librarians
specialize in. This is what we do. We help connect people to
that relevant information that they can use. This is not
something that one, you know, picks up just even from day to
day experience. It requires education and study, and we believe
that it is essential that if a federal agency is going to call
something a library, that it be managed by librarians.
Is EPA Reaching Out to Communities With Library Closures?
Chairman Miller. Okay. Ms. O'Neill, Ms. Eddie Bernice
Johnson was here earlier, but was not able to come back after
the moment of silence, but she is particularly interested in
Dallas, Texas. We are all proudly parochial in our jobs in the
House. That is our job. And the regional library there, of
course, was closed.
The public, in addition to the EPA employees in that
region, relied on that office, as did the public. What are you
all doing to reach out specifically to the people in the
regions where the libraries are closed, and most specifically,
to Dallas? Or they should be available on March 30 or 31, for
consultation?
Ms. O'Neill. No. No, we have been working with the regions,
as I mentioned over the past two months, in terms of what the
needs are, in terms of reestablishing the physical presence.
Dallas is not--is one of those regions that we are working
with.
Chairman Miller. Who precisely are you talking about?
Ms. O'Neill. I would have to get back to you on the exact
names, but I am sure we have been coordinating through the ARA,
the Assistant Regional Administrator, and his staff there.
Chairman Miller. And they have been talking to members of
the public who use that library?
Ms. O'Neill. I can't answer that question for the record.
Chairman Miller. Okay. We are obviously being called to the
Floor for something. Mr. Hall, do you have any questions at
this point?
Mr. Hall. I will ask one question. Ms. O'Neill, is there
anything that we haven't asked you that you would like for us
to ask you, to where you can give us full information that you
have for these four people that are sitting by you there?
Ms. O'Neill. Yeah, thank you for the opportunity. Just, you
know, we have talked a little bit about, a little bit, and I
recognize that we don't have a lot of time here, about the plan
that is coming out to reestablish the physical presence in the
actual regions and headquarters, and the Chemical Library, that
have closed. I also want to just say for the record, one of the
things that we are doing, because we have been listening to
people, we have spent a lot of time in the last year reaching
out to people, is that beyond that, we are actually looking at
establishing some minimum standards for those libraries that
have remained open, but to make sure everyone is on the same,
and has the same amount of good quality service, that we have
standard hours in place, and things like that. So, we really
have gone out and listened, in terms of some of the things that
people are concerned about. So, the report will also address
that as well.
More on the EPA Report to Congress
Mr. Hall. And is your deadline for support set by someone
above, and within the EPA, or is that Congressional, or who
sets that deadline that you are trying to meet?
Ms. O'Neill. Yeah, there is a Congressional deadline,
actually. I believe it is the 26th, so the time would be before
that, Mr. Chairman, or the 30th or 31st.
Mr. Hall. And that is--and you intend to comply with that.
Ms. O'Neill. We have to comply with that. But we, I will
say, even after the report is written, we do plan on meeting
with a lot of the folks outside to get the details of the plan,
to make sure, because some of these, as I have mentioned, each
region has a different, is in a different place right now, so
we have to really work through some of the details, in terms of
buildouts, what the requirements are going to be for each of
these libraries, and things like that. And we have got to, we
have got a very good idea of what those things are, but we can
certainly have some of these other folks that are interested in
working with us identify some of the details to that, but----
Mr. Hall. Do you seek any of their advice on when you are
writing out your report? It would seem like Mr. Rettig would be
a great source for you.
Ms. O'Neill. Yes, and as I mentioned earlier, we have been
very, very busy internally, making sure that we can meet our
commitment, okay, both from a financial standpoint--but one of
the things we don't want to do, quite frankly, is reestablish
these libraries, and then not have the commitment to make sure
that they continue beyond next year. And so, one of the things
we have been really working with is to make sure there is a
commitment financially as well, to make sure that we open them,
and that they stay open, meeting the requirements that we are
putting in place.
Mr. Hall. And I can't see Charlie's last name, but he
represents an awful lot of people that are looking to him to
represent them, and to give them advice, and would he not be a
good reference for you, someone to work with?
Ms. O'Neill. Yes, he would, sir.
Mr. Hall. I would yield back my time.
Reopening EPA Libraries
Chairman Miller. Thank you, Mr. Hall. We do have a few more
minutes, because the vote will be a procedural vote, and it
usually is left open for a while.
Ms. O'Neill, I have a few questions that are not essay
questions or even short answer questions, but really are true/
false questions, or yes or no questions.
Will the EPA reopen the three closed regional libraries
this fiscal year?
Ms. O'Neill. Yes.
Chairman Miller. That is your commitment.
Ms. O'Neill. Yes.
Chairman Miller. Will you reopen the headquarters library
this fiscal year?
Ms. O'Neill. Yes.
Chairman Miller. That is your commitment.
Ms. O'Neill. Yes.
Chairman Miller. Will the EPA reopen the Chemical Library
this fiscal year?
Ms. O'Neill. Yes.
Chairman Miller. And that is your commitment.
Ms. O'Neill. Yes.
Chairman Miller. Okay. Mr. Stephenson, again, thank you for
the GAO's report, for your work on this. It certainly sounds
like there may be the occasion for more work. Will the GAO be
ready to assess what happens from this point forward?
Mr. Stephenson. We respond to all requests.
Chairman Miller. Well, I appreciate that you will respond.
I hope the response will be yes, you will do the report,
additional report.
All right. Thank you all for appearing. We do need to go
for votes, and I think that we don't really have time for
closing statements, but I think we have all made our views
pretty well known. So, thank you for appearing, and this may
not be the last time.
And under the rules of the Committee, the record will be
held open for two weeks for Members to submit additional
statements, and any additional questions, including from Mr.
Sensenbrenner, that they might have for the witnesses, and I
ask now for unanimous consent to enter a packet of materials in
the record. Hearing no objection, the materials will be entered
in the record.
And the hearing is now adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 11:27 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix 1:
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
<SKIP PAGES = 000>
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by John B. Stephenson, Director, Natural Resources and
Environment, Government Accountability Office
Q1. You stated in your testimony that EPA's justification for
reorganizing the library system was to generate cost savings. How much
was needed to operate the library system before this reorganization
occurred?
a. Did EPA conduct a cost-benefit analysis to determine
whether such reorganization would actually produce cost
savings?
b. If not, how could EPA determine it was not setting itself
up for greater funding needs through this reorganization?
A1. According to EPA officials, the agency began reorganizing the
library network to create cost savings through a more coordinated
library network and more electronic delivery of services. EPA's 26
libraries within the network are operated by eight program offices and
the regional offices. There is no line item for EPA libraries included
in the President's budget nor in EPA's more detailed budget
justification to Congress. Because of this and due to the decentralized
nature of the library network, funding for the entire library network
was not tracked by EPA. As a result of our review, however, EPA did
provide us with estimated figures on the amount of spending by each
library within the network over a five-year period. Based on this data,
library spending remained relatively stable, ranging from about $7.14
million to $7.85 million between fiscal years 2002 through 2006.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These figures are based on estimates from EPA. We did not
independently determine their accuracy. Because EPA did not track
library funding, each library in the network provided estimates that
were based on past spending or enacted funding or both. In addition,
libraries also varied in the type of spending data provided in terms of
whether the data included contract costs, salaries, and acquisitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA did not conduct a formal benefit-cost analysis to determine
whether the reorganization, as it occurred in fiscal year 2007, would
result in cost savings. Beginning in 2003, EPA began assessing its
library network by conducting a business case assessment of its library
network and a study of options for future regional library
operations.\2\ These two studies primarily focused on the Office of
Environmental Information (OEI) headquarters library and the regional
office libraries and were intended to determine the value of library
services and inform management in the regions on their options to
support library services beyond fiscal year 2006. However, EPA did not
conduct a formal benefit-cost analysis of various alternatives to
reorganizing the entire library network per OMB guidance.\3\ Such
guidance specifies that agencies should conduct a benefit-cost analysis
to support decisions to initiate, renew, or expand programs or
projects, and that in conducting such an analysis, tangible and
intangible benefits and cost should be identified, assessed, and
reported. One element of a benefit-cost analysis is an evaluation of
alternatives that would consider different methods of providing
services in achieving program objectives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental
Information, Business Case for Information Services: EPA's Regional
Libraries and Centers, EPA 260-R-04-001 (January 2004); and Optional
Approaches to U.S. EPA Regional Library Support, EPA 260-R-05-002 (June
2005).
\3\ Office of Management and Budget, Guidelines and Discount Rates
for Benefit-Cost Analysis of Federal Programs, OMB Circular A-94
(Washington, D.C., Oct. 29, 1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In determining the $2 million cost reduction for the OEI and
regional office libraries as proposed in the President's fiscal year
2007 budget, EPA did not conduct a formal cost assessment. According to
EPA officials, the $2 million funding reduction was informally
estimated in 2005 with the expectation that EPA would have been further
along in its library reorganization effort. Furthermore, EPA did not
comprehensively assess library network spending in advance of the $2
million estimation of budget cuts.
Without conducting a formal benefit-cost assessment, it would have
been difficult for EPA to determine whether the reorganization approach
taken would be the most cost effective and beneficial in the long-term
or whether additional funds would be needed in the short-term to
implement the reorganization--such as boxing, shipping, and digitizing
library materials.
Q2. When disposing of documents, did EPA violate the Federal Property
Management Regulations?
A2. We believe EPA did not follow federal property management statutes
and regulations when its libraries transferred property to non-
governmental entities; as well as when its libraries abandoned or
destroyed property without first making a written determination that it
had no commercial value.
The management of federal property generally is governed by federal
property management laws, 40 U.S.C. 101 et seq. By law, ``property''
means ``any interest in property,'' and excludes ``records of the
Government.'' 40 U.S.C. 102. Under the Federal Records Act, the term
``records'' does not include ``library. . .material made or acquired
and preserved solely for reference. . .purposes,'' 44 U.S.C. 3301,
and thus disposition of government library reference materials is to be
carried out in accordance with the federal property management laws.
Under the federal property management laws and regulations,
``excess property'' is ``property under the control of a federal agency
that the head of the agency determines is not required to meet the
agency's needs or responsibilities.'' 40 U.S.C. 102(3), 41 C.F.R.
102-36.40. Generally, federal agencies must promptly report their
excess property to the General Services Administration (GSA), which
administers the federal property management system. 40 U.S.C.
524(a)(3). GSA then may determine whether the property may still meet
the needs and responsibilities of other federal agencies. 41 C.F.R.
102-36.35. If the property is not needed within the Federal Government,
GSA then determines the property surplus to the Federal Government and
may direct that the surplus property be donated to eligible entities or
that. it be offered for sale to the public by competitive offerings.
Id. However, federal agencies may take certain actions without first
notifying GSA. For example, agencies may abandon or destroy excess
property without first notifying GSA, provided that the agency makes a
written determination that the property has no commercial value or the
estimated cost of its continued care and handling would exceed the
estimated profits from its sale. 41 C.F.R. 102-36.305. In lieu of
abandonment or destruction, agencies may donate excess property without
first notifying GSA; however, such donations must be only to a ``public
body,'' such as a State or local government agency. 41 C.F.R. 102-
36.320. In addition, under some circumstances federal agencies may
transfer excess property directly to another federal agency without
first notifying GSA. 41 C.F.R. 102-36.145. Although government
agencies may donate property that is ultimately given to non-profit
entities, generally GSA must approve such donations.\4\ 41 C.F.R.
102-37.120.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Generally, agencies may not donate property directly to non-
profit entities. Instead, such donations must be made to a designated
state agency, which then transfers the property to the non-profit
entity. 41 C.F.R. 102-37.35.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the EPA materials at issue are library materials acquired
for reference purposes, the materials are not ``records'' and instead
are ``property''; therefore, the materials are subject to the
provisions of the federal property management statutes and their
implementing regulations.
EPA libraries in Regions 5 and 6 did not follow federal property
management statutes and their implementing regulations when the
libraries transferred materials to nongovernmental entities.\5\ After
EPA determined that library materials in Regions 5 and 6 were not
required to meet EPA's needs or responsibilities, the materials became
excess property. EPA could have transferred the excess property
directly to another federal agency. Had EPA first made a written
determination that the property lacked commercial value or that the
estimated cost of continued care and handling of the property exceeded
the estimated proceeds from sale, EPA could have abandoned or destroyed
the property. In lieu of abandonment or destruction, EPA could have
transferred the excess property to eligible public bodies.
Alternatively, EPA could have notified GSA of its excess property and
then followed the applicable GSA regulations for the disposition of
such property. As discussed in our report, however, EPA did not notify
GSA of its excess property, made no written determination that the
property lacked commercial value or that the estimated cost of
continued care and handling of the property exceeded the estimated
proceeds from sale, and transferred the property without charge
directly to private entities.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ For example, the Region 5 library transferred materials to BASF
Corporation of Wyandotte, Michigan and to Bear River Associates of
Oakland, California. In addition, the Region 6 library transferred
materials such as Preliminary Air Pollution Survey of Chromium and Its
Compounds: a Literature Review to Cambridge Environmental of Boston,
Massachusetts.
\6\ GAO, Environmental Protection: EPA Needs to Ensure That Best
Practices and Procedures Are Followed When Making Further Changes to
Its Library Network, GAO-08-304, at 39 (February 29, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, EPA did not follow the federal property statutes and
their implementing regulations when the OEI headquarters library and
the Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances chemical
library abandoned or destroyed property without first making a written
determination that it had no commercial value or that the estimated
cost of continued care and handling of the property exceeded the
estimated proceeds from sale. In total, the OEI headquarters library
abandoned or destroyed over 800 books and journals and the chemical
library abandoned or destroyed over 3,000 books and journals without
making a written determination that the property had no commercial
value or that the estimated cost of continued care and handling of the
property exceeded the estimated proceeds from sale.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ For example, the chemical library abandoned or destroyed Smith,
Mark C., Christiani, David C., and Kelsey, Karl T. Chemical Risk
Assessment and Occupational Health: Current Applications, Limitations,
and Future Prospects. Westport, Connecticut: Auburn House, 1994.
Journal titles abandoned or destroyed include Journal of Environmental
Pathology and Toxicology and Pesticides Monitoring Journal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Molly A. O'Neill, Assistant Administrator for
Environmental Information, The Office of Environmental
Information (OEI); Chief Information Officer (CIO), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
Q1. How did EPA evaluate the potential cost savings of its library
modernization?
A1. EPA is moving to an expanded reliance on the electronic delivery of
library services, which will provide greater access to information for
EPA employees and the public. This model provides more library
materials electronically and on the EPA Web site thereby increasing
accessibility to environmental information and increasing the
efficiency by which employees and the public can find and obtain the
materials they need. In addition to improved electronic access, EPA
continues to maintain a strong network of physical libraries to provide
another avenue for access to EPA materials. While EPA did not conduct a
formal evaluation of the potential costs savings, we are confident that
the modernization of our overall library network and the expanding use
of electronic delivery of these services will allow for greater access
to information, faster, and at reduced costs.
Q2. How much money did EPA determine it would save by closing and
reducing operations at libraries?
A2. While EPA did not conduct a formal evaluation of the potential
costs savings, we are confident that the modernization of our overall
library network and the expanding use of electronic delivery of these
services will allow for greater and faster access to information at
reduced costs.
Q3. In 2004 EPA conducted a review of the library system and found
that it was cost effective. Given the findings of this report, why
would EPA close libraries because of budget constraints?
A3. The review that EPA conducted in 2004 was not a review of its
library system, but rather a review of the cost-benefit of its library
services. The report found that the services provided by the network
libraries were of value to the agency. During the development of the
modernization plan every effort was made to ensure continuity of these
valuable services. Furthermore, modernizing the EPA's library network
system will enable EPA to provide library services more efficiently and
will ensure that a high level of service will continue to all users.
Q4. When was the planning for these closings initiated? Was it before
or after the 2004 Business Case Report?
A4. Preliminary discussion on the effort to modernize the library
network was begun as early as 2003 and the business case and other
studies were conducted as part of the overall plan for the
modernization efforts.
Q5. To what extent did EPA include findings and recommendations from
earlier reviews in their decision to close and scale back operations at
libraries?
A5. EPA's commitment to maintaining library services, as opposed to
physical library space, was built upon earlier findings, including
recommendations from the Regional Library Network Workgroup.
Q6. Would you characterize this situation as an anomaly for EPA, or is
it representative of systematic problems at the agency?
A6. EPA believes that the efforts we have undertaken as part of our
overall library modernization efforts are important ways to ensure that
more information about the environment is accessible to a wider
audience for EPA staff, our partners and the public. However, EPA does
recognize that more could have been done to better communicate the
details of the plan and its implementation. EPA is working closely with
both internal and external stakeholders to ensure that as we continue
to move forward with making more information available to a broader
audience we do so understanding we are meeting their library service
needs.
Q7. Please describe the difference between EPA unique documents and
non-unique documents? How does EPA plan on handling each?
A7. EPA unique documents are those documents published by or on behalf
of EPA for which only one copy exists within the EPA National Library
Network (Network). Non-unique EPA documents are those published by or
on behalf of EPA for which multiple copies exist within the Network.
Non-EPA documents that are EPA library holdings are addressed below in
the response to Question 10.
EPA's goal is to hold one copy of each of the unique EPA documents
in one of the Agency's Repositories, and create a second paper copy to
be held in archive in a separate location accessible only to library
staff. In addition, the Agency's goal is to hold one copy of each of
the non-unique EPA documents in the appropriate Agency Repository and a
second copy in the archive. Any Network library holding copies of the
non-unique EPA documents will be able to keep them in their
collections.
Q8. What is EPA doing with non-unique EPA documents? Are they being
donated or destroyed?
A8. Each library in the Network holding copies of the non-unique EPA
documents will follow best library practices and Agency procedures on
the areas of collection development, library materials dispersal, and
repository management in handling those copies. Such practices would
include:
<bullet> Sending to one of the designated EPA repositories in
RTP, Cincinnati, or Headquarters, or send to another EPA
library in the Library Network.
<bullet> Offering parts of collections to other libraries in
EPA.
For those documents that EPA decides should be dispersed outside of
the Agency, EPA will choose from the following external dispersion
options:
<bullet> Offer parts of collections to the Library of
Congress.
<bullet> Offer parts of collections to other federal, State
and local governments for their libraries.
<bullet> Offer parts of collections to local research
universities for their libraries.
In addition, EPA will follow federal property management
regulations when determining disposition of library materials.
Q9. What percentage of documents at EPA libraries is unique to those
libraries?
A9. The percentages vary from a high of around 15 percent for three
libraries to a low of 0.03 percent for five libraries.
Q10. How did EPA intend to handle non-EPA documents that may be under
copyright protection? How do you ensure that access to that information
does not change when you are transitioning to a modern database?
A10. EPA recognizes that copyrighted materials cannot be digitized and
that not all such materials are available in digital format. For this
reason, EPA will continue to have physical library collections
available to meet the needs of its users.
Q11. Is the Great Lakes Collection referenced by Mr. Orzehoskie in his
testimony an EPA unique document that would be digitized and retained?
Is it available anywhere outside of the EPA library system?
A11. The EPA library system holds a number of EPA publications and
other commercially produced materials on the topic of Great Lakes. Many
if not most of these materials are available outside the EPA library
system. The unique EPA documents will be digitized, and hard copies
will be retained, as described in the answer to Question 7.
Q12. What effect did increased security procedures at federal
facilities after September 1, 2001 have on the use of EPA libraries?
A12. Most of the EPA libraries have experienced a downward trend in the
number of on-site visitors over the past few years. That trend has
continued since September 11, 2001, due, in part, to increased security
in federal facilities, as well as the increased availability of
information in electronic format.
Q13. Has attendance and use of EPA libraries dropped in recent years?
Which regions were affected the most? Was there a difference in the
number of requests placed at those sites, or simply the number of
users? How does this influence staffing and hours of operation?
A13. Overall EPA libraries have seen a reduction in the on-site use of
our physical library space. The libraries in Region 1, Boston, Region
2, New York City, and Region 7, Kansas City were affected the most. It
is difficult to analyze the foot traffic to determine how libraries are
being used by the public or EPA employees. For example, libraries
expressed that they have seen increased use by external and internal
library patrons of e-mail, telephone, and the Internet to request
assistance from the library staff. These popular access venues, coupled
with increased security at federal facilities could explain the
reported decrease in walk-ins. The decline in walk-in users led EPA to
adjust on-site staffing and hours, and to offer more on-line services
to its internal and external patrons.
Q14. Did any libraries choose to close or limit operations without EPA
Headquarters direction?
A14. For the last few years, Regions have faced significant budget
constraints in the delivery of central support services including
libraries. When it appeared that further reductions to the support
dollars were likely, they assessed their situation and made independent
decisions as to how to respond.
Q15. What steps did EPA take to comply with the Federal Property
Management Regulations? Did EPA violate that Act?
A15. EPA followed the General Services Administration (GSA) Property
Disposition Guidelines for any furniture or equipment removed from
closed libraries.
It is unclear whether library holdings (i.e., books, journals,
magazines, newspapers, etc.) are subject to the Federal Property
Management Regulations. EPA contacted GSA staff for advice on handling
materials in the EPA libraries. GSA recommended that EPA property
management officials be consulted. In general the property management
regulations apply to items such as furniture. Whether and how these
standards apply to some resources provided by libraries is a unique
problem that continues to be addressed.
Because of this lack of overall guidance for federal libraries, the
Library of Congress' Federal Library and Information Collection
Committee (FLICC)/Fedlink is establishing a work group to work with GSA
to develop guidelines for federal libraries in accordance with library
best practices and property regulations.
Q16. Is there a universal criterion for document disposition? What
types of information will be destroyed? What type of information will
be donated?
A16. There is no universal criterion for document disposition in the
library profession. Libraries, in general, are organic operations that
regularly engage in the process of acquiring and dispersing materials
to manage their collections to meet the needs of their users. The EPA
National Library Network is developing dispersal procedures to assist
network libraries in managing their on-site collections.
Q17. What is EPA's timeline for completing the modernization process?
A17. With technology that allows for greater access and use of
information evolving every day, EPA cannot put a specific end date on
the continuing modernization of our library network and the expansion
of access to more and more information. EPA does intend to ensure on-
site library services to its Headquarters and Regional facilities by
September 30, 2008.
Q18. How long does the typical interlibrary loan process take?
A18. Interlibrary Loan (ILL) requests for materials within the Network
are supplied quickly, usually in a matter of a day or two for items
that require hard copy delivery and possibly in the same day if the
material is scanned and delivered electronically. Rush requests are
expedited and have been filled in as little as one hour. For example 53
percent of the Region 5 requests were provided the same or next day
with many requests being provided within an hour or two. Also, 87
percent of the items requested by Region 5 were received within two to
five days. Survey results from the lead service centers show a customer
satisfaction rate of 95 percent or higher for turnaround time.
In certain situations the process can take up to ten business days.
This could occur when the materials requested are from libraries
outside the EPA Network and depends on the availability of the
requested materials and the response time of the outside libraries.
Q19. When will digitization be completed? Has EPA consulted with
outside groups on how this process will be carried out?
A19. No further digitization of EPA documents has taken place since
January 31, 2007. EPA requested a third party review of its
digitization efforts in early 2007. The resulting documents include a
series of recommendations on the digitization process and on the
usability of the user interface. EPA plans to convene a panel of
outside experts to assist the Agency in prioritizing the
recommendations made in the study. Once this occurs, digitization can
restart. At that time we can project a completion date for this effort.
Appendix 2:
----------
Additional Material for the Record
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT