<DOC>
[107 Senate Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:81724.wais]
S. Hrg. 107-669
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S
FISCAL YEAR 2003 BUDGET
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 13, 2002
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
-------
81-724 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ÿ091800
Fax: (202) 512ÿ092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402ÿ090001
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
second session
JAMES M. JEFFORDS, Vermont, Chairman
MAX BAUCUS, Montana BOB SMITH, New Hampshire
HARRY REID, Nevada JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia
BOB GRAHAM, Florida JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
BARBARA BOXER, California GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
RON WYDEN, Oregon MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
JON S. CORZINE, New Jersey BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado
Ken Connolly, Majority Staff Director
Dave Conover, Minority Staff Director
(ii)
?
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
FEBRUARY 13, 2002
OPENING STATEMENTS
Bond, Hon. Christoper S., U.S. Senator from the State of Missouri 5
Campbell, Hon. Ben Nighthorse, U.S. Senator from the State of
Colorado....................................................... 4
Crapo, Hon. Michael D., U.S. Senator from the State of Idaho..... 4
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma... 3
Lieberman, Hon. Joseph I., U.S. Senator from the State of
Connecticut.................................................... 6
Jeffords, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont.. 1
Smith, Hon. Bob, U.S. Senator from the State of New Hampshire.... 3
Specter, Hon. Arlen M., U.S. Senator from the State of
Pennsylvania................................................... 15
WITNESS
Whitman, Hon. Christine Todd, Administrator, Environmental
Protection Agency.............................................. 7
Prepared statement........................................... 19
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Boxer............................................ 22
Senator Campbell......................................... 25
Senator Clinton.......................................... 26
Senator Jeffords......................................... 29
Senator Lieberman........................................ 38
Senator Smith............................................ 44
Senator Wyden............................................ 46
(iii)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S FISCAL YEAR 2003 BUDGET
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2002,
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m. in room
406, Senate Dirksen Building, Hon. James M. Jeffords (chairman
of the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Jeffords, Campbell, Smith, Crapo, Inhofe,
Bond, Lieberman, Clinton, and Specter.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. JEFFORDS, U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF VERMONT
Senator Jeffords. The hearing will come to order.
There will be interruptions today because we have votes, so
what we will be doing is to start as best we can and have as
many opening statements from members and hopefully even the
opening statement from the Administratator before we have to
break for a number of stacked votes.
So with that, I will make my opening statement, and then we
will move right on.
Good morning. The purpose of today's hearing is to examine
the proposed 2003 budget for the Environmental Protection
Agency. We are pleased to have the former Governor of New
Jersey and able Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency, Christie Todd Whitman here today to explain to us the
finer points of the EPA's budget request. We are excited about
that.
For the record, I also want to thank Administrator Whitman
for all the work she and her staff have done recently to help
the State of Vermont tackle some tricky budget problems. We
appreciate that very much.
Testifying on the budget is admittedly rather a dry
experience, but I hope that the Administratator enjoys herself
more today than she does in the meetings with the Office of
Management and Budget.
Now, to the subject before us. At a time when we should be
striving for the gold, the EPA's budget for next year barely
makes it through the qualifiers. The proposed budget request is
a 3.5 percent reduction in spending from last year. However,
when inflation is taken into account, this is more than 6
percent, even as we are asking the Agency to take on greater
homeland defense responsibility. And while fiscal year 2006 is
a long way away and not subject to today's hearing, I do wonder
how the Office of Management and Budget expects EPA to absorb
about $1 billion in budget cuts between now and then.
But first, let me start on a positive note. I am gratified
that spending for the brownfields program has doubled and that
a large increase goes directly to the States. On the air side,
both the ozone and particulate matter programs are given
increases. And speaking for myself and all of my colleagues in
the Hart Building, I am pleased that the Agency will be
spending $75 million to conduct research on better ways to
clean up contaminated buildings.
Most of the savings in the budget comes from the rather
naive expectation that there will be no congressional earmarks
in next year's budget. This is a battle I will leave the Agency
to fight with the appropriators. However, when earmarks are
added, I will fight to make sure that sufficient core program
funds continue to be appropriated to reverse cuts in the clean
water and climate programs and ensure continued progress in the
Superfund and air programs.
While I am pleased that the Administration has
substantially increased its budget request for clean water
revolving funds from its request last year and level-funded
drinking water revolving funds, I remain concerned that the
proposed budget does not provide adequate funding for the
replacement and maintenance of our Nation's aging water
infrastructure.
Given the importance to public health and that all
communities comply with the new arsenic standard in a timely
manner, I am concerned that no new drinking water funds are
being allocated for this purpose. Further, clean water
revolving funds are cut 10 percent from last year's enacted
level at a time when the water systems are coping with
additional costs of security. I am sure that EPA is also aware
that I am working with the members of this Committee on a bill
to boost water infrastructure funding that will be introduced
shortly.
Another issue I would like to highlight is the reduction to
EPA enforcement efforts. Once again, EPA is proposing a new
State enforcement grant program. How is this program different
from the one that was proposed and shot down by Congress last
year? It is my understanding that no cuts in existing
enforcement personnel are planned, but that cuts of about 100
enforcement positions will be made through attrition and by not
filling existing job openings. Just how many unfilled jobs
exist in the enforcement division, and does this explain the
continued lowering of performance goals for the inspections and
investigations?
I believe there is a public education component to
virtually every major environmental statute. I was therefore
puzzled to learn that the EPA would like to move both its
Environmental Education Division and STAR fellowship program to
the National Science Foundation. I look forward to hearing
EPA's view on this subject.
Finally, let me say that I am deeply skeptical of the
Administration's governmentwide proposal to require each
government agency to assume the costs of the Civil Service
Retirement System and health care costs. As both a member of
the Health and Finance Committees, I am troubled that mandatory
spending will be shifted to discretionary accounts, potentially
diverting these funds to purposes other than the funding of
retirement and health care costs.
Furthermore, I am concerned that in future years, this
change in accounting rules will penalize the operating budgets
of programs with older employees.
Again, thank you for being here today, and we look forward
to your testimony.
I now turn to Senator Smith.
Senator Smith. Jim, you go first. Go ahead.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Senator Inhofe. OK. I will make it very brief.
It is my idea, Madam Administrator, to try to get out
opening statements out so that hopefully you can get your
opening statement out prior to our five stacked votes, so let
me just mention two things.
I am hoping that sometime during the course of the hearing
today or in your opening statement you can give us some
comments on the worst Superfund site in the United States of
America, which is Tar Creek, which happens to be in
northeastern Oklahoma. It is something that we have talked
about a number of times, and I would like to see how this
budget might be addressing this and looking for some help on
that.
The second one is in brownfields. As the Chairman said, we
have I think doubled the amount of money that is going to be
addressing these. You might recall that my amendment was one to
include the petroleum-contaminated sites. Of the 450,000 sites,
about 200,000 fell into this category. I am very interested,
since the brownfields law was signed into law by the President
with my amendment in it, what kind of help is on the way for
these petroleum-contaminated sites.
So with that, I will just wait for the opening statement of
our Administrator.
Senator Jeffords. Senator Smith?
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOB SMITH, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Senator Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I will also be very brief and just ask that my statement be
made a part of the record.
Good morning, Administrator Whitman. It has been a year
since you have been here, when you were confirmed, and what a
year that has been. There have been a number of challenges, and
it does not seem like it is getting any easier. But I want to
thank you personally for all your efforts over the past year. I
think you have done an outstanding job.
I know we are here to discuss the 1903 budget. I see in
this budget a partnership with the States that are achieving
results through cooperation. I have a little bit of a different
perspective on it than the Chairman just outlined, but as has
been said, I certainly am grateful for the doubling of funds
for brownfields. I think again pointing out that as far as
brownfields are concerned, it is not the money from the Federal
Government that really is the key here. That $200 million won't
go very far. It is the law change that allows the private
sector now to develop these, and I hope that does not get lost
in the discussion.
It was just 1 year ago, actually, that Senators Reid,
Chafee and Boxer and myself introduced the bill that was
recently signed by the President. I know you were supportive of
the bill throughout the process. It took a little while for the
House to finally deal with it, but we did get it done and that
is the important thing.
I am also pleased to see the new watershed initiative in
the EPA's budget that is there. It is very similar to the
community-based approach in a bill that I introduced with
Senator Crapo in the last Congress. That created a pilot
program that allowed local communities to experiment with
different approaches to reach their own clean water goals.
Also worth noting is the State Enforcement Grant Program,
again working with the States to help them enforce
environmental laws and regulations. Over 90 percent of
enforcement actions are carried out by the States, and this
budget understands that and we appreciate that.
It also recognizes the new world that we have lived in
since September 11. You have $124 million in new funding for
homeland security, including enhancing emergency response,
conducting water system vulnerability assessments, and
conducting research on better technologies and assessments to
clean up some of these targets of the attacks.
On balance, I think this budget is one that sets a very
strong pro-environmental, pro-State priority. It promotes
partnership with the States, encourages cooperation over
confrontation, and an Agency focus on efforts that will result
in a cleaner, healthier environment. I look forward to hearing
your discussion of your budget.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Jeffords. Senator Campbell?
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, U.S. SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO
Senator Campbell. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Since we have stacked votes in about six more minutes, I
think I will, with your permission, submit my opening statement
for the record. I had a couple of questions that we might not
get to, but I will submit those also in writing. I am just
happy to see Administrator Whitman here. I am happy that she
has recovered from her skiing accident a couple of years ago
and seems to be walking with great vigor now. I am sorry if we
contributed to that in our Colorado slopes. Hopefully, we can
correct that in the future.
Administrator Whitman. Never.
Senator Campbell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Jeffords. Senator Crapo?
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL D. CRAPO, U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF IDAHO
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I will be very brief as well. In fact, in the short
opportunity I have had to go over the budget, I have not really
found any serious things, other than just one concern that I
have, and I will just raise the concern, and that is that the
clean water State revolving fund is reduced by $138 million. I
am very concerned that we need to be increasing that fund, and
we will be working legislatively to try to address that issue
with you. I just wanted to highlight that concern at this
point.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Jeffords. Senator Bond?
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, U.S. SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI
Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
It is a delight to have Administrator Whitman before us. We
will have opportunities again to talk about this in the future
on the funding. I have had the pleasure of knowing the
Administrator for over 40 years, and I am sure that the last
year seems like about 40 to her. But we appreciate this wartime
budget. It shows the President and Administrator Whitman's
strong commitment to the environment in the face of war
homeland security needs. The Administration has shielded the
EPA budget from deep cuts.
This is the highest request for EPA operating programs
ever. It means record funds for day-to-day activities on health
standards, conducting inspections, enforcement monitoring of
the environment. We know that our water supply system can be
subject to terrorist attacks, and there is $124 million
homeland security funding that I think is very necessary. The
Administration would send nearly $3.5 billion to the States for
their State environmental programs. They propose doubling the
$200 million for brownfields cleanup.
At the same time, our communities are facing an
overwhelming need for clean water and drinking water funding.
Some private estimates put these figures at $300 billion. We
are going to hear from EPA on their GAP analysis. This is
something we are going to have to address.
The last Administration supported only $2 billion per year
in revolving water funds. That just is not going to get the job
done. Mr. Chairman, we are going to have to find a way to get
more money, and merely authorizing it is not going to get it
there under the current budget system. We will have to work on
that.
And while we are working on things, Mr. Chairman and Madam
Administrator, if I might put in a pitch for the Fishable
Waters Act. Everybody seems to have forgotten about fishable
waters with all the problems we have, but this is extremely
important for the environment. It would be a voluntary effort
to allow local stakeholders to undertake projects to make local
waters fishable and swimmable, i.e. achieving very important
environmental goals.
Finally, I am very pleased with the Administration's
proposal to increase funding for research on the safety of
genetically modified crops. Biotechnology is going to be the
revolution of the 21st century that allows us to feed billions
of people around the world more effectively, more efficiently,
and in a more nutritious manner with less use of harsh chemical
pesticides. The EPA's leadership is important to improve the
environment in the United States and also show the way to clean
up the world's environment by safe use of biotechnology
products.
I appreciate the chance to work with this Committee and we
will be working with you and EPA through the Appropriations
Committee as well.
Senator Jeffords. Senator Lieberman?
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, U.S. SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
Senator Lieberman. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
I have a full statement that I would like to include in the
record. I welcome Administrator Whitman. Let me see if I can
draw briefly from my statement.
I must say that I am troubled by the Administration's 2003
EPA budget proposal. Overall, it proposes providing the EPA
with about $300 million less than the enacted level for the
present fiscal year. That number, obviously, says a lot, but
the decisions behind the dollars are also important. Let me
just highlight a few.
I share with many of my colleagues a deep concern about the
significant reduction in clean water funds of about $525
million, which will seriously impact our State and local
authorities' efforts to improve water quality.
In the area of clean air, the budget appears to dedicate
about the same resources as last year, but the focus of the
funding is, to me, suspect. I am troubled by the mere passing
mention of multi-pollutant legislation in the budget
justification document, which may be consistent with the
Administration's position as it was changed last year, but
nonetheless it is disappointing.
The budget justification also gives glancing treatment to
new source review and does not offer much in the way of hope on
climate change either. In the budget justification, the
continuing absence of a proposal on climate change says a lot
in its silence.
So I must say there is a statement in the budget
justification which is a repetition of goals of the Agency, and
I want to read it. It says the United States will lead other
nations in successful multilateral efforts to reduce
significant risk to human health and ecosystems from climate
change--stratosphere, it goes on--pollution and other hazards
of international concern. But with all respect, so far the
actions of this Administration have not demonstrated any
leadership on global warming.
I certainly do not mean this personally with regard to
Administrator Whitman, because you displayed real leadership on
this question when you were Governor of New Jersey. I
understand that we may hear soon on these three issues of
concern--climate change, multi-pollutant legislation, and new
source review.
For my part, let me say I hope that the climate change
program is a credible one that moves us toward real reductions
in greenhouse gas emissions, with targets and time tables. I
hope that the multi-pollutant proposal calls for significant
cuts in sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and mercury reductions,
and forms the foundation for meaningful discussion on
reconciling the Administration's proposal with the Clean Power
Act of 2001, the multi-pollutant, four-pollutant proposal
introduced by Senators Jeffords, Collins, and myself.
I also hope that the new source review proposal retains the
critical health and environmental protections this program has
afforded us over time. I am by nature an optimistic person.
Hope spring eternal. So I look forward to these proposals. But
for now, I must say with all respect that I think the
Administration has not yet adequately fulfilled its
responsibility to protect our environment, and this budget
reflects that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you.
Administrator, I appreciate your being here. We are now
going to have five votes scheduled to begin at 9:50 a.m. The
Committee will return roughly at 10:50 a.m., but we will
anxiously await your comments right now. We may have to run out
if you go too long.
Administrator Whitman. I will go really fast.
STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN, ADMINISTRATOR,
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Administrator Whitman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I will have a longer statement for the record, if that is
all right with you.
Senator Jeffords. Yes, please.
Administrator Whitman. I do appreciate this opportunity to
appear once again before this particular Committee to discuss
the President's budget for the Environmental Protection Agency
for the next fiscal year.
I believe that the President's budget does provide the
Agency with the funds that it needs to efficiently and
effectively carry out our mandate to protect public health and
the environment.
As you know, the requested total for fiscal year 2003 is
$7.7 billion, which represents more than a $200 million
increase over last year's request. Overall, our proposed budget
reflects the goals that President Bush and I share for leaving
America's water cleaner, its air purer, and its land better
protected than when we took office.
I should also point out that EPA's proposed budget is part
of the Administration's record overall request of $44.1 billion
for environment and natural resources. It is the highest such
request ever, and represents a $1.1 billion increase over
enacted levels for the current fiscal year.
If I may, Mr. Chairman, I would like to discuss just some
of the highlights of our proposals, and as I said, I will be
submitting a longer statement for the record. I know there are,
of course, specific questions once the votes are finished. We
will be prepared for those.
First of all, almost half of our budget is for direct
grants to State, local and tribal governments. This reflects
our experience that many innovative, creative and effective
environmental achievements are being made by States, county,
local and tribal governments. As I have traveled around the
country during the past year, whether it was seeing the
citizens working in Kentucky PRIDE or the members of the Paiute
tribe in Nevada, and countless other communities across
America, we have seen extraordinary progress being made at the
local level by local citizens.
EPA is building strong partnerships for environmental
progress and the results speak for themselves. In this budget,
we will build on those results to achieve even greater
environmental progress.
Next, this budget more than doubles the funds available for
brownfields reclamation, providing $200 million, as has been
mentioned earlier--funding that will lead to thousands of acres
of better-protected land in the years ahead. I remember
traveling to Winchester, New Hampshire last year with Senator
Smith to see a great, wonderful brownfields project there. The
success that we are seeing across the country can only be
enhanced by the additional dollars in the new program that is
now in place.
Third, this budget provides important funding for a new
watershed initiative. We are requesting $21 million for a
program that will allow us to build effective public/private
partnerships to restore and protect 20 of America's most
precious watersheds. This initiative will show the real results
that partnerships can achieve, how much partners can bring
together in a unified program, including a non-point source
grant program that we are proposing to fund at $238.5 million.
As a result, this budget will help improve water quality for
drinking, boating, swimming and fishing in those watersheds
that we target.
There are numerous other important initiatives in our
proposed budget. They include funding to increase the
development of new technologies for environmental progress,
funding for research that could lead to significant curtailing
of animal testing by building on discoveries in the Human
Genome Project, and funding to increase our knowledge base
about air quality challenges so we can help save lives and
prevent illnesses such as asthma among America's children.
In addition, the combined funding we are proposing for the
drinking water and clean water State Revolving Funds is the
largest such combined request ever. Of course, our budget
request also includes significant new money to help EPA meet
its homeland security responsibilities. The $124 million in new
funding that we are requesting will support such important
efforts as protecting the Nation's drinking water
infrastructure by funding vulnerability assessments at the
Nation's water utilities; securing additional personnel and
equipment to expand our ability to respond to biological
attacks; and investing in research designed to enable the
Nation to better detect and respond to chemical and biological
attacks.
I am pleased to say, Mr. Chairman, that taken together, the
President's proposed EPA budget for fiscal year 2003 fully
supports the work of this Agency. It will enable us to
transform our 30-year mission to meet the challenges of the
21st century, and it brings us that much closer to realizing
our goals of cleaner air, purer water, and better protected
land so that we can all enjoy the kind of environment that we
want for ourselves and for future generations.
Thank you very much.
Senator Jeffords. Well, thank you for an excellent
statement.
We will now recess until approximately 10:50; that may be
optimistic, the way things go around here.
[Recess.]
Senator Jeffords. Nice to be back with you again.
As I said in my statement, I am concerned that the proposed
budget does not provide adequate funding for the replacement
and maintenance of our Nation's aging water infrastructure. In
light of the proposed cuts in the water program funding, how
does EPA's budget request address the backlog of water
infrastructure needs?
Administrator Whitman. Well, Senator, as I mentioned in my
testimony, the Agency is requesting $1.2 billion in fiscal year
2003 for the clean water. When you combine that with the safe
drinking water, that is a combined total that is greater than
has been asked for before. But there is a recognition that
these issues, as we discussed last year--the dollars
potentially go way beyond anything that any one Agency or
really branch of government is going to be able to deal with on
its own. We really look forward to having a much more detailed
discussion with the Hill on how we should go forward on this.
The Revolving Loan Fund will revolve at over $2 billion,
even if no more money goes in. And the numbers that you were
talking about 5 years out or the way OMB does the budget, there
is money for that obviously now.
That is robust. That is good. And we do believe that the
Revolving Loan Program, it now is well over $2 billion. It
revolves at over $2 billion and will continue to do so as far
out into the future as we can see. It is still going to need
much more than that, and I look forward to working with you,
and I know your interest here is longstanding.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you, and I look forward to working
with you.
And of course we have also the problems of terrorism, which
lead to additional costs in those areas. And also, we are going
to have to really spend some time working together. Thank you.
As I understand it, the Administration plans to announce
its climate policy--a three-pollutant proposal--and changes to
the new source review regulations sometime tomorrow. Could you
tell us what will be included in that announcement, and how it
will impact the Agency's budget and allocation of resources?
Administrator Whitman. Well, Senator, I can't give you the
particulars. Obviously, that has got to be up to the President.
Senator Jeffords. I will try.
Administrator Whitman. I know. It was a nice try, and I
appreciate that.
[Laughter.]
Administrator Whitman. Certainly, once the president has
made an announcement, I will be happy to come back and discuss
with you the particulars and how we achieve them. But I suspect
that the Congress is going to have a great deal to say about
this whole process as we go forward on these initiatives.
Senator Jeffords. Yes.
In 1991, in a document called America's Climate Change
Strategy, President Bush described the sulfur dioxide cap in
the 1990 amendments as ``a powerful conservation stimulus,
which should sharply reduce carbon dioxide emissions from this
sector,'' end of quote.
Obviously, that has not happened and emissions are way up.
What are we going to do to get a real reduction in the near
term?
Administrator Whitman. We are continuing with our
enforcement efforts under the current Clean Air Act. There is
no plan at this point to reduce any of those efforts. We have,
as you know, the NOx SIP Call, the 126 Rule, BART, MACT--all
those regulatory processes are in place and going forward. And
it is our anticipation that they will continue to move forward
and we will continue to focus on the enforcement in those areas
while also trying to work in a more intelligent, perhaps
innovative and collegial way with utilities and business to try
to stop some of the problems before they start.
Senator Jeffords. The Hart cleanup--I hate to get back to
that. Staffers in the 12 Senate offices that were treated with
chlorine dioxide liquid and foam have complained of nausea,
dizziness and shortness of breath. Some scientists have
speculated that the chlorine dioxide residue is reacting with
office furnishings and radiated mail. How is EPA monitoring the
situation and what are the plans?
Administrator Whitman. Senator, we are doing regular
monitoring up there on the Hill. We are continuing to sample
and we have been working with the Sergeant-at-Arms to ensure
that the protocol that we are using is one with which the
Senators and the Architect of the Capitol are comfortable.
We have not gotten any hits on any of the samples that we
have done on high levels of chlorine dioxide or any of the
byproducts of chlorine dioxide. We are focusing and working
with CDC and the labs that have been brought in to look at the
potential that it is the mail, the irradiation of the mail that
may be causing this problem, and we will continue to monitor
that building for as long as we need to. But so far, we have
not seen any indication that it is because of the chlorine
dioxide.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you. We will followup on that.
Administrator Whitman. We will continue to have a presence
there. We will continue to do what we need to do on air
sampling and followup for as long as you want us there and as
long as we need to do it. But as I say, we have done numerous
samplings. The latest results, February 6, and again we still
have not gotten any hits that would indicate that there is any
residue from either the chlorine dioxide spray itself or the
fumigation itself or any of the byproducts from chlorine
dioxide.
Whatever issues are appearing, the focus at this point
seems to be on the irradiation of the mail, and that is where
the scientists are all looking right now, to see what that
could possibly be.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you.
EPA's proposed budget includes the costs of additional
retirement and health benefits. Do you think it is wise to
shift these costs from the centralized mandatory spending
accounts to the discretionary accounts?
Administrator Whitman. Senator, those costs have always
been in the President's budget but they have been allocated in
a different way. This is really more of a bookkeeping change to
enable us to identify them clearly and to show the full costs
of the overall EPA budget. They are, in fact, numbers that
always have been in the President's budget. As you know, the
Administration feels the proposed legislation is an
administrative tool so that Federal agencies readily can
account for the costs of these benefits.
Senator Jeffords. What happens if the legislation relative
to does not get enacted? Will EPA have to return a chunk of its
budget to the Office of Management?
Administrator Whitman. No, I don't believe that we would
have to. I have my cheat sheet here. Yes, it would be funded.
The Federal Government has been paying them right along. That's
what I was saying initially, that the government has been
paying them right along so that money was always there in the
budget. This proposal is just a way of accounting for the costs
so you see them differently, but the money has been there right
along. Now, it has been incorporated into each Agency's budget.
This is just a shift in responsibility from a central
management account in OPM to each Agency, so that each Agency
accounts for those dollars. We assume that responsibility.
Senator Jeffords. EPA's proposed budget includes the cost
of additional retirement and health benefits. Do you think it
is wise to shift these costs from the central--that has been
answered? OK. All right.
What is EPA doing to help communities comply with the new
arsenic standard?
Administrator Whitman. As I indicated when we went forward
with the standard, that we were going to identify $20 million
in the Agency's budget to help communities deal with this
issue. We are doing that. We are also working with the
Department of Agriculture on some rural funds that are
available.
But more than that, we are looking at technology
initiatives. We putting some money--as you know, there is some
money in the budget for a heightened focus on technology, and
part of that research, at least initially, the new program is
going to be specifically directed at low-cost initiatives to
remove arsenic from the water.
So we are looking to work with those small-and mid-size
companies in a variety of different ways, beyond just providing
dollars, but also to provide help with the research and the
technical assistance to enable them to meet the standards, but
not have to price themselves out of business or price people
out of water.
Senator Jeffords. Why does EPA continue to lower its
performance goals for inspections and investigations? Is it
related to reductions in funding?
Administrator Whitman. Actually, if you look at the record
last year, we did have a record year as far as what we were
able to accomplish and what we were able to bring in in fines
and penalties from those who were responsible parties, people
who were responsible for doing it. We have in fact been able to
see an increase with the staff that we have. We have been doing
a good job and 90 percent of the enforcement does take place at
the State level. What we want we are proposing to do with this
budget is not to cut anyone from our enforcement staff and not
to shift any positions there, but to give the States some more
help to be able to do the job that they are already doing
better and continue with a high level of enforcement.
Senator Jeffords. Now, the Superfund. Once again, EPA has
lowered the targeted number of final Superfund cleanups. While
I understand that some sites are more complex than others, this
cannot possibly explain the over 100 percent drop in the
targeted cleanups since fiscal year 2000. Why does EPA keep
lowering its cleanup goals?
Administrator Whitman. I share your concern about cleanup
goals, and there are a number of reasons for the drop. One in
particular stands out, which is kind of the history that we are
dealing with here. There was a decision made back a few years
to concentrate funds on those Superfund sites that were closest
to completion. And so, that is where the money was spent. There
is where the effort went, and those sites that were very nearly
finished were completed, but very little money was provided for
other sites that were coming onto the list--the ones that still
had significant work remaining.
And so that is what we are facing now--is dealing with
those sites that have quite a lot of work. We had about three
to 4 years of sort of a burst of high construction completions,
but in doing that we created a greater backlog.
We are now in the process of what we are calling a pipeline
review of the Superfund projects to make sure that we are
listing the right ones, that we are prioritizing them the right
way and addressing them the right way, and that we can ensure
that we do continue to focus on those sites that pose the
greatest public health risk, and that we deal with those first.
Senator Jeffords. Senator Clinton?
Senator Clinton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I apologize, Governor Whitman, for being late. We have had
quite a morning of votes and running around like headless
chickens, and I apologize for keeping you waiting.
I also am pleased that we had an opportunity to speak
yesterday regarding the concerns that we have about air quality
at the World Trade Center site and the surrounding area and
indoors. And I thank you very much for the letter that you sent
me late last evening which refers to the hearing that Senator
Lieberman and I held on Monday. I want to thank the Chairman
and the Committee and the Committee staff for its assistance in
holding that hearing to hear from experts and those having
first-hand experience with air quality problems and the related
health impacts arising out of the disaster on September 11.
I think it was a very substantive and informative hearing
and I thank EPA for testifying. I want to thank everyone
associated with the Agency, and particularly Region Two for
everything that you have done to respond to the September 11th
attacks in New York, and for your offer of assistance that is
contained in your letter and that we briefly discussed
yesterday.
At the hearing, I laid out a five-point plan that responds
to the concerns we have been hearing about for quite some weeks
now, to address the air quality and public health concerns. The
plan includes passing S. 1621, which is legislation to
establish a permanent health monitoring system at disaster
sites.
I would also include in that Senator Voinovich's deep
concerns about the health impacts on his first-responders. We
heard the firefighters and FEMA first-responders who came and
testified before us, and it was extremely moving and quite
disturbing. He told me yesterday that they are continuing to
have serious health problems.
So we need a system that has a permanent health monitoring
surveillance and response apparatus, however we decide to
design it, that would followup not only on those directly
associated with the sites, but even people who came in response
to calls for help, like Senator Voinovich's people from Ohio
did.
Second, I think we should provide funding for the immediate
establishment of a long-term comprehensive health registry,
referral and monitoring system to Ground Zero workers. They are
clearly the ones most at risk. Some people have suffered
indirectly. More sensitive people have reported respiratory
problems, allergic reactions, the onset of asthma.
But our chief medical officer of the New York Fire
Department testified that 25 percent of the entire firefighter
force, which has now been screened, reports respiratory
problems. We have no idea what the long-term impact will be.
The police testified that they had not had that kind of
monitoring and screening. So we need a system and I hope we can
look to do that.
Third, to establish a World Trade Center Indoor Air
Program. That has turned out to be one of our biggest problems.
I really believe that EPA's authority, direction and expertise
with respect to monitoring outdoor air was very helpful. There
are some remaining issues that we have to deal with, but the
indoor air is what people are now focusing on.
So fourth, I think we should develop a World Trade Center
site clear initiative which deals with the remaining outdoor
air problems, principally from the diesel emissions, from the
idling of trucks, from the barge traffic. We have all these
trucks, Mr. Chairman, lined up carrying away the waste and
debris. They are on all the time. And we know that the
particulate emissions are some things we should be concerned
about, particularly with respect to children or vulnerable
people.
And finally, I think we should work to incorporate the
lessons we have learned, and we all have learned lessons, into
the homeland security plans that Governor Ridge is responsible
for developing.
In respect to those points, Governor, I appreciate greatly
that in the letter that you sent to me yesterday you committed
to working with local, State and Federal partners to establish
a task force on indoor air in lower Manhattan, and I thank you
so much for that.
I look forward to working with you. I have a commitment
from the Office of Emergency Management in the city to
coordinate the city's response because there was some confusion
about who really should be responsible within the city. I think
we have got an opportunity to really translate this commitment
into the kind of action that will reassure the public.
I think it is imperative that the task force conduct door-
to-door inspections and indoor sampling within no less than a
10-block radius of Ground Zero, and that it should operate a
centralized location where the public can get information on
whether their building has been tested or inspected, the
results of those tests and clear guidance on cleanup
requirements, resources available to pay for cleanups, and
certified cleanup companies in the area.
We heard, really, from two ends of the spectrum. There were
those who did not feel that their landlords or the city had
made their landlords do anything, really, to meet the most
minimal standards. Then we had a witness who said she would do
whatever she was told to do, but she got conflicting
information and didn't know what she was supposed to do.
So somewhere in between there we know we have got to strike
a balance, but I think starting with an inspection system of
some kind in a centralized location will help to get the ball
rolling.
As a first step, I would like to work with you to set up a
meeting as soon as possible between EPA and the city to make
sure that the task force is publicly under way and people know
that we have all responded.
I thank you for your quick response to the concerns that
were raised at the hearing on Monday and I look forward to
working with you. I would be interested in any response or
additional amplification that you might provide on this.
Administrator Whitman. Certainly, Senator.
First of all, I want to thank you for the suggestions, the
time you have taken on this issue, the attention that you have
given it. We share a real concern about what has happened up
there and what will happen in the future. We have, and I
believe that both the testimony that you heard on Monday and
what we have seen in looking at and in dealing with this issue,
we have been able to identify some areas where there are
weaknesses. There are either overlaps or gaps in who is
responsible for which.
When you are dealing with public health, when you are
dealing with a crisis, it doesn't do any good to the public you
serve to say, somebody else's job. You need to get the issue
dealt with.
And that is why I believe the idea, as you had mentioned,
of an indoor air task force is an important one because that is
one of the areas where jurisdiction is not clear. It is an area
just in general on indoor air that has been the subject of
discussion for 10 years in Congress. I mean, it's not a simple
task, but it is one that we have to deal with, particularly in
light of the kind of challenge that we face now since September
11.
As you also know, in the letter I indicated that I, because
it is another area where I feel it is very important to ensure
the public get all the information, and I have asked the
President's science advisor to put together a task force that
will, at least for the Federal agencies, identify what kind of
research is being done, what kind of information is being asked
for, so we can coordinate that, and be able to communicate with
the public in a coherent way, so that they have the
information, they have the data they need to be able to make
their own decisions.
Sometimes the web site that we have put up that has the
information from all the data that we have received sometimes
puts up some raw data that people don't have a context within
which to judge that, but it is there. It is important that it
be there.
I know that there are times when scientists are very
discomfited by that because they like to be certain, and
unfortunately they are not always certain about the
implications of findings, but I believe it is important that we
provide as much information as possible.
So I look forward to working with you and your office, and
all of New York, to ensure that we cover this to the greatest
extent possible, and that we come up with some answers, and
that as we go through a lesson-learned process, which we are
going through internally at the Agency, both on the September
11 and on the anthrax issues, that we are able to communicate
those lessons learned to the public.
Senator Clinton. Thank you very much, Governor. I have some
additional questions which I would be happy to submit in
writing, and get responses from the Agency in that way.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you very much. Those were very
helpful questions.
Senator Specter is here. I was aware of his coming in, and
you are on. Do you want 30 seconds?
[Laughter.]
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ARLEN SPECTER, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Senator Specter. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
If I had that much time, I don't know what I would do with
it.
[Laughter.]
Senator Specter. I am pleased to see you here, Governor,
and commend you for the job you are doing. The business of
administering the environmental laws in the United States is a
very, very tough job.
What I want to talk to you about this morning--there are a
couple of parochial, but very, very important interests for
Pennsylvania. There is a landfill known as Marjal near
Scranton, Pennsylvania which has been a source of community
agitation for many, many years. The issue boils down to whether
the problems are going to be excavated or whether there is
going to be a halfway job with a cover on top.
I know you have many, many projects you have to concern
yourself about, but have you had an opportunity to get involved
in any of the specifics of this Marjal matter?
Administrator Whitman. Well, Senator, as you know, the
cleanup of the property surrounding the site has been
completed. The Region Three office has selected a permanent
remedy, but that was put on hold pending a review by the
Ombudsman. That report, as I understand, was due to be given to
the Region in December of 2001. I can't go into too much more
detail because, as you may know, it is subject to litigation.
But the surrounding properties have been cleaned up.
Stabilization is complete. The implementation of the remedy
chosen, though, is on hold until such time--we put it on hold
initially to allow the Ombudsman to complete his review of the
remedy. It is my understanding he has not yet completed that
review.
Senator Specter. Well, who is undertaking the review at
this time, Governor?
Administrator Whitman. The Ombudsman. There was a report
due to the Region by December of last year, 2001, and that has
not yet been submitted to them.
Senator Specter. When do you expect that to be submitted?
Administrator Whitman. I don't know, sir. That is up to the
Ombudsman. I don't control his timing on anything or the issues
that he undertakes to review.
Senator Specter. Well, what has been represented to me is
that there has been a covering. There is very bad lead
contamination. They have proceeded in a way which is least
costly and inadequate. I would very much appreciate it if you
would take a look at that. Are you saying that you don't have
the authority to do so when it's in the hands of the Ombudsman?
Administrator Whitman. I don't. The Ombudsman is, contrary
to, I know, some concerns that have been raised, is in fact
independent and has made a request. He has raised some concerns
about this issue--and tell me when I am going too far as far
litigation is concerned, because I am not sure about that. He
has raised concerns about the remedy chosen by Region Three.
The region obviously thinks, given all their work that they
have done, that this is an appropriate cleanup of this site and
that there is not a future health issue here for the people who
live on the site.
The Ombudsman has a different feeling about it. We put
implementation of the final solution on hold pending his
review, and he has not yet completed it. But I can't direct him
to complete it. I have no ability to have him write a report.
Unfortunately, there has been no report written.
Senator Specter. If he delays indefinitely, is there no
remedy?
Administrator Whitman. Well, the Region can go ahead with
the selected permanent remedy. It is one that I think that you
have a problem with because of the allegations that the
Ombudsman has raised concerning the remedy. So it is only fair,
would make sense, that he complete that study.
Senator Specter. Well, it is fine for him to complete it if
it is done within a reasonable time.
Administrator Whitman. I would agree with you.
Senator Specter. But if it is not, it seems to me there has
to be some remedy.
Administrator Whitman. I would agree.
Senator Specter. Doesn't the Administrator have the
authority, if the Administrator is dissatisfied with the
conclusions, the Administrator can make an independent
determination that something more has to be done?
Administrator Whitman. I am recused from any of the
decisionmaking in this site because of the litigation and
because of the issues that have been brought up personally.
What I would suggest is that we get back to you--I get others
on the staff to get back to you who can talk about it.
Senator Specter. OK. The recusal I understand, but when the
head of the Administration is recused, understandably, then the
Administrator's duties devolve upon the next in the chain of
command.
Administrator Whitman. Certainly, and as I say, this is one
of the--well, I am in an awkward position. I can't say a lot
more about trying to move this process forward. It is safe to
say that I agree with you that in fairness to the people, in
fairness to the Region, and in recognition of the seriousness
of the issues being raised, there should be timely completion
of reviews and there should be timely submission of documents.
Senator Specter. Well . . .
Administrator Whitman. I am allowed to say one other thing,
which I was sort of dancing around, but frankly that is why I
have recommended a movement of the Ombudsman's office to the
Office of Inspector General. Once an issue is raised with the
Inspector General, not only is the inspector general, who is
entirely independent, required to look into it, whereas the
Ombudsman has the choice whether or not to look into an issue.
They also have to write reports, and they are required to
submit reports in a timely fashion. That, I think, is very
important in these issues.
Senator Specter. Well, as you know, Governor, there is a
lot of concern about--I have a personal concern about the
decision to remove the Ombudsman to the Inspector General. I
plan to take it up with you, and you mentioned that. You have
an Ombudsman who has been very, very--how to put it?--he is had
his own point of view. He has been very independent. He has
said some things which have riled a lot of people. But it is
exactly that kind of independence which has to be recognized
and respected. That is the purpose.
The suggestion has been made that the Ombudsman has been
shifted to the Inspector Generals because the Ombudsman is too
independent and too effective. And if you stifle independence--
look here, I know you very well. You want to find out what the
right thing to do is. That is what Congressman Sherwood and
Senator Santorum and I want to do. You have only had an
investment in this issue for a year, Governor. We have had an
investment in it for more than a decade. And the people up
there are grossly dissatisfied and with cause.
I am going to diary it ahead to March 1 and see if we don't
have a report by that time. So keep your incoming lines open
for calls, Governor.
Administrator Whitman. Certainly--always for you, Senator.
Lines are always open.
Senator Specter. OK. Let me ask you about another problem
in the same vicinity called Tranguch, which involves a 50,000
gallon gasoline spill affecting approximately 250 families in
the greater Hazleton area. And the residents are experiencing
illnesses and are requesting for everyone in the area to be
permanently located, or at least those directly over the plume,
with documented contamination. What is possible to do here,
Governor?
Administrator Whitman. As you know, the cleanup has--
basically the cleanup has been completed and gone very well.
The groundwater collection, soil vapor extraction and the
groundwater collection and treatment systems are completed and
operational. The first round of post-project sampling is going
to take place in March of this year. The EPA is going to
continue to work with the State to monitor the homes in the
infected area to ensure that they are not getting levels above
what we anticipated, what we think is safe for people.
The results of the last round of residential air sampling
showed that 95 percent of the homes had benzene levels below
the site's action levels. The homes that continued exhibit
elevated levels of hazardous materials or hazardous air that
could pose a threat to public health are being evaluated
further, and we will take whatever further action is needed to
ensure that people are safe. But there will be a formal post-
residential, post-project residential sampling in March, next
month.
Senator Specter. Do you expect the evaluations to be
finished in March?
Administrator Whitman. We are going to take the sampling in
March and we should get those results back pretty quickly, yes.
Senator Specter. Well, when you say 95 percent, leaving
only a 5 percent problem area, that is at variance with what
the people in the community say. But we are going to have to
take those one at a time--evaluate which 5 percent are regarded
as having problems and seeing what they have to say.
Administrator Whitman. And we have to figure out how it is
getting there, too. If there are vapors that are escaping into
the homes, we need to figure out what the route of that
exposure is. So we will continue to work on that.
Senator Specter. Thank you very much for you attention to
these matters and all the other matters.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you for coming. Appreciate it.
I have still got 10 minutes. First of all, I want to let
you know I support your efforts to move the Ombudsman's office.
I think that is a good idea.
Now, I would like to go back to what some might consider it
a controversial issue, but the 4-P proposal versus yours. I
must reiterate my hope and firm belief that any 4-P proposal
put forth must be able to show that it improves air quality. I
also hope that it holds the electricity-producing sector
responsible for achieving real reductions in carbon dioxide.
Anything that falls short of these goals would be a
disappointment to me and environmentalists across the Nation.
Has EPA provided to the President some proof that his
proposal will improve air quality over and beyond what is on
the books already?
Administrator Whitman. Senator, as I have said repeatedly,
we want to ensure with any proposal that goes forward that it
results in clean air, and cleaner air than we currently see
today. I believe that anything that the President proposes
will, in fact, show a real gain in air quality. There is going
to be a lot of discussion around it, I know, but when the
President has made his decision and announces it to the public,
I know that you will see that there will be environmental
benefits to what is being proposed.
Having said that, yes, we have obviously been working
closely running numbers, looking at what we can accomplish,
what makes sense to try to achieve. The other thing that we
should not lose in this discussion, and I am always concerned
that it does not get the kind of recognition that it should, is
the amount of carbon reduction that we see through our
voluntary programs.
When you consider that fully, more than 50 percent of the
greenhouse gas emissions that we are going to see over the next
50 years are going to come from products that are purchased
today, we need to ensure that we are giving consumers the right
kind of information so that they can make intelligent decisions
and help reduce the amount of carbon.
Energy STAR has been extraordinarily efficient and
effective in reducing carbon. Last year alone, it reduced the
equivalent--had the equivalent impact of the removal of 10
million cars from the road. It reduced carbon dioxide by 10
billion pounds. It is having a real impact. We need to remember
that we do get ancillary benefits from these other programs,
and continue to recognize and support those, as we are doing
this year at the Agency.
Senator Jeffords. I appreciate your answer. I want to work
closely with you on these matters, and expect that we will be
forthright in providing information.
I just want to add I support Mrs. Clinton's efforts to
address the air quality questions at Ground Zero, and I hope
the Agency takes those matters seriously. I know I don't need
to say that.
I thank you for your testimony. We will leave the record
open for followup questions, as we always do, and we will
appreciate your prompt response to those questions.
Administrator Whitman. Thank you, Senator, very much.
Senator Jeffords. And with that, have lunch.
[Whereupon at 11:54 a.m., the committee was adjourned, to
reconvene at the call of the Chair.]
[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]
Statement of Hon. Christine Todd Whitman, Administrator, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am pleased to be here
to discuss President Bush's budget request for the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). The President's budget provides the necessary
funds for the Agency to carry out our mission efficiently and
effectively to protect human health and safeguard the environment. The
fiscal year 2003 request is $7.7 billion, which includes more than a
100 percent increase in funding for Brownfields, and significant
increases for watershed protection.
I would like to begin, Mr. Chairman, by emphasizing that the
President's budget request for EPA reflects the Agency's strong
commitment to leaving America's air cleaner, its water purer, and its
land better protected than it was when we took office. It promotes that
goal in a manner consistent with our commitment to fiscal
responsibility; by further strengthening our partnerships with State,
local and tribal governments; by funding innovative new programs, and
by strengthening existing programs that work.
I'd like to touch on a few of the highlights. nearly half of EPA's
budget request provides funding for State and tribal programs,
including almost $3.5 billion in assistance to States, tribes and other
partners. The President and I both believe that much of the innovative,
creative, and effective environmental progress being made comes from
State, county and local governments and our budget request supports
that.
As I have traveled around the country during the past year, I've
seen some really exciting programs in action. From the people of
Kentucky PRIDE to the members of the Paiute Tribe in Nevada, and in
countless other communities across America, the EPA is building strong
partnerships for environmental progress and the results speak for
themselves. In this budget, we will build on those results to achieve
even greater environmental progress.
Homeland Security
Since September 11, we have seen the traditional mission of our
Agency safeguarding the environment and protecting the public health
take on new meaning. We now play a critical role in preparing for and
responding to terrorist incidents because of our unique expertise and
experience in emergency preparedness and response to hazardous material
releases. Our new role of supervising the decontamination of anthrax
infected buildings has shown us that better information and new
technologies are needed. To continue to do our part to ensure that the
Nation is prepared to respond to terrorist incidents, we are investing
an additional $124 million for homeland security.
Included in this figure is $75 million for research in technologies
for decontaminating buildings affected by bioterrorists attacks. We
will provide guidance, technical expertise and support to Federal,
State and local governments in building contamination prevention,
treatment and cleanup capabilities. Combined with resources provided in
the Emergency Supplemental Appropriation Act of 2002, this represents a
2-year total of $300 million in new resources. Also included in this
figure is $20 million to address threats to the nation's drinking water
supply.
We, at EPA, play a significant role in working with State
governments and local utilities to protect drinking water supplies. We
have already begun working with States and local utilities to assess
this vulnerability. The additional $20 million being requested in
fiscal year 2003 will augment $88 million appropriated as part of the
Emergency Supplemental Appropriation Act of 2002. Together, these funds
will ensure that utilities have developed a comprehensive assessment of
these vulnerabilities and emergency operations plans using the most
current methods and technologies.
Brownfields
Our fiscal year 2003 budget more than doubles the funds available
for brownfields reclamation by providing $200 million. This money will
allow States, tribes, and local governments to build on the work
they've already done in turning thousands of neighborhood eyesores into
community assets. Despite that progress, thousands of brownfields still
mar America's landscape. That is going to change. Thanks to President
Bush's commitment to brownfields, this money will help us get at some
of the most difficult brownfields challenges that remain. Those
reclaimed brownfields will provide their communities with new jobs, new
places to play, and a new sense of optimism for the future.
Watershed Projects
By providing $21 million for a new watershed initiative, our budget
will target up to 20 watersheds around the country for improvement
funding that will lead to millions of gallons of purer water in the
years ahead. This initiative will allow us to build on existing public-
private partnerships to restore and protect up to 20 of America's most
threatened watersheds. When I visited Boston last year and saw first-
hand the excellent work done by the Charles River Initiative, I knew we
could use that effort as a model for other communities. I've heard a
watershed defined as ``communities connected by water.'' Well, with
this initiative, we are connecting EPA with local watershed protection
through the flow of Federal dollars. As a result, we will help improve
water quality for drinking, boating, swimming, and fishing.
National Environmental Technology Competition
Of course, underlying everything we do is our commitment to
partnership. One of the most exciting new partnerships this budget
seeks to buildupon is our proposed National Environmental Technology
Competition. Over the past 30 years, advances in technology have helped
us address some of our most pressing environmental challenges. I
believe technology can play an even greater role as we seek to achieve
the next generation of environmental progress.
That is why we are proposing $10 million for our National
Environmental Technology Competition. This program will use competition
to foster technological innovation through public-private partnerships.
It will promote the development of new, cost-effective environmental
technologies that will help clean the air, water, and land. For
example, in fiscal year 2003, EPA will solicit proposals related to
arsenic removal in drinking water. This work will help further EPA's
commitment to help fund, through research and development, cost-
effective methods of arsenic removal for small systems.
Cleaner Air
Under the Clean Air Act, we continue work to make the air cleaner
and healthier to breathe by setting standards for ambient air quality,
toxic air pollutant emissions, new pollution sources, and mobile
sources. In fiscal year 2003, we will assist States, tribes and local
governments in devising additional stationary and mobile source
strategies to reduce ozone and particulate matter, and other
pollutants. A key component to achieving the Clean Air Goal for all
citizens is the request for over $232 million for air grants to States
and tribes. In addition, EPA will continue to buildupon its voluntary
government/industry partnership efforts to achieve pollution reductions
and energy savings. For example, as we continue our Energy Star
Labeling and Building Program efforts, our goal is to reduce the
emissions of greenhouse gases by more than 40 million metric tons
annually, by 2010, while saving consumers and businesses an estimated
$14 billion in net energy bill savings when using energy-efficient
products.
Purer Water
Over the past three decades, our nation has made significant
progress in water pollution prevention and cleanup. While we have
substantially cleaned up many of our most polluted waterways, and
provided safer drinking water for millions of U.S. residents,
significant challenges remain. This budget request addresses the
challenge to provide clean and safe water in every American community.
Protection from Drinking Water Contaminants. The fiscal year 2003
request supports our coordinated efforts with the States and tribes to
implement new health-based standards to control for microbial
contaminants, disinfectants and their byproducts, and other
contaminants.
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund. The Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund (DWSRF) request of $850 million will provide substantial
funding to States and tribes to upgrade and modernize their drinking
water systems. At this funding level, EPA will eventually meet its goal
of providing an average of $500 million annually in assistance.
BEACHES Grants. This budget includes $10 million to support our
implementation of the ``Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal
Health Act of 2000.'' The money will be provided in the form of grants
to States to develop local monitoring and notification programs for
coastal recreation waters.
New Watershed Investments. Our $21 million Targeted Watershed
Program is designed to support the need for additional funding for
priority watershed restoration efforts. This request supports a range
of water quality restoration tools to assist local communities in
restoring their waterways. This Program would provide direct grants to
watershed stakeholders to implement comprehensive restoration actions.
Helping States Address Run-off and Restore Polluted Waters. The
President's fiscal year 2003 budget provides significant resources to
States to build on successes we have achieved in protecting the
nation's waters, by providing States and tribes with grants to address
polluted run-off, protect valuable wetlands, and restore polluted
waterways.
Clean Water State Revolving Fund. Our budget request includes
$1.212 billion for States and tribes for the Clean Water State
Revolving Fund (CWSRF). States receive capitalization grants, which
enable them to provide low interest loans to communities to construct
wastewater treatment infrastructure and fund other projects to enhance
water quality. This investment allows our Agency to meet the goal for
the CWSRF to provide $2 billion average in annual financial assistance
over the long-term.
Protecting Human Health along the U.S.-Mexico Border. This budget
includes $75 million for water and wastewater projects along the U.S.-
Mexico Border. These resources help our Agency to address the serious
environmental and human health problems associated with untreated and
industrial and municipal sewage on the U.S.-Mexico border.
Strong Science
The fiscal year 2003 budget supports our efforts to further
strengthen the role of science in decisionmaking by using scientific
information and analysis to help direct policy and establish
priorities. EPA will achieve maximum environmental and health
protections through our request of $627 million for the Office of
Research and Development to address both current and future
environmental challenges. This Administration is committed to the
incorporation of science into regulatory decisions by having scientists
participate early and often in the regulatory development process. The
budget request supports a balanced research and development program
that addresses Administration and Agency priorities, as well as meets
the challenges of the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA), the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA), the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), and other
environmental statutes.
Environmental Information
In fiscal year 2003, we will further our commitment to providing
assistance to States and tribes to develop and implement the National
Environmental Information Exchange Network. The goal of this program is
to advance collaborative efforts to integrate environmental data
between and among EPA, States and the Agency's other partners. The
ability to easily exchange up-to-date, accurate information is critical
to meet today's increasingly complex environmental challenges. The
grant program has several components, each of which is aimed at
building on the growing success of States and tribes in finding smarter
alternatives to the current approaches for exchanging environmental
data. The grants being offered include grants to enable States and
tribes to re-engineer their environmental reporting; grants to
demonstrate progress in developing a joint EPA/State National
Environmental Information Exchange Network, and grants that challenge
State or multi-state or tribal efforts to integrate environmental
information.
As EPA works with States and tribes to develop the National
Environmental Information Exchange Network, we will also continue to
build and institutionalize a Central Data Exchange (CDX) which will be
EPA's focal point for securely receiving, translating, and forwarding
data to EPA's data systems. In fiscal year 2003, the CDX will service
45 States and an assemblage of 25,000 facilities, companies, and
laboratories. By widely implementing an electronic reporting
infrastructure, this infrastructure will reduce reliance on less
efficient paper-based processes, thereby improving data quality,
reducing reporting burden, and simplifying the reporting process.
Enforcement Grant Programs
Most of our nation's environmental laws envision a strong role for
State governments in implementing and managing environmental programs.
The fiscal year 2003 request includes $15 million in a new grant
program to continue to support State agencies implementing authorized,
delegated, or approved environmental enforcement programs. These funds
will continue to afford States a greater role in the enforcement of
environmental laws and regulations.
This budget request will allow our Agency to continue to support
the regulated community's compliance with environmental requirements
through voluntary compliance incentives and assistance programs. We
will provide information and technical assistance to the regulated
community through the compliance assistance program to increase its
understanding of all statutory or regulatory environmental
requirements. The program will also continue to develop strategies and
compliance assistance tools that will support initiatives targeted
toward improving compliance in specific industrial and commercial
sectors or with certain regulatory requirements.
Safe Food
The fiscal year 2003 request includes $142.3 million to help meet
the multiple challenges of the implementation of the Food Quality
Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996 so that all Americans will continue to
enjoy one of the safest, most abundant, and most affordable food
supplies in the world. FQPA provides for the expedited registration of
reduced risk pesticides to introduce alternatives to the older versions
on the market. EPA implements its various authorities in a manner to
ensure that farmers are able to transition with a minimal disruption in
production to safer substitutes and alternative farming practices.
Expanded support for tolerance reassessments will reduce the potential
risks to public health from older pesticides. Reassessing existing
tolerances promotes food safety, especially for infants and children,
while ensuring that pesticides meet the most current health and safety
standards. This budget request also supports FQPA-related science
through scientific assessments of cumulative risk, including funds for
validation of testing components of the Endocrine Disruptor Screening
Program.
Summary
Taken together, the President's proposed EPA budget for fiscal year
2003 fully supports the work of our Agency. It will enable us to
transform the Agency's 30-year mission to meet the challenges of the
21st century. It brings us that much closer to realizing our goals of
cleaner air for all Americans to breathe, purer water for all Americans
to drink, swim and fish in, as well as safeguarding public health.
This concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to answer
any questions that you may have.
______
Responses of Hon. Christine Todd Whitman to Additional Questions from
Senator Boxer
Question 1. Restoration of Contaminated Sites--The pace of clean-
ups of contaminated sites has been declining. In Fiscal Year 2000, 87
NPL clean-ups were completed; In Fiscal Year 2001, 47 clean-ups were
completed (In last year's budget proposal, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) estimated that 75 clean-ups would be completed
in 2001.) In 2002, 40 clean-ups are projected to be completed. In 2003,
40 clean-ups are also projected.
Please explain why the pace of cleanup is slowing so dramatically?
Why was there such a large discrepancy between estimated and actual
cleanups?
Response. Entering into fiscal year 2001, the Superfund program had
already anticipated a reduction in achieving site construction
completions. This was a result of a variety of factors, including the
legacy of past decisions on priorities for funding; the size and number
of construction projects (operable units) for the remaining NPL sites
still eligible for construction completion; and the need to balance a
number of competing environmental priorities within the Superfund
Program. In preceding years, the Agency had placed a priority onsites
that were nearly complete, creating a backlog of sites with significant
years of work remaining. This remaining universe of eligible sites
includes area-wide groundwater sites, mining sites, sediment sites, and
Federal facility sites.
Moving sites to completion remains an Agency priority. The Agency
is launching a Superfund Pipeline Management Review to identify areas
in the Superfund cleanup process that can be managed in a way to
maximize the amount of resources available for cleanup construction and
whether there may be alternative cleanup options available other than
listing a site on the Superfund National Priority List (NPL).
Question 1(a). I understand that EPA has asserted that sites
underway are more complex. Please provide a detailed explanation of
what constitutes a more complex site. In addition, please explain how
EPA is determining that it is the complexity of each site that is
causing the slow down in clean-ups and how this assumption is being
verified and documented.
Response. The remaining universe of NPL sites that are not
construction complete are more complex than sites that have already
achieved construction completion. Many factors are included in
complexity, which affects the duration and cost of cleanups. Examples
of some such factors include. contaminant characteristics, presence of
multiple contaminants, area and volume of contamination, multi-media
contamination, ecological issues, groundwater issues, remedial
technology(ies) necessary, site location, proximity to populations,
Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) cooperation, presence of multiple
PRPs, and other stakeholder interests (States, Tribes, communities,
natural resource trustees). While we have not attempted to assess all
the characteristics that describe complexity on a site-specific basis,
we have a few surrogate measures that demonstrate how the current
universe of non-construction complete NPL sites differs from NPL sites
that are construction complete.
Type of facility. 21 percent of the remaining non-construction
completed universe of final NPL sites (675) are Federal facilities.
Simply the nature of contamination at these sites and their vastness
defines these sites as complex. Only 4 percent of construction
completed sites are Federal facilities.
Mega-sites. Mega-sites, as defined by Resources for the Future, are
non-Federal facility sites with total cleanup costs estimated at $50
million or more. Of the 124 mega-sites that EPA has identified, 75
percent are not construction complete.
Number of operable units per site. In order to address the multiple
aspects of site cleanup, EPA may divide sites into smaller scale units,
called operable units.
There are an average of 4.2 operable units per final, non-
construction complete, non-Federal facility mega NPL site, which 1.5
times greater than the number of operable units at comparable
construction complete NPL sites.
There are an average of 1.9 operable units per final, non-
construction complete, non-Federal facility, non-mega NPL site, which
is 1.3 times greater than the number of operable units at comparable
construction complete NPL sites.
There are an average of 9.5 operable units per final, non-
construction complete, Federal facility NPL site, which 2.1 times
greater than the number of operable units at comparable construction
complete NPL sites.
Question 2. Superfund Tax--The Federal Superfund tax account is
nearly exhausted due to the expiration of the Superfund tax. General
revenues will soon fully replace the tax as a source of funding. The
Superfund tax was paid by polluting industries throughout the country.
They have experienced a tax holiday for more than 5 years.
Does EPA support the reauthorization of the Superfund tax or do you
support shifting the full burden of the federally funded portion of the
Superfund program to the general taxpayer?
Response. A number of years have passed since the Superfund taxes
expired. Although the Superfund taxes expired, the annual
appropriations for the program have remained relatively steady. It is
important to note, that the expiration of the taxes has not affected
the appropriated funding for the Superfund program. EPA is confident
that Congress and the Administration will continue to work together to
provide appropriate funding for the Superfund program. Although the
President's Fiscal Year 2003 budget does not propose enacting Superfund
taxes at this time, the issue may be revisited for the fiscal year 2004
budget. Specific details on the President's request for Superfund in
fiscal year 2004 will be developed within the executive branch over the
course of the next several months, and submitted to Congress in
February 2003.
Question 3. Federal enforcement is a critical backstop to State
enforcement programs. EPA proposed to cut enforcement personnel in the
Fiscal Year 2002 budget, and this proposal was rejected. In the
conference language to the VA/HUD appropriations bill, EPA was directed
to ``restore Federal enforcement positions in accordance with the
fiscal 2001 Operating Plan.''
Question 3(a). Please confirm that the Federal enforcement
positions were restored in accordance with the direction in the VA/HUD
conference report. Please also indicate the number of Federal
enforcement positions that you have included or will include in the
Fiscal 2003 Operating Plan. If there are fewer positions proposed for
Fiscal Year 2003 for key Federal programs, such as civil enforcement,
compliance monitoring and incentives, please indicate the number of
vacancies that have not been filled and the number of positions
eliminated in Fiscal Year 2003 compared to 2001 levels.
Answer 3(a). EPA restored workyears to the enforcement program
consistent with funding provided by Congress in the fiscal year 2002
appropriations. Congress appropriated an increase of $15 million to the
Fiscal Year 2002 President's Request for enforcement, which provided
funding for about 145 workyears. Due to the catastrophic events on ``9/
11'', it was necessary to provide the Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance (OECA) with additional workyears to support our
homeland security efforts. Therefore, the Agency restored 115 workyears
to the enforcement programs and 30 workyears were provided for homeland
security.
While vacancies fluctuate at any given time, OECA is managing its
on-board levels very close to its authorized workyear ceiling. Below,
please find a table which outlines the changes from the Fiscal Year
2001 operating plan to the fiscal year 2003 Request.
Fiscal Years 2001-2003 Workyear Crosswalk
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes Congressional Changes
FY 2001 in FY Restoration & in FY FY 2003
Program Budget 2002 Agency Cut in 2003 Request
Request 2002 Budget Request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance Monitoring.................................... 528.5 -93.0 +29.0 -26.7 437.8
Civil Enforcement........................................ 1,012.2 -92.0 +34.2 -49.3 905.1
Criminal Enforcement..................................... 300.1 - +1.9 -3.2 294.4
4.4
Homeland Security........................................ +30.0 30.0
Superfund Enforcement.................................... 1,030.6 -63.5 +52.4 1,019.5
Compliance Assistance.................................... 213.4 +6.9 -6.9 -11.9 201.5
Compliance Incentives.................................... 97.3 -6.4 -0.2 -5.9 84.8
Capacity Building, NEPA, Environ. Justice................ 205.0 -11.2 -0.1 -1.7 92.0
Enforcement Training 25.0 -6.2 -0.5 -1.3 17.0
Data Management.......................................... 124.2 124.2
Brownfields.............................................. 0.5 +4.5 5.0
Total.................................................... 3,536.8 -269.8 +139.8 -95.5 3,311.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 3(b). EPA's Fiscal Year 2003 budget proposes that $15
million be directed to a State enforcement grant program. What is the
authority for this program? If Federal enforcement positions are not
maintained at Fiscal Year 2001 levels in your proposed budget, would
the funding proposed for this new State grant program be sufficient to
cover the cost of maintaining these positions? Does EPA view State
activities and capacity building as a substitute for Federal
enforcement? How will EPA measure the accomplishments of State
enforcement programs?
Answer 3(b). While we believe we have existing authority, we are
proposing an expansion of that authority to accommodate the multimedia
context in which the grants will be administered. Accordingly,
authorizing language in the appropriations bill that funds the program
would facilitate the administration of the grants.
EPA and the States have different, but complementary roles when it
comes to enforcement of our Nation's environmental laws. States have
primary responsibility for implementing and enforcing most
environmental programs through delegated authority from the EPA. The
EPA's Federal role is to implement and enforce programs that cannot be
delegated to States, to handle more complex cases involving multiple
States or corporations with multiple facilities, to deal with issues
that require expertise or resources that only EPA can provide, and to
enforce when States are unable or unwilling to. Given the interplay
between the State and Federal programs, we believe the State and tribal
enforcement grant program will enhance both State and EPA efforts to
increase compliance with environmental laws.
States will be approved for grant funding only if their grant
proposal includes specific plans to measure and report on their
performance in achieving results. For example, for environmental risks
or noncompliance patterns they are addressing with the grant funds,
States will need to define performance measures for determining whether
they are having an impact (e.g., pollution reductions, improved
environmental practices at facilities or within an industry, increased
compliance rates). EPA will establish required reporting intervals for
States to provide performance information which can be reviewed on a
regular basis by EPA.
Question 4. Hazardous Waste Regulations--EPA's budget proposal
includes discussion of a plan to exclude lower risk wastes from
hazardous waste regulation. Does EPA also plan to review higher risk
wastes and regulate them as hazardous if they are not currently part of
the hazardous waste system?
Response. The Agency is taking a balanced approach to ensure that
high-risk wastes are appropriately regulated under RCRA, and that low-
risk wastes are not over-regulated. We agree that there is a continuing
need to evaluate whether wastes should be brought into the hazardous
waste system, or otherwise addressed to control potential risks. In
recent years the Agency has completed a number of evaluations of
industrial wastes to determine if any of these should be added to the
list of hazardous wastes. These include recent evaluations of wastes
from the paint manufacturing, inorganic chemicals, and chlorinated
aliphatics production industries. We are also continuing investigations
into other wastes of potential concern (e.g., wastes from the dye and
pigment production industries), and we are examining certain wastes
that are already regulated as hazardous to clarify the scope of the
regulations (e.g., spent petroleum catalysts). As discussed in the EPA
budget, we are also examining a limited number of specific waste
streams for potential exemptions under RCRA, to the extent they do not
pose a risk to public health or the environment. This effort is an
outgrowth of a previous rulemaking and public comment. Subsequently, we
were directed in the fiscal year 2002 appropriation to expeditiously
address these requests for exemptions.
In summary, we intend to continue to improve management of wastes
by both effectively addressing wastes that present risks of concern
while also ensuring that other waste streams are not inappropriately
over-regulated.
______
Responses of Hon. Christine Todd Whitman to Additional Questions from
Senator Campbell
Question 1. Global Climate Change--I have supported the use of
market based mechanisms in Federal regulation. Market based approaches
lead to efficient allocation of resources, resulting in greater all
around benefits. The acid rain program is a strong example of what
market based approaches can do. I understand that the Administration is
preparing to release new guidelines for emissions reductions as indexed
to economic output. Could you briefly discuss how such an approach
could work?
Response. The President's climate change policy sets a goal of an
18 percent reduction in greenhouse gas intensity the ratio of emissions
to economic activity in the U.S. over the next 10 years. In practical
terms, this means that fewer tons of greenhouse gases will be emitted
for every million dollars of gross domestic product. The Administration
predicts that current trends of technology improvement and current
climate programs will cause greenhouse gas intensity to fall by 14
percent from 2002 2012. The President's goal calls for an additional 4
percent reduction in greenhouse gas intensity for the period.
Administration estimates are that this 4 percent reduction in
greenhouse gas intensity translates into roughly a 100 million metric
ton reduction in greenhouse gases by 2012. To achieve this goal, the
President proposes investments in the development of new, lower
emitting, technologies and tax incentives for the adoption of such
technologies. In addition to the focus on emissions, the President's
plan supports improvement in carbon sequestration through agricultural
activities. Further, the President has challenged American business and
industry to form partnerships with the Administration to achieve these
goals.
Question 2. How have the priorities changed in response to the
recent economic slowdown and September 11 attacks?
Response. EPA played a critical role in responding to the September
11, 2001, attacks at the World Trade Center in New York City and the
Pentagon. At the World Trade Center, the Agency aided in debris removal
from Ground Zero, combined efforts with Occupational Health and Safety
Administration and the New York City Department of Health to monitor
worker exposure to contaminated dust and particulate matter, and
coordinated with the New York City Department of Environmental
Protection to sample drinking water and ambient air quality. Similar
monitoring efforts were conducted at the Pentagon crash site. At the
Senate Hart Office Building in Washington, DC, EPA worked with the
Sergeant at Arms, who served as the lead, during the Anthrax
decontamination process, which was successfully completed in January
2002.
While the Agency continues its mission of protecting public health
and the environment, we also recognize that homeland security efforts
do not end with the conclusion of cleanup efforts in New York and
Washington, DC. Protecting the nation's water supply, securing and
protecting EPA's facilities and employees, improving the Agency's
ability to respond to any major terrorist incident, supporting and
coordinating with other law enforcement agencies, and initiating
research activities to achieve a higher level of preparedness will
continue to be important priorities as EPA works to improve the
nations's homeland security.
Question 3. Endangered Species--You mention that in the new budget,
the EPA will strengthen the role of science in decisionmaking to direct
policy and priorities. We've seen, in the last few months, faulty and
misdirected science having disastrous effects in both the Canadian Lynx
studies and Oregon's Klamath Basin. How is the EPA prepared to prevent
such future problems by ensuring balanced and unbiased scientific
research?
Response. I do agree with you about the importance of science in
decisionmaking to direct policy and priorities. EPA's Peer Review
Policy helps ensure that the best available scientific information is
used in EPA decisions in a balanced and unbiased way. This policy
requires that major scientific and technical work products used in
Agency decisions receive critical review by qualified individuals (or
organizations) who are independent from, but have equivalent expertise
to, those who performed the work. While our peer review policy does not
apply to science developed or used by other Federal agencies, as in the
two cases cited in your question, since 1994 it has applied not only to
all science conducted by EPA's program and regional offices, but also
to science done by others but used by EPA.
This year we are taking additional steps to support our continued
use of the best available science in decisionmaking. First, we have
enhanced the participation of our Office of Research and Development
(ORD) in the Agency's decisionmaking process, including creating
additional ORD positions that are dedicated to coordinating scientific
input into regulatory policies. Second, EPA is currently drafting its
new guidelines to implement the Office of Management and Budget's
information quality guidance. These new guidelines will outline the
quality requirements for all information disseminated by EPA, and for
influential information--including scientific research findings--the
guidelines will set high standards for objectivity, utility, and
integrity. This will include meeting stringent criteria for
transparency and reproducibility of findings.
Rigorous peer review of our science, and early and continued
involvement of our scientists in decisionmaking, will allow EPA to
continue to be confident that the science used in our decisions is
balanced, unbiased, and appropriately applied to the issue at hand.
Doing so not only results in better decisions, but enhanced service to
the American public through more effective accomplishment of our
mission to protect human health and safeguard the natural environment.
______
Responses of Hon Christine Todd Whitman to Additional Questions from
Senator Clinton
Question 1. As you know, indoor air quality is one of the largest
outstanding environmental issues around Ground Zero. I was pleased that
in the letter that you sent to me on February 12, 2002, you committed
to working with local, State, and Federal partners to establish a Task
Force on Indoor Air in Lower Manhattan, and I look forward to working
with you in this regard.
I believe that it is imperative that this Task Force conducts door-
to-door inspections and indoor sampling within no less than a 10 block
radius of Ground Zero. The Task Force should also operate a centralized
location where the public can get information on whether their building
has been tested/inspected, the results of those tests, and clear
guidance on cleanup requirements, resources available to pay for
cleanups, and certified cleanup companies in the area.
Please provide more detailed information on the Task Force,
including. (1) the proposed make-up of the Task Force, (2) the Task
Force's proposed mission, (3) a proposed schedule for completion of
necessary indoor air activities, and (4) a proposed budget for the Task
Force.
Response. 1. EPA established the Task Force in mid-February. The
list of taskforce members is attached.
2. The Task Force's mission is to assure that people are not being
exposed to pollutants related to the World Trade Center collapse at
levels that might pose long term health risks. On May 8, 2002, EPA and
its Federal, State and city partners announced a comprehensive plan to
ensure that apartments impacted by the collapse of the world trade
center have been properly cleaned. The attached fact sheet provides
more details. EPA, New York City, the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA), and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) are taking a collaborative approach that will include:
<bullet> Cleanup of residential units on request, using certified
contractors;
<bullet> Followup testing for asbestos in the indoor air for
requesting households;
<bullet> Availability of HEPA (High Efficiency Particulate Air)
filter vacuums;
<bullet> Establishment of a hotline to provide information and
take cleanup and testing requests;
<bullet> Distribution of health and cleanup information; and
Professional cleanup of remaining unoccupied, uncleaned buildings.
3. At this time, there is no established end date for these
activities.
4. Under the plan, FEMA will provide a grant to New York City that
will pay for the professional cleaning and testing. EPA will continue
to work with the City and FEMA to identify future projects and funding
needs.
Question 2a. According to EPA's budget summary document, it appears
that FEMA has provided the necessary resources for EPA to conduct the
outdoor air sampling that it has been and continues to do in New York
City. Is that correct?
Response. Yes. FEMA has transferred over $95 million to EPA for
response activities at the World Trade Center Site.
Question 2b. What resources has EPA used for the anthrax cleanups
at private sites, the Postal Service, other government agency sites,
and the U.S. Capitol complex? How much of that funding came out of your
Superfund program and how much came out of the 1902 Supplemental?
Response. EPA has expended over $25 million for Capitol Hill
response out of its Superfund removal program. The Fiscal Year 2002
Defense Appropriations Act, which included the Supplemental for
Counter-terrorism reimbursed EPA for $12.5 million of that. The
Administration is requesting the remaining $12.5 million in the latest
Supplemental request.
In general, the USPS, other government agencies and privately owned
facilities, such as the America Media, Inc. site in Florida, are
funding their own cleanups. EPA is providing technical assistance from
our On-Scene Coordinators, our Environmental Response Team, and other
personnel. EPA estimates that it has spent approximately $2 million for
anthrax cleanup and technical assistance at sites other than the
Capitol Hill Complex.
Question 2c. In your February 12, letter to me, you mentioned that
you were already working with the City and ATSDR on indoor air quality
in Lower Manhattan by providing resources to analyze indoor air and
dust samples from 30 buildings in Lower Manhattan. What was the source
of these resources?
Response. FEMA provided funding for the original sampling and will
fund additional project components that are eligible under its
programs.
Question 2d. Why in your February 12 letter to me did you suggest
that the resources for the new Indoor Air Task Force should come from
the CDBG money appropriated for New York last year? As I'm sure your
are aware, the use of that money is at the discretion of Governor
Pataki. In addition, the demands on the CDBG money for economic
redevelopment and revitalization in lower Manhattan unfortunately
already far exceed these resources.
Response. While I am sure the demands on these CDBG resources is
great, as you know, eligible activities of CDBG funds include the
provision of services related to public health. This could potentially
include addressing the indoor environmental needs of residents and
building owners in Lower Manhattan.
Question 3. EPA's budget summary States that you will be using
funds from the 1902 Supplemental to develop ``Additional information
needed to determine the risks to human health from short-term exposures
to acutely toxic chemicals.''
Please explain this effort further. What chemicals will EPA be
looking at? Will this effort in any way be targeted to addressing the
short-term exposures experienced at the World Trade Center?
Response. EPA's National Advisory Committee for Acute Exposures for
Hazardous Substances (NAC/AEGL Committee) is working with experts of
the Environmental & Occupational Health Sciences Institute (EOHSI) to
develop a list of chemicals of concern in the World Trade Center
disaster and to assess the ability to develop acute exposure values for
emergency planning scenarios. These experts will provide the NAC/AEGL
Committee with the results of their analyses of the World Trade Center
disaster and meet with the committee to discuss the short-term
exposures of concern from the viewpoint of both vulnerable areas just
following the event and also re-entry considerations. Included in the
substances of concern are glass fibers, PM<INF>2.5</INF> and greater
micron diameter particles, benzene and toluene emissions from jet fuel
combustion, phthalates and polyaromatic hydrocarbons (chrysenes,
anthracenes, pyrenes) from building materials and some brominated flame
retardants.
Question 4. EPA's budget summary document also mentioned that EPA
will be using money from the 1902 Supplemental to ``provide
environmental updates on environmental data to the Agency's website
regarding cleanup efforts at the World Trade Center.'' Please explain
this effort in further detail.
Response. In the aftermath of the World Trade Center (WTC)
disaster, EPA assumed responsibility for developing and maintaining a
multi-agency data base to house both the results of ambient air
monitoring conducted in New York City and its surrounding environments
to determine the environmental impacts of the 9/11 event. In addition,
EPA has been posting the results of its own WTC sampling and monitoring
activities on the Agency website (found at www.epa.gov) since September
25, 2001. While some monitoring organizations have ceased their
operations, EPA, the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation, and the New York City Department of Environmental
Protection continue to monitor in the vicinity of the WTC. EPA will
continue to accept new data updates into the data base and update its
public website postings as long as monitoring activities are advancing.
In addition, EPA plans to make the data base publicly available later
this year and will be renewing the public version of the system as new
data becomes available.
Question 5. With respect to Homeland Security in the
Administration's Fiscal Year 2003 proposal for EPA, the lion's share of
the funding would go to conducting research on ``better technologies
and assessments to clean up buildings contaminated by biological and
chemical agents.'' Please explain this effort in further detail. What
will this include in addition to anthrax?
Response. The President's 2003 budget allocated $75,000,000 to the
Environmental Protection Agency for research on building security and
decontamination. EPA developed a 2-year plan for development, testing,
and communication of enhanced methods for detection, containment,
decontamination, and disposal of clean-up equipment after intentional
introduction of biological or chemical contaminants into large
buildings. This plan includes consideration of biological and chemical
warfare agents as well as toxic bulk industrial chemicals, and the plan
addresses both indoor releases of contaminants and proximal outdoor
releases.
As part of this effort, the Agency will test and verify existing
devices to detect contaminants, develop new devices or methods of
detection, equip vans with detection instrumentation for rapid
response, and design a detection network. Research will also be
conducted to develop and test methods for preventing the spread of
contaminants, and to protect building occupants, emergency responders,
and decontamination crews. In addition, EPA researchers will look at
methods for decontaminating indoor surfaces and methods for disposing
of contaminated clean-up materials. The Agency also plans to provide
guidance on improved detection, containment, and decontamination
methods for facility managers, emergency responders, decontamination
crews, and those sampling and analyzing materials in the environment.
Question 6. How will EPA work to incorporate its experience in New
York into its Homeland Security Initiative?
Response. EPA has developed a lessons learned document that has
been distributed within the Agency. The lessons identified in this
document, along with other assessments, will help EPA to develop its
Agency-wide Homeland Security Strategy. EPA's strategy will be
incorporated into the National Strategy.
Question 7a. It is my understanding that EPA's Inspector General
has already recommended that contaminant asbestos be regulated under
the Clean Air Act and that EPA's Office of Air and Radiation has agreed
with this recommendation. Can you please tell the committee what
actions are already under way or that the Agency intends to take in
this regard?
Answer 7a. The Inspector General recommended that EPA consider the
need for regulation of contaminant asbestos under the Clean Air Act
through National Emissions Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP).
Contaminant asbestos emissions are potentially associated with a
wide variety of mineral mining and processing operations. Because of
the potential for asbestos exposure resulting from emissions and other
pathways associated with inappropriate material handling and disposal,
we agree that the need for regulation of contaminant asbestos sources
under the NESHAP program should be considered. However, there are
significant issues which must be addressed when considering NESHAP
development for contaminant asbestos sources.
We have developed an Action Plan for determining the need for
NESHAP for a broad range of contaminant asbestos emissions sources. The
objective of the Action Plan is to identify the steps and associated
activities necessary to gather the information needed to decide whether
regulations for sources of contaminant asbestos are warranted.
Question 7b. I also understand that EPA's Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxic Substances has committed to forming a ``Blue
Ribbon Panel'' on policy issues ``associated with the use and
management of asbestos and other durable fibers'' by mid-2002. Please
tell the committee if this is proceeding on schedule? How will the
asbestos issues resulting from the September 11 attacks be addressed by
the Panel?
Response. Blue Ribbon Panel--EPA is establishing a panel of
informed stakeholders (which includes industry, school officials, EPA,
health and risk assessors, and the public) to provide independent
advice and council on policy issues associated with asbestos. The panel
will consider how the Agency should best focus its resources to address
asbestos products still in use and asbestos products found in homes,
commercial buildings, and schools. The first panel meeting will be in
late Summer 2002.
The panel is expected to address asbestos issues resulting from the
September 11 attacks. For example, the Panel will address air emissions
standards for asbestos, discuss the use of asbestos-containing building
materials, and work to develop a consumer education campaign.
Question 8. Once again, funding for the Long Island Sound has been
severely cut from this year's enacted level. Why?
Response. The reduction from $2.5 million to $477 thousand reflects
the elimination of the fiscal year 2002 earmark of $2.003 million. Our
fiscal year 2003 request is equal to our request for fiscal year 2002.
Question 9. The National Estuary Program is already woefully under-
funded, and could provide significant benefits for important estuary
resources around the country, such as the Peconic Estuary on Long
Island. Why is there a significant cut in funding proposed by the
Administration for the National Estuary Program?
Response. As with Long Island Sound funding, the reduction in total
levels for the National Estuary Program reflects elimination of a $5.5
million earmark appropriated in fiscal year 2002.
______
Responses of Hon. Christine Todd Whitman to Additional Questions from
Senator Jeffords
Question 1. I have been told that, nationally, our superfund site
needs are three times greater that the money available. How much money
would be necessary in fiscal year 2003 for the program to operate at
the optimal level?
Response. This Administration is committed to the polluter pays
principle. Due to the polluter pays structure of Superfund,
approximately 70 percent of non-Federal Superfund sites are financed
and cleaned up by private parties. Other sites are cleaned up by EPA
with costs recovered from private parties after cleanup.
Last year, EPA produced a near record amount in private party
cleanup commitments and cost recovery--$1.7 billion--an increase from
the previous year of almost $300 million. Of the $1.7 billion, EPA
recovered $413 million in cleanup costs--a large increase from the $145
million recovered in the previous year. The total value of these
settlements with responsible parties exceeds $18 billion. EPA will
continue to pursue agreements with responsible parties to conduct
future cleanup work wherever possible.
The President's budget request of $1.29 billion for Superfund
reflects a strong commitment to clean up hazardous waste sites. The
fiscal year 2003 budget includes an almost $200 million increase in
such funding. While funding in Superfund is essentially flat as
compared to fiscal year 2002, the Budget includes $200 million for
Brownfields funding through other accounts. Prior to the President
signing the Brownfields legislation in December, Brownfields funding
was provided through the Superfund account and within the fiscal year
2002 Superfund total. At the budget levels requested by the President
for fiscal year 2003, EPA expects to maintain progress at Superfund
sites, and EPA's presence at sites with ongoing work will continue. EPA
will continue to ensure that available funds are directed to the
highest priority sites and projects.
Question 2. I understand that in Region 1, for example, the funding
in the ``pipeline'' (used for remedial investigations, feasibility
studies, and removal work) has dropped from $45 million in 2000 to $24-
$26 million this year. Can you explain this dramatic decrease in
funding to me?
Response. As part of the budget process, EPA allocates resources to
each region for specific categories of work. Allocations of
``pipeline'' resources are predominantly contractor resources. In
fiscal year 2000, EPA allocated $29.4 million to Region 1 for pipeline
activities. The region was able to augment this ``base'' allocation to
nearly $45 million by using deobligated funds from closed/expired
contracts. The pipeline allocation for Region 1 in fiscal year 2002 is
$24.8 million. The reason for the reduction from the fiscal year 2000
($29.4 million) is based on the implementation of a new methodology for
allocating pipeline resources among the ten regions.
Question 3. Is there any data documenting an increase in the
complexity of Superfund sites?
Response. The remaining universe of NPL sites that are not
construction complete are more complex than sites that have already
achieved construction completion. Many factors are included in
complexity, which affects the duration and cost of cleanups. Examples
of some such factors include. contaminant characteristics, presence of
multiple contaminants, area and volume of contamination, multi-media
contamination, ecological issues, groundwater issues, remedial
technology(ies) necessary, site location, proximity to populations,
Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) cooperation, presence of multiple
PRPs, and other stakeholder interests (States, Tribes, communities,
natural resource trustees). While we have not attempted to assess all
the characteristics that describe complexity on a site-specific basis,
we have a few surrogate measures that demonstrate how the current
universe of non-construction complete NPL sites differs from NPL sites
that are construction complete.
Type of facility. 21 percent of the remaining non-construction
completed universe of final NPL sites (675) are Federal facilities.
Simply the nature of contamination at these sites and their vastness
defines these sites as complex. Only 4 percent of construction
completed sites are Federal facilities.
Mega-sites. Mega-sites, as defined by Resources for the Future, are
non-Federal facility sites with total cleanup costs estimated at $50
million or more. Of the 124 mega-sites that EPA has identified, 75
percent are not construction complete.
Number of operable units per site. In order to address the multiple
aspects of site cleanup, EPA may divide sites into smaller scale units,
called operable units.
<bullet> There are an average of 4.2 operable units per final,
non-construction complete, non-Federal facility mega NPL site, which
1.5 times greater than the number of operable units at comparable
construction complete NPL sites.
<bullet> There are an average of 1.9 operable units per final,
non-construction complete, non-Federal facility, non-mega NPL site,
which is 1.3 times greater than the number of operable units at
comparable construction complete NPL sites.
<bullet> There are an average of 9.5 operable units per final,
non-construction complete, Federal facility NPL site, which 2.1 times
greater than the number of operable units at comparable construction
complete NPL sites.
Question 4. Is the EPA meeting its reduction goals for per capita
municipal solid waste generation? What is the goal in fiscal year 2003?
Response. Yes, EPA is on track to meet the 2005 per capita
municipal solid waste generation goal and recycling goal. EPA
challenged the Nation to attain two municipal solid waste goals by the
year 2005; maintain per capita solid waste generation at the 1990 level
of 4.5 pounds per day; and increase recycling to 35 percent. Now, as
year 2000 results are compiled, most recent available data indicate
that in 1999 Americans generated 4.62 pounds per capita per day and
recycled 27.8 percent.
In fiscal year 2003, the annual performance goal is to divert an
additional 1 percent (for a cumulative total of 32 percent or 74
million tons) of municipal solid waste from land filling and
combustion, and maintain per capita generation of RCRA MSW at 4.5lbs
per day. In furthering the national goals, EPA expects that year 2003
per capita waste generation will continue near the 1999 level, and
recycling will approach 32 percent.
EPA partnerships with States, tribes, local governments, and
businesses in projects such as WasteWise, Jobs Through Recycling,
Extended Product Responsibility, and Pay-As-You-Throw financing are
lending focus to the job creation, cost savings, and energy benefits
which accrue from waste reduction and recycling.
The Administration is building on past successes by establishing
new priorities with a focused commitment to waste reduction and
recycling. These priorities include a retail initiative to raise
environmental awareness of consumers and business and encourage
individuals to address environmental issues at the ``hands-on'' level
as a gateway to better environmental stewardship. Additional efforts
will cultivate innovative approaches to demonstrate the value of
recycling and waste minimization as integral components of the nation's
materials management strategy.
Question 5. EPA's proposed budget includes the costs of additional
retirement and health benefits. In fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year
2002, what percentage of the Agency's full-time workforce was covered
by the CSRS retirement system and what percentage was covered by the
FERS system?
Response. The Administration has proposed new legislation so that
Federal agencies would, beginning in fiscal year 2003, pay the full
government share of future benefits under the Civil Service Retirement
System (CSRS) and assume responsibility for the health benefits of all
of their retirees (and their dependents/survivors). This proposal is
simply an accounting issue that shifts responsibility for paying these
costs from a centrally management account in OPM, to each Agency. In
fiscal year 2001, 36 percent of the Agency's full-time workforce was
covered by CSRS, as opposed to 64 percent who were covered by the
Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS). We estimate that 35 percent
of the Agency's full-time workforce will be covered by CSRS, and 65
percent by FERS in fiscal year 2002.
Question 6. Since September 11, EPA has been asked to take on many
additional homeland defense activities. Last year's terrorism
supplemental provided increased resources for EPA to carry out these
new duties. In fiscal year 2003, the Agency plans to spend $124 million
on homeland defense activities, but is adding almost no new employees
overall. How many FTE are assigned to homeland defense activities? Are
any EPA employees being reassigned from environmental protection to
homeland defense activities?
Response. Before September 11, 2001, EPA had 12 people working on
Homeland Security issues. In responding to the events of September 11
and the Anthrax incidents in Washington, New York, and Florida, EPA
personnel were temporarily dislocated from what could be considered
traditional activities of environmental protection. As cleanup at the
World Trade Center and the Capitol Hill Complex have progressed, some
affected Agency staff have resumed non-terrorist related environmental
protection duties. The 2002 Emergency Supplemental and fiscal year 2003
President's Budget Request incorporates new investments into EPA's
Homeland Security activities. The Agency is requesting additional FTE
and also proposing to redirect over 45 FTE in fiscal year 2003 toward
Homeland Security priorities. Currently, new jobs are being announced
on a competitive basis. Employees inside the Agency are able to compete
for these job vacancies as well as anyone else. In the President's
fiscal year 2003 budget, the Homeland security FTE will be 66.9, an
almost six fold increase over fiscal year 2001.
Question 7. Please explain the decision to eliminate the STAR
Fellowship Program and move the environmental education division to the
National Science Foundation?
Response. The President's Budget proposes to strengthen math and
science education in the United States by improving the quality of math
and science education in grades K-12 and by attracting the most
promising U.S. students into graduate level science and engineering by
providing more competitive stipends. The President's K-12 math and
science initiative and the higher graduate stipends are being funded
through the National Science Foundation's (NSF) budget. NSF is noted
for its expertise and success in funding competitive programs in math
and science. The Budget increases NSF's annual stipends for fellowship
and tranineeship programs from $21,500 to $25,000. Funding for EPA's
STAR Fellowship Program was eliminated in fiscal year 2003 as part of
the larger initiative to strengthen math and science programs through
the National Science Foundation (NSF). EPA will continue funding for
its Minority Academic Institutions (MAI) Fellowships program at $1.5
million in fiscal year 2003.
Question 8. In general the mandates under the Safe Drinking Water
Act are well funded, however, parallel resources are not provided to
Clean Water Act mandates, resulting in erosion in the base programs run
by States under Federal clean water act mandates. What can be done to
ensure appropriate funding exists for the core work States are doing to
keep our waters clean?
Response. The Clean Water Act Section 106 grants are a key
component of assistance to States for base programs. The fiscal year
2003 President's Budget Request recognizes the importance of these
State grant funds by proposing $180.4 million, the largest Presidential
request ever.
Question 9. Vermont is very pleased with the performance
partnership model. What can be done to expand the flexibility of that
model and to ensure adequate levels of funding/ensure that any new
funds are incorporated within that agreement rather than as add-on
mandates from the Federal Government? (The financial pressures to keep
up with the CWA/SDWA mandates does make it very difficult for States to
provide the level of services citizens should and do expect.)
Response. Performance Partnership Agreements have fostered a much
improved working relationship between the States and EPA. The
partnership has resulted in better communications, allowing States and
EPA to take advantage of each other's unique strengths and abilities,
leading to better environmental results cleaner and safer air, water
and better protected land.
One of the most important tools that complement this framework is
the Performance Partnership Grant (PPG). Through PPGs, States can
combine funds from up to 16 environmental program grants into a single
grant. This provides States with the flexibility to direct Federal
resources to address their most pressing environmental problems or
program needs. Under PPGs, it is also easier to fund innovative or
cross-cutting activities, such as pollution prevention, compliance
assistance or data integration projects. Further, States also save on
administrative costs because of reduced paperwork and streamlined
accounting procedures.
While the PPG is perhaps the most recognizable tool for
facilitating funding flexibility, it is worth noting that the EPA
recently revised its regulation governing the administration of all
environmental program grants to State, interstate and local
governmental agencies (Part 35 Rule, effective April 2001). This rule
not only sets forth the provisions for interested States to pursue
funding flexibility through PPGs, it also encourages EPA and States to
set priorities together under all program grants so that resources can
be directed to address State needs within each program area.
The revised rule allows the EPA Administrator to add, delete or
change the list of grants eligible for inclusion in PPGs. EPA wants to
extend the funding flexibility available through PPGs as much as is
possible within the boundaries set by Congress in authorizing the PPG
program. To that end, EPA recently added the newly authorized
Environmental Information Management grant program grants.
Performance Partnership principles have fostered a new
understanding of the importance of EPA and States working together
toward a common goal, as well as an appreciation of the need to find
new opportunities to help States direct precious resources where they
are most needed. The achievement of optimal program and resource
flexibility is, however, a work in progress, and can only be reached
through EPA and States' continued partnership efforts.
Question 10. One of the most successful EPA sponsored programs in
Vermont, with impacts in upstate New York as well, is the Lake
Champlain Basin Program. This program is a real success story where the
EPA, working with local partners has made significant strides, in fact
is ahead of schedule, on cleaning up Lake Champlain. This important and
successful program is proposed to be reduced from the fiscal year 2002
level of $2.5 million to $954,800 in fiscal year 2003. How can the
program be maintained with such a large budget reduction?
Response. Our requested level will permit us to continue our
successful efforts to support implementation of the Lake Champlain
Management Plan via funding for the Lake Champlain Basin Program. The
reduction reflects an elimination of the $1.545 million earmark
appropriated in fiscal year 2002; our request for fiscal year 2003 is
equal to our request for fiscal year 2002.
Question 11. Please provide me with a detailed budget breakdown of
EPA's proposed spending on Tribal activities, and Tribal wastewater
projects in particular, as compared to fiscal year 2002 enacted levels.
Response. The President's Budget request for EPA's tribal program
is $232 million in fiscal year 2003, an increase of $3.6 million from
the fiscal year 2002 level (see attachment). This request consists of
the following.
<bullet> $34.7 million for EPA's Environmental Programs and
Management (EPM) account to support development of integrated
environmental management programs. This represents an increase of $300
thousand from fiscal year 2002 EPA funding.
<bullet> $116.7 million awarded to tribes from the State and
Tribal Assistance Grant (STAG) account, excluding infrastructure
financing. This is a $5 million increase from fiscal year 2002 EPA
funding.
<bullet> $70.9 million under the Water Infrastructure Financing
account. This represents a decrease of $2 million from fiscal year 2002
EPA funding; and
<bullet> $6.7 million for the Superfund Program and $3.2 million
for the Leaking Underground Storage Tank program which maintains the
fiscal year 2002 EPA funding levels for these programs.
Wastewater funding
Of the $70.9 million above under the Water Infrastructure Financing
account, wastewater funding is a follows:
<bullet> $18.18 million is for the Clean Water Indian Set-aside
Grant Program for tribal wastewater systems. This amount assumes that
Congress will accept our proposal to continue the Clean Water State
Revolving Fund (CWSRF) set-aside funding at 1.5 percent. The difference
in the EPA CWSRF fiscal year 2002 Appropriation amount of $1.35 billion
and the fiscal year 2003 President's Request of $1.21 billion accounts
for the decrease of $2 million in the tribal set-aside funding.
<bullet> EPA estimates that with the fiscal year 2003 set-aside
about 20 additional grants will be awarded with an additional 1,700
tribal homes being served with adequate treatment systems.
The table below lists appropriations for the CW Indian Set-Aside
Program since its inception in 1987:
Clean Water Indian Set-Aside Grant Program Funding
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Appropriation Amount Projects Funded
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1987.................................. $5,805,000......................... 7
1988.................................. 11,520,000......................... 19
1989.................................. 4,705,000.......................... 5
1990.................................. 4,867,600.......................... 8
1991.................................. Set-aside language not yet
authorized in CWSRF.
1992.................................. 9,743,000.......................... 14
1993.................................. 9,637,500.......................... 12
1994.................................. 6,090,000.......................... 8
1995.................................. 6,175,000.......................... 24
1996.................................. 6,742,500.......................... 25
1997.................................. 6,750,000.......................... 29
1998.................................. 6,750,000.......................... 25
1999.................................. 6,750,000.......................... 28
2000.................................. 6,727,100.......................... 31
2001.................................. 20,205,500*........................ 57
2002.................................. 20,250,000*........................ yet to be determined
Total................................. $132,719,200....................... 292
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Reflects an increase in the percent of funds (0.5 percent to 1.5 percent) set-aside for fiscal year 2001 and
fiscal year 2002 only from the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (Title VI) for grants to Indian tribes and
Alaskan Native Villages for wastewater treatment systems.
$40 million is requested in the fiscal year 2003 President's Budget
to address the sanitation needs (drinking water and wastewater) of
Alaska's rural and Native Villages (an amount equal to the Agency's
fiscal year 2002 Appropriation).
EPA estimates that approximately 54 drinking water and wastewater
projects will be constructed, and that additional training and
technical assistance will be provided.
The table below shows EPA's appropriation since 1995:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Appropriation Amount Projects Funded
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995.................................. $15,000,000........................ 25
1996.................................. 15,000,000......................... 35
1997.................................. 15,000,000......................... 40
1998.................................. 15,000,000......................... 35
1999.................................. 30,000,000......................... 51
2000.................................. 30,000,000......................... 51
2001.................................. 35,000,000......................... 48
2002.................................. 40,000,000......................... to be determined
Total................................. $195,000,000....................... 285
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 12. Please explain why the President's fiscal 2003 budget
provides no funding for the Clean Lakes Program.
Response. In recent years, EPA has encouraged States to use the
section 319 Nonpoint Source Program to support the lakes and reservoir
work which was previously funded under the section 314 Clean Lakes
Program. Our policy is consistent with the Senate Appropriations
Committee conference reports in fiscal year 2000 and 2001 which
included a suggestion that lakes activities be funded under the section
319 program and that 5 percent of section 319 funds be allocated to
Clean Lakes activities. Our grants reporting data indicate that a
substantial amount of lakes-related work is being supported under
section 319. Specifically, grants reporting data for fiscal year 1999
through fiscal year 2001 indicate that States are using at least 5
percent of their section 319 funds annually in projects that directly
benefit lakes and reservoirs. We also echoed the Senate's suggestion
that ``each State use at least 5 percent of its section 319 funds for
Clean Lakes activities'' in our supplemental fiscal year 2000 section
319 guidance issued in Dec. 1999. The guidance emphasized that it
applied to fiscal year 2000 319 grants and to grants issued ``in future
years.''
Question 13. I am concerned about the rate of progress that EPA is
making in responding to the Supreme Court decision on the revised ozone
and fine particulate standards. That was just about 1 year ago. But,
the Agency still hasn't released an implementation strategy so the
States can really get started on the 8-hour ozone rule. This is
particularly unsettling in light of the findings from a recent public
health study. The study shows that children appear to actually develop
asthma from playing sports in areas with high ozone concentrations. Can
you give me an idea of what the schedule is on the new ozone standard?
Response. Since the U.S. Supreme Court's action on February 27,
2001 EPA has made much progress working with our State and other
Federal partners to implement the revised ozone standard. The Agency
successfully defended the standards in the D.C. Circuit, which ruled on
March 26, 2002, that the Agency acted reasonably when setting the 8-
hour ozone standard. This is a significant victory in EPA's ongoing
efforts to protect the health of millions of Americans from the dangers
of air pollution. Concurrently with defending the standards in court,
the Agency has been responding to the Supreme Court's implementation
decision. The Court held that EPA's approach for implementing the 8-hr
ozone NAAQS was not acceptable because it did not adequately consider
the provisions of Title I, Part D, Subpart 2. The Court directed EPA to
develop an implementation approach that incorporates appropriate
principles from that part of the Clean Air Act. In response, EPA
embarked upon a process of outreach to gather information and ideas
that could underpin a Federal rulemaking dealing with the issues raised
by the Court. EPA also began to examine all of the complex issues
surrounding the court mandate. Some of the issues under consideration
include. (1) the relationship of Subpart I to Subpart 2; (2)
nonattainment area classifications and associated attainment dates; (3)
rate of progress requirements for nonattainment areas; (4) the role of
mandatory measures in State attainment plans; (5) the requirements for
conformity of federally supported projects such as highways and
airports; and, (6) attainment demonstration requirements. In the fall
of 2001, we began outreach efforts to fully inform the elected
officials and the general public of the issues. We have expanded the
dialog with interested parties, including States and local air
agencies, other governmental organizations, and individual
stakeholders, to further the exchange of ideas and develop solutions.
In early March of this year, we held public meetings in Washington and
Atlanta to receive input on the numerous issues. Over 150 persons
attended these meetings. A third public meeting is scheduled for April
3, 2002 in Phoenix. Concerning our schedule for the ozone standard, we
plan to propose an implementation rule this summer and issue a final
rule about a year later.
Question 14. As you know from meeting with them, the Attorney
General of Vermont and other Attorneys General from other Northeast
States are very concerned about New Source Review enforcement and
regulations. They are worried about what EPA and Justice are doing and
what they will do. So am I.
Question 14(a). What is the Agency doing with the NSR enforcement
actions it has already started?
Answer. EPA's enforcement activities to address New Source Review
violations continue to be vigorous. EPA has since January 2001 made
approximately 87 information requests to power plants, refineries and
other facilities, such as paper mills; issued about 22 Notices of
Violation; filed and concluded at least 7 cases; and engaged in
numerous other enforcement activities such as depositions, motion
practice and on-going settlement discussions--all to enforce the Clean
Air Act's NSR requirements. We believe our NSR cases are strong and
will continue to urge companies to come to the table and settle these
cases. In the meantime, we will vigorously pursue our investigations
and litigation.
Question 14(b). Will EPA's proposed budget change the level of
effort, personnel or resources allocated to prosecuting those actions
already started?
Answer. No, the staff dedicated to NSR enforcement has, in fact,
increased, in that we recently hired two attorneys for that office.
Additionally, we anticipate that we will be able to manage the FTE
reduction from fiscal year 2002 to fiscal year 2003 through normal
attrition, without the reassignment of existing enforcement staff and
without a hiring freeze.
Moreover, we have since January 2001 filed and concluded 5 major
cases against refineries for NSR violations the combined effect of
which will be an estimated reduction of 76,000 tons of sulfur dioxide
(SO<INF>2</INF>) emissions per year and 31,000 tons of nitrogen oxides
(NOx) emissions per year. We also filed and concluded a major case
against a power plant, PSEG, which alone will reduce the company's
emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO<INF>2</INF>) by 90 percent and its
emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) by more than 80 percent. These
decreases represent 32 percent of all the SO<INF>2</INF> and 20 percent
of all the NOx emitted from stationary sources in New Jersey, and 19
percent of all the SO<INF>2</INF> and 5 percent of all the NOx from all
sources in the State, including cars and trucks.
Question 14 (c). Does EPA expect to initiate any new NSR
enforcement actions this year?
Answer. Yes, as described above, we continue to vigorously pursue
NSR enforcement. As with any enforcement action, however, how soon and
how many cases can be concluded depends on the particular facts of each
case.
Question 15. Please describe EPA's new State enforcement program
and explain how it differs from the one the Agency proposed last year?
Response. Last year when the President's fiscal year 2002 Budget
proposed a $25 million enforcement grant program, EPA worked
extensively with States and Tribes to solicit and consider their
comments and suggestions. The design for the proposed $15 million
program in the President's fiscal year 2003 Budget provides for
performance-based grants that will build on the comments and
suggestions received previously. Options for use and allocation of
grant funds identified during the outreach process are outlined below.
Options for Use of Funds (One or a combination of options may be
used)
<bullet> Capacity Building. funds would be used to expand the
capabilities of existing enforcement and compliance assurance programs.
<bullet> Problem-Based Strategies. funds would be used to
implement a strategy to address a specific environmental risk or
noncompliance pattern (identified by the State or Tribe).
Options for Allocating Funds to States and Tribes (One or a
combination of options may be used)
<bullet> Competitive Awards. funds will be awarded based on the
merits of the proposal; not all States and tribes would receive funds.
<bullet> Base Share Grants. each State receives a minimum amount,
plus additional funds are available through the competitive award
process.
<bullet> Tribal Set-Aside. Recognizing that Tribal environmental
programs may not compete well with States it may be necessary to set
aside a portion of the funds for Tribal grants.
ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM
Question 16. How many unfilled jobs exist in the enforcement
division?
Response. In Fiscal Year 2002, the Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance has a workyear ceiling of 3,407 (excluding the 50
FTE provided in the supplemental bill) across all appropriations among
its Headquarters, Field and Regional offices. We are managing very
close to our current authorized FTE levels and expect to lapse only a
few workyears this year.
Question 17. EPA is currently spending 0.3 percent of the
replacement value of its real estate assets on building repairs and
improvements, well below the real estate industry's recommended level
of 2 percent to 5 percent of the replacement value. Is EPA under-
funding its building repairs and improvements?
Response. We believe we have allocated sufficient resources for
these activities. Over the past 6 years, the Agency's facility
inventory has dramatically shifted from primarily rent/leased
facilities to government-owned facilities (39 percent owned in fiscal
year 1997 to 63 percent owned in fiscal year 2003). The Agency's Repair
and Improvement account, which is the primary funding source for
repairs and improvements, has remained constant over this same period.
In recognition, the President's Budget contains a $10.0M increase over
fiscal year 02 to begin mitigating the current repair backlog which
exist in our facilities. This increase will enable EPA to devote 1.2
percent of the replacement value of it's real estate assets to repair
and maintenance, closer to the industry standard.
Question 18. On the topic of smart growth, I see a need for tools
for community planning, visualization of growth, development and design
alternative modeling, evaluation of fiscal and environmental impacts,
and consensus-building.
Question 18a. Does EPA agree that decision support tools will
assist communities in making informed decisions by helping them
understand the implications of different choices and that these tools
will help increase public involvement and help all participants make
choices based on sound technical information?
Answer. Yes, EPA believes that decision support tools are useful
for communities to make better informed decisions about how and where
to grow. While the Federal Government cannot and should not be a
national or regional development board, it can help expand the
availability of these tools by partnering with selected organizations,
and supporting an economy of scale that makes them more cost-effective
and accessible. An October 2001 GAO report found that local and State
officials felt that the Federal Government could provide technical
assistance to assess and mitigate land use impacts as a means to better
protect air and water quality.\1\ EPA concurs with that finding and, in
order to be proactive on these issues, we are helping States and
communities realize the economic, community, and environmental benefits
of smart growth. We recognize that local land use decisions are best
made by local officials, and that EPA can help them gather data and
information on which to base those decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\General Accounting Office, Environmental Protection: Federal
Incentives Could Help Promote Land Use That Protects Air and Water
Quality, October 2001. GAO-02-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's current efforts focus on increasing the ability of State and
local governments to evaluate the environmental impacts of development
patterns. For example, EPA is working with communities to pilot the use
of the Smart Growth Index (SGI) a GIS-based tool developed in
partnership with the Criterion software company to measure the discrete
air and water impacts of proposed development decisions. Several
additional cities will be piloting SGI in 2002. In addition, EPA's
Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation and the Office of
Environmental Information are jointly supporting the development of
remote sensing data in three cities to examine long-term, development-
related changes in the amount of open space, impervious surfaces,
farmland, and urbanized land area. Remote sensing data projects will be
launched in an additional three cities by the end of 2002.
Regional EPA offices have also recognized the benefits of
developing tools for local decisionmaking. EPA's Chicago office, for
example, supported the development of L-THIA Long-Term Hydrological
Impact Analysis which provides estimates of changes in runoff,
recharge, and nonpoint source pollution resulting from past or proposed
land use changes. EPA's Atlanta office has partnered with the
University of Florida to map all large, ecologically significant
properties in the entire eight-State southeast region. The resulting
``greenprint'' will provide systematic information to localities to
support their protection of large ecosystem properties.
Question 18b. Does EPA have ideas on how to educate communities
about such tools, how to assist communities in determining which tools
may be the most useful in addressing their needs, and how to provide
communities with the necessary resources to acquire such tools and put
them to use?
Answer. Through its extensive work with partners in the Smart
Growth Network, EPA has been successful in helping local and State
governments to both apply relevant planning tools and develop new and
innovative approaches to the decisionmaking challenges at hand. The
Smart Growth Network--comprised of more than 30 leading organizations
representing financiers, developers, local government leaders,
community interests, and environmentalists--has been a critical link in
EPA's collaboration with communities. Grants to Network partners have
yielded some of EPA's most effective efforts to date to educate
communities. Through a grant to CONCERN, EPA supports a website that
receives an average of 10,000 hits per day, and is identified by the
American Planning Association as one of the ten leading Web-based
resources on smart growth. Grants to Network partners Local Government
Commission and Urban Land Institute have resulted in a successful 5-
year track record of conferences on smart growth tools and approaches,
the most recent one of which (January 2002 in San Diego) attracted 900
participants, largely representing local governments. With EPA's
support, the International City/County Management Association currently
provides Smart Growth Network member services to approximately 600
individual members and serves as an important clearinghouse of
information for those interested in smart growth.
New activities in 2002 will continue to focus on facilitating smart
growth implementation by communities, and the application of newly
available tools to assist community decisionmaking. A new initiative
announced by Governor Whitman will provide direct technical assistance
to roughly ten pilot communities to implement new tools to help them
prioritize open space for preservation. In so doing, these communities
can better accommodate needed growth while preserving their most
fragile and environmentally critical lands. In addition, EPA will begin
a new effort to support States as they facilitate and advance local
implementation of smart growth through a pilot State Workshop for Smart
Growth scheduled for May 2002.
EPA's own efforts and discussions with our partners in the Network
have made us aware of the full range of tools that continue to be in
demand by communities. Tools that would allow them to better analyze
and estimate build-out scenarios, either through analytical models or
visual representations, are of great assistance to local decisionmakers
and members of the public. Similarly, tools that will allow planners
and the public to more accurately assess the impacts (environmental,
transportation, fiscal, etc.) of projects can support improved
decisionmaking. Visualization tools continue to be useful in conveying
development options to a broad audience. More challenging is the need
to develop and make available tools that better reflect the true cost
of various services (water, postal service, auto insurance,
electricity, and infrastructure costs for impact fee assessment) by
location, so as to enable local leaders to more equitably collect and
distribute resources throughout a community. Finally, tools that can
aid communities in removing the barriers to development, such as red
tape permit assessments or plans for disposal of vacant properties, can
facilitate the private sector's full involvement in a community's plans
for smart growth. EPA is working to support the wider availability of
these types of tools, but more help is needed to accomplish this
enormous task.
Question 19. Please provide me with a detailed breakdown of EPA's
spending for Smart Growth activities in the proposed fiscal year 2003
budget and how funding compares to fiscal year 2002 enacted levels.
Answer. Funding designated for smart growth-related work is
primarily located in the Agency's Office of Policy, Economics, and
Innovation (OPEI), which coordinates, among other activities, the Smart
Growth Network. Resources for fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2003 are
shown below.
Resources ($ in thousands)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 (Proposed)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$3,360.0*.......................... 21.0 FTE.............. $3,868.0*............. 20.0 FTE............. $3,984.0*............ 20.0 FTE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Dollars include salary expenses
Resources in fiscal year 2002 are being evenly allocated between
continued education and outreach efforts and direct implementation
efforts. While the Agency will continue to emphasize this dual approach
in fiscal year 2003, we expect to place greater emphasis on smart
growth implementation in the coming years to meet rising demand at the
State and local level for better tools and technical assistance. Brief
descriptions of these two efforts are provided below.
Maintain and Expand Smart Growth Outreach and Education
The Smart Growth Network is a principal source of information and
expertise for the smart growth field. The core of the Network's
information dissemination strategy is composed of four activities. the
Smart Growth Network Web site, the Smart Growth Network membership
program, the annual Partners for Smart Growth conference, and the wide
dissemination of research products, such as the Governor's Guide to
Smart Growth in cooperation with the National Governors' Association,
and Local Tools for Smart Growth in cooperation with the National
Association of Counties. A new activity in fiscal year 2002 to
recognize leaders in smart growth will also serve to demonstrate
innovative approaches for communities and individuals.
Smart Growth Implementation
EPA will help communities put smart growth into action through
technical assistance, the provision of tools, and local capacity
building. These efforts will focus on the three groups that have the
greatest impact on smart growth implementation.
Local and State government; the private sector (developers,
engineers, and financial institutions); and standard-setting
organizations (such as the Institute of Transportation Engineers). For
example, in fiscal year 2002, EPA will provide grants and direct
technical assistance to help communities better link open space
preservation to brownfields redevelopment in an effort to promote
community-level smart growth.
Question 20. EPA's budget states that the Agency will be working to
``exclude lower risk wastes from the hazardous waste regulation.'' This
is a policy that began in the last Administration. I agree that low-
risk wastes should not be subject to the full panoply of hazardous
waste regulation, but I see a need for balance. EPA did a study in 1996
that demonstrated that many high-risk waste that should be in the
hazardous waste system are not. (For instance Texas, Rhode Island,
Vermont and New Jersey, among others, regulate some chemicals as
hazardous that other States do not) That study was not followed up with
action. Does EPA agree that if low-risk wastes are removed from the
hazardous waste system, there is at least an equal need to assure that
hazardous chemicals that are very toxic and do threaten groundwater and
drinking water supplies should be in the hazardous waste system?
Response. The Agency is taking a balanced approach to ensure that
high-risk wastes are appropriately regulated under RCRA, and that low-
risk wastes are not over-regulated. We agree that there is a continuing
need to evaluate whether wastes should be brought into the hazardous
waste system, or otherwise addressed to control potential risks. In
recent years the Agency has completed a number of evaluations of
industrial wastes to determine if any of these should be added to the
list of hazardous wastes. These include recent evaluations of wastes
from the paint manufacturing, inorganic chemicals, and chlorinated
aliphatics production industries. We are also continuing investigations
into other wastes of potential concern (e.g., wastes from the dye and
pigment production industries), and we are examining certain wastes
that are already regulated as hazardous to clarify the scope of the
regulations (e.g., spent petroleum catalysts). As discussed in the EPA
budget, we are also examining a limited number of specific waste
streams for potential exemptions under RCRA, to the extent they do not
pose a risk to public health or the environment. This effort is an
outgrowth of a previous rulemaking and public comment. Subsequently, we
were directed in the fiscal year 2002 appropriation to expeditiously
address these requests for exemptions.
In summary, we intend to continue to improve management of wastes
by both effectively addressing wastes that present risks of concern
while also ensuring that other waste streams are not inappropriately
over-regulated.
Question 21. Please explain the decision to eliminate work on high-
efficiency renewable fuel engines, as well as the development of a
production prototype 85-mpg family size vehicle.
Response. Federal agencies' work under the Partnership for a New
Generation of Vehicles (PNGV) is winding down. The ``big three''
automakers have agreed to develop a fuel efficient vehicle using
technology developed under PNGV. In fact, Ford Motor Company expects to
manufacture a hybrid vehicle for model year 2003. Other companies, like
Toyota and Honda already have fuel efficient hybrid vehicles on the
road and have plans to introduce more models using hybrid technology.
EPA is focusing its automotive expertise on engine and hybrid
technology working with the Ford Motor Company and Eaton Corporation
through an historic Cooperative Research and Development Agreement
(CRADA). Through this very effective program, EPA has developed
advanced automotive engine and drivetrain technologies that result in
vehicles that are simultaneously extremely clean and extremely
efficient. EPA's efforts have already produced impressive results.
Together with EPA's unique engineering expertise and industry
funding and commitments, Ford and Eaton are working to extend these
significant engineering advances so they can be introduced on the road
later this decade. The fiscal year 2003 President's Budget for EPA's
Clean Automotive Technology program is $17.1 million, with most of the
funding being used to meet EPA's obligations under the CRADAs.
Question 22. Does EPA intend to fund further study of any other
remediation technologies such as ECASOL?
Response. EPA has initiated a program that will be fully
operational in 2003 to evaluate a wide range of rapid treatment
technologies for biological agents. The goal of this program is to
accurately characterize the capabilities of promising technologies so
that the inventory of usable tools is as broad as possible. This will
allow contractors and others to tailor remediation efforts to specific
circumstances.
______
Responses of Hon. Christine Todd Whitman to Additional Questions from
Senator Lieberman
Question 1. Please provide the President's request and enacted
levels following for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund and Drinking
Water State Revolving Fund for fiscal years 2001,2002, and 2003. Please
provide a distribution of these funds by State, including the proposed
distribution for fiscal year 2003.
Response.
Office of Water
Clean Water SRF and Drinking Water SRF
FY 01 and FY 02 Pres. Request/Enacted Levels
FY 2003 Proposed Level
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RC 2001 2002
Allowance Holder State RC/State Title President's 2001 Enacted President's 2002 Enacted FY 2002
Code Budget Budget Estimates
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
01......................................... 10 CONNECTICUT.................. $9,875.2 $16,460.3 $10,387.0 $16,497.0 $14,810.6
01......................................... 20 MAINE........................ $6,240.0 $10,400.9 $6,563.3 $10,424.1 $9,358.5
01......................................... 30 MASSACHUSETTS................ $27,368.5 $45,618.5 $28,786.8 $45,720.2 $41,046.5
01......................................... 40 NEW HAMPSHIRE................ $8,055.6 $13,427.3 $8,473.1 $13,457.2 $12,081.6
01......................................... 50 RHODE ISLAND................. $5,412.6 $9,021.9 $5,693.1 $9,042.0 $8,117.7
01......................................... 60 VERMONT...................... $3,957.3 $6,596.1 $4,162.3 $6,610.8 $5,935.0
02......................................... 10 NEW JERSEY................... $32,940.5 $54,906.2 $34,647.6 $55,028.5 $49,403.4
02......................................... 20 NEW YORK..................... $88,974.3 $148,304.7 $93,585.1 $148,635.1 $133,441.3
02......................................... 30 PUERTO RICO.................. $10,513.6 $17,524.4 $11,058.5 $17,563.5 $15,768.1
02......................................... 40 VIRGIN ISLANDS............... $420.0 $700.1 $441.8 $701.7 $630.0
03......................................... 10 DELAWARE..................... $3,957.3 $6,596.1 $4,162.3 $6,610.8 $5,935.0
03......................................... 20 DIST OF COLUMBIA............. $3,957.3 $6,596.1 $4,162.3 $6,610.8 $5,935.0
03......................................... 30 MARYLAND..................... $19,496.2 $32,496.4 $20,507.1 $32,569.1 $29,239.8
03......................................... 40 PENNSYLVANIA................. $31,930.7 $53,222.9 $33,585.4 $53,341.5 $47,888.8
03......................................... 50 VIRGINIA..................... $16,497.0 $27,497.6 $17,351.9 $27,558.9 $24,741.7
03......................................... 60 WEST VIRGINIA................ $12,566.0 $20,945.4 $13,217.2 $20,992.0 $18,846.2
04......................................... 10 ALABAMA...................... $9,013.6 $15,024.2 $9,480.7 $15,057.6 $13,518.4
04......................................... 20 FLORIDA...................... $27,209.9 $45,354.2 $28,619.9 $45,455.2 $40,808.7
04......................................... 30 GEORGIA...................... $13,629.2 $22,717.6 $14,335.5 $22,768.2 $20,440.8
04......................................... 40 KENTUCKY..................... $10,259.4 $17,100.6 $10,791.1 $17,138.7 $15,386.8
04......................................... 50 MISSISSIPPI.................. $7,262.6 $12,105.4 $7,638.9 $12,132.4 $10,892.2
04......................................... 60 NORTH CAROLINA............... $14,548.2 $24,249.4 $15,302.1 $24,303.4 $21,819.1
04......................................... 70 SOUTH CAROLINA............... $8,258.0 $13,795.4 $8,686.0 $13,795.4 $12,385.2
04......................................... 80 TENNESSEE.................... $11,710.0 $19,518.5 $12,316.8 $19,562.0 $17,562.3
05......................................... 10 ILLINOIS..................... $36,457.0 $60,767.6 $38,346.3 $60,903.0 $54,677.3
05......................................... 20 INDIANA...................... $19,426.9 $32,381.2 $20,433.6 $32,453.4 $29,135.9
05......................................... 30 MICHIGAN..................... $34,660.5 $57,773.1 $36,456.7 $57,901.8 $51,983.0
05......................................... 40 MINNESOTA.................... $14,816.0 $24,695.8 $15,583.8 $24,750.8 $22,220.7
05......................................... 50 OHIO......................... $45,379.8 $75,640.3 $47,731.5 $75,808.8 $68,059.5
05......................................... 60 WISCONSIN.................... $21,792.5 $36,324.2 $22,921.8 $36,405.2 $32,683.8
06......................................... 10 ARKANSAS..................... $5,273.2 $8,789.5 $5,546.4 $8,809.0 $7,908.6
06......................................... 20 LOUISIANA.................... $8,861.4 $14,770.4 $9,320.6 $14,803.3 $13,290.1
06......................................... 30 NEW MEXICO................... $3,957.3 $6,596.1 $4,162.3 $6,610.8 $5,935.0
06......................................... 40 OKLAHOMA..................... $6,512.5 $10,855.3 $6,850.0 $10,879.5 $9,767.4
06......................................... 50 TEXAS........................ $36,843.6 $61,411.9 $38,752.9 $61,548.7 $55,257.1
07......................................... 10 IOWA......................... $10,909.8 $18,184.7 $11,475.1 $18,225.2 $16,362.2
07......................................... 20 KANSAS....................... $7,276.1 $12,128.0 $7,653.2 $12,155.0 $10,912.5
07......................................... 30 MISSOURI..................... $22,346.4 $37,247.6 $23,504.4 $37,330.5 $33,514.5
07......................................... 40 NEBRASKA..................... $4,123.0 $6,872.4 $4,336.7 $6,887.7 $6,183.6
08......................................... 10 COLORADO..................... $6,448.0 $10,747.7 $6,782.1 $10,771.6 $9,670.5
08......................................... 20 MONTANA...................... $3,957.3 $6,596.1 $4,162.3 $6,610.8 $5,935.0
08......................................... 30 NORTH DAKOTA................. $3,957.3 $6,596.1 $4,162.3 $6,610.8 $5,935.0
08......................................... 40 SOUTH DAKOTA................. $3,957.3 $6,596.1 $4,162.3 $6,610.8 $5,935.0
08......................................... 50 UTAH......................... $4,247.4 $7,079.7 $4,467.5 $7,095.4 $6,370.1
08......................................... 60 WYOMING...................... $3,957.3 $6,596.1 $4,162.3 $6,610.8 $5,935.0
09......................................... 10 ARIZONA...................... $5,444.5 $9,075.1 $5,726.7 $9,095.3 $8,165.6
09......................................... 20 CALIFORNIA................... $57,651.7 $96,095.4 $60,639.3 $96,309.5 $86,464.6
09......................................... 30 HAWAII....................... $6,243.2 $10,406.3 $6,566.7 $10,429.4 $9,363.3
09......................................... 40 NEVADA....................... $3,957.3 $6,596.1 $4,162.3 $6,610.8 $5,935.0
09......................................... 50 AMERICAN SOMOA............... $723.7 $1,206.3 $761.2 $1,209.0 $1,085.4
09......................................... 60 GUAM......................... $523.7 $872.8 $550.8 $874.8 $785.4
09......................................... 70 NORTHERN MARIANAS ISLANDS.... $336.3 $560.6 $353.8 $561.9 $504.4
10......................................... 10 ALASKA....................... $4,824.4 $8,041.5 $5,074.4 $8,059.4 $7,235.6
10......................................... 20 IDAHO........................ $3,957.3 $6,596.1 $4,162.3 $6,610.8 $5,935.0
10......................................... 30 OREGON....................... $9,106.1 $15,178.3 $9,578.0 $15,212.1 $13,657.1
10......................................... 40 WASHINGTON................... $14,018.2 $23,365.9 $14,744.6 $23,418.0 $21,024.1
9R......................................... *N Undist. National Resources... $4,000.0 $20,205.5 $12,750.0 $20,250.0 $18,180.0
RT......................................... ........................... $800,000.0 $1,347,030.0 $850,000.0 $1,350,000.0 $1,212,000.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of Water
Clean Water SRF and Drinking Water SRF
FY 01 and FY 02 Pres. Request/Enacted Levels
FY 2003 Proposed Level
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RC 2001 2002
Allowance Holder State RC Title President's 2001 President's 2002 Enacted FY 2002
Code Budget Enacted Budget Estimates
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
01Drinking Water (SRF)....................
01........................................ 10 CONNECTICUT.................. $7,806.3 $7,789.1 $7,789.1 8052.5 8052.5
01........................................ 20 MAINE........................ $7,806.3 $7,789.1 $7,789.1 8052.5 8052.5
01........................................ 30 MASSACHUSETTS................ $30,051.4 $29,985.3 $29,985.3 28787.9 28787.9
01........................................ 40 NEW HAMPSHIRE................ $7,806.3 $7,789.1 $7,789.1 8052.5 8052.5
01........................................ 50 RHODE ISLAND................. $7,806.3 $7,789.1 $7,789.1 8052.5 8052.5
01........................................ 60 VERMONT...................... $7,806.3 $7,789.1 $7,789.1 8052.5 8052.5
02........................................ 10 NEW JERSEY................... $19,016.6 $18,974.8 $18,974.8 18538.6 18538.6
02........................................ 20 NEW YORK..................... $49,396.1 $49,287.4 $49,287.4 62430.7 62430.7
02........................................ 30 PUERTO RICO.................. $11,208.5 $11,183.8 $11,183.8 10741.3 10741.3
03........................................ 10 DELAWARE..................... $7,806.3 $7,789.1 $7,789.1 8052.5 8052.5
03........................................ 20 DIST OF COLUMBIA............. $7,806.3 $7,789.1 $7,789.1 8052.5 8052.5
03........................................ 30 MARYLAND..................... $7,806.3 $7,789.1 $7,789.1 9350.9 9350.9
03........................................ 40 PENNSYLVANIA................. $24,560.0 $24,505.9 $24,505.9 25930.6 25930.6
03........................................ 50 VIRGINIA..................... $15,231.9 $15,198.4 $15,198.4 11127.6 11127.6
03........................................ 60 WEST VIRGINIA................ $7,806.3 $7,789.1 $7,789.1 8052.5 8052.5
04........................................ 10 ALABAMA...................... $9,279.9 $9,259.5 $9,259.5 8052.5 8052.5
04........................................ 20 FLORIDA...................... $22,628.5 $22,578.7 $22,578.7 18841.3 18841.3
04........................................ 30 GEORGIA...................... $16,720.6 $16,683.8 $16,683.8 12749.8 12749.8
04........................................ 40 KENTUCKY..................... $11,895.4 $11,869.3 $11,869.3 9805.1 9805.1
04........................................ 50 MISSISSIPPI.................. $9,067.3 $9,047.4 $9,047.4 8052.5 8052.5
04........................................ 60 NORTH CAROLINA............... $14,096.4 $14,065.4 $14,065.4 14139.9 14139.9
04........................................ 70 SOUTH CAROLINA............... $8,407.2 $8,388.7 $8,388.7 8052.5 8052.5
04........................................ 80 TENNESSEE.................... $10,476.8 $10,453.7 $10,453.7 8145 8145
05........................................ 10 ILLINOIS..................... $27,134.3 $27,074.6 $27,074.6 30050.4 30050.4
05........................................ 20 INDIANA...................... $9,523.1 $9,502.2 $9,502.2 9455.1 9455.1
05........................................ 30 MICHIGAN..................... $22,966.7 $22,916.2 $22,916.2 33003 33003
05........................................ 40 MINNESOTA.................... $12,996.6 $12,968.0 $12,968.0 15952.9 15952.9
05........................................ 50 OHIO......................... $24,999.9 $24,944.9 $24,944.9 24547.6 24547.6
05........................................ 60 WISCONSIN.................... $10,466.8 $10,443.8 $10,443.8 15946.5 15946.5
06........................................ 10 ARKANSAS..................... $11,106.8 $11,082.4 $11,082.4 8717.8 8717.8
06........................................ 20 LOUISIANA.................... $10,906.3 $10,882.3 $10,882.3 8052.5 8052.5
06........................................ 30 NEW MEXICO................... $7,806.3 $7,789.1 $7,789.1 8052.5 8052.5
06........................................ 40 OKLAHOMA..................... $11,207.7 $11,183.0 $11,183.0 12446.5 12446.5
06........................................ 50 TEXAS........................ $59,210.0 $59,079.8 $59,079.8 62023.7 62023.7
07........................................ 10 IOWA......................... $12,319.8 $12,292.7 $12,292.7 14784.6 14784.6
07........................................ 20 KANSAS....................... $10,970.8 $10,946.6 $10,946.6 9234.7 9234.7
07........................................ 30 MISSOURI..................... $10,496.0 $10,472.9 $10,472.9 11702.6 11702.6
07........................................ 40 NEBRASKA..................... $7,806.3 $7,789.1 $7,789.1 8052.5 8052.5
08........................................ 10 COLORADO..................... $10,503.4 $10,480.3 $10,480.3 13323 13323
08........................................ 20 MONTANA...................... $7,806.3 $7,789.1 $7,789.1 8052.5 8052.5
08........................................ 30 NORTH DAKOTA................. $7,806.3 $7,789.1 $7,789.1 8052.5 8052.5
08........................................ 40 SOUTH DAKOTA................. $7,806.3 $7,789.1 $7,789.1 8052.5 8052.5
08........................................ 50 UTAH......................... $7,806.3 $7,789.1 $7,789.1 8052.5 8052.5
08........................................ 60 WYOMING...................... $7,806.3 $7,789.1 $7,789.1 8052.5 8052.5
09........................................ 10 ARIZONA...................... $7,955.4 $7,937.9 $7,937.9 9126.3 9126.3
09........................................ 20 CALIFORNIA................... $84,525.4 $84,340.0 $84,340.0 82460.9 82460.9
09........................................ 30 HAWAII....................... $7,806.3 $7,789.1 $7,789.1 8052.5 8052.5
09........................................ 40 NEVADA....................... $7,806.3 $7,789.1 $7,789.1 8052.5 8052.5
10........................................ 10 ALASKA....................... $7,806.3 $7,789.1 $7,789.1 8052.5 8052.5
10........................................ 20 IDAHO........................ $7,806.3 $7,789.1 $7,789.1 8052.5 8052.5
10........................................ 30 OREGON....................... $11,584.3 $11,558.8 $11,558.8 14148.9 14148.9
10........................................ 40 WASHINGTON................... $21,013.0 $20,966.8 $20,966.8 19872 19872
40........................................ *N Undist. National Resources... $2,576.1 $2,570.4 $2,570.4 2657.3 2657.3
9R........................................ *N Undist. National Resources... $44,375.0 $44,277.3 $44,277.3 44750 44750
RT........................................ ...... ............................. $825,000.0 $823,185.0 $823,185.0 $850,000.0 $850,000.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 2. I am troubled by what appears to be a precipitous
decline in enforcement actions, including investigations, as well as
criminal and civil enforcement cases, while the EPA is asking for more
enforcement funds. What is your view of this decline in enforcement
investigations, and can you explain why you need more money to do a lot
fewer actions?
Response. EPA's enforcement program remains as strong as ever. Both
last year's results and the enforcement actions we have pursued since
January 2001 demonstrate the comprehensive efforts undertaken to reduce
and eliminate harmful pollution:
<bullet> EPA showed record results last year from our enforcement
activities nearly doubling the amount spent by violators and liable
parties on pollution controls and cleanups; more than tripling the
number of facilities voluntarily auditing and disclosing violations
under EPA's audit policy; almost doubling the civil judicial penalties
assessed against environmental violators; and increasing the spending
by violators on Supplemental Environmental Projects by 60 percent (see
attached summary of our enforcement results from fiscal year 2001)
<bullet> Since January 2001, we have initiated (either
investigated or filed) about 73 and concluded at least 52
``significant'' cases. ``Significant'' cases are those judicial or
administrative actions where there is significant environmental impact;
wide-spread violations of environmental laws at more than one facility;
a significant environmental or programmatic issue; significant
penalties, injunctive relief or supplemental environmental projects
(SEPs); or where Headquarters has been extensively involved. As with
the fiscal year 2001 results reported above, the end of year results
for this year will report the complete results for all cases, not just
the ``significant'' enforcement actions summarized here. As you know,
exactly how soon or how many cases will be concluded in any given year
depends on the facts of each case.
Specific examples of enforcement successes already achieved since
January 2001 include:
<bullet> We have filed and concluded 5 major cases against
refineries for NSR violations the combined effect of which will be an
estimated reduction of 76,000 tons of sulfur dioxide (SO<INF>2</INF>)
emissions per year and 31,000 tons of nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions
per year
<bullet> We also filed and concluded a major case against a power
plant, PSEG, which alone will reduce the company's emissions of sulfur
dioxide (SO<INF>2</INF>) by 90 percent and its emissions of nitrogen
oxides (NOx) by more than 80 percent. These decreases represent 32
percent of all the SO<INF>2</INF> and 20 percent of all the NOx emitted
from stationary sources in New Jersey, and 19 percent of all the
SO<INF>2</INF> and 5 percent of all the NOx from all sources in the
State, including cars and trucks
<bullet> We issued many imminent hazard orders to address
immediate threats to human health and the environment. For example, EPA
issued two imminent hazard orders under RCRA to Magnesium Corporation
to address dangerous dioxin levels at the facility and the threat to
workers' health from extremely high levels of hexachlorobenzene in
anode dust. EPA also issued two imminent hazard orders against Seaboard
Farms under the Clean Water Act and RCRA to address contaminated
drinking water resulting from hog farm waste.
<bullet> We also issued an Administrative order (made final on
appeal in April 2001) under RCRA to address imminent threats from the
improper storage and disposal of large volumes of munitions and
unexploded ordnance that had been buried at the Massachusetts Military
Reservation on Cape Cod. The emergency order required the National
Guard Bureau to detonate the munitions in a special ``controlled
demolition chamber'' that was present at MMR, except for those
munitions and ordnance that were unsafe to move (and which could be
detonated in place).
<bullet> With respect to criminal enforcement, the number of
criminal enforcement activities has remained steady for the past two
fiscal years relative to cases initiated, referral of cases for
prosecution, and defendants charged. During the first quarter of fiscal
year 2002, the criminal enforcement program has initiated more cases
with more defendants charged than during same period in fiscal year
2001. The number of cases initiated include activities which support
Homeland Security as well as traditional environmental crimes
enforcement, while the rise in defendants is solely attributable to
violations of environmental statutes. These results are attributable to
the extraordinary effort of our investigative staff, who are working to
meet the ongoing requirement of enforcing our nation's environmental
laws while also responding to the President's No. 1 priority--Homeland
Security.
Criminal Enforcement Snapshot
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Cases Initiated Referrals Defendants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000................................. 477.................... 236.................... 360
2001................................. 482.................... 256.................... 372
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA continues to successfully address environmental violations
using the various tools available, ranging from voluntary incentives to
imminent hazard orders. Concluding cases is no small feat, and we are
proud of the accomplishments achieved and will continue to pursue
enforcement in order to achieve similar results in the future.
Enforcement Accomplishments fiscal year 2001
EPA's enforcement program achieved tremendous success in fiscal
year 2001, protecting human health and the environment through record
setting amounts in injunctive relief, significant reductions in
pollutant loadings, an estimated reduction of more than 660 million
pounds of harmful pollutants and the treatment and safe management of
an estimated record 1.84 billion pounds of pollutants, in addition to a
significant increase in the commitment on the part of violators to
spend on supplemental environmental projects:
<bullet> Number of facilities voluntarily auditing and disclosing
violations under EPA's audit policy more than tripled--from 437 in
fiscal year 2000 to 1,754 in fiscal year 2001
<bullet> Spending by violators on Supplemental Environmental
Projects was up 60 percent from $56 million in fiscal year 2000 to $89
million in fiscal year 2001
<bullet> Amount spent by violators and liable parties on pollution
controls and cleanups nearly doubled from $2.6 billion in fiscal year
2000 to $4.4 billion in fiscal year 2001.
<bullet> Civil judicial penalties assessed against environmental
violators nearly doubled from $55 million in fiscal year 2000 to $102
million in fiscal year 2001; civil administrative penalties levied by
EPA were down slightly at $1.5 million from about $25.5 million in
fiscal year 2000 $24 million in fiscal year 2001. Overall, penalties
increased as our strategy focused on large judicial cases.
<bullet> Total years for criminal sentences for environmental
violations rose from 146 years in fiscal year 2001 to 256 years in
fiscal year 2001 as a result of EPA's strategy to, as a priority, seek
jail time for significant criminal cases.
<bullet> Criminal fines fell from $122 million in fiscal year 2000
to $95 million in fiscal year 2001 again, our strategy was to seek jail
time for significant criminal cases.
By focusing on environmental results or outcomes, such as the
reductions in pollution, and by using all of the tools available, such
as compliance assistance, incentives, and enforcement, EPA is
continuing to aggressively address the most serious environmental
problems and achieve unprecedented results.
Snapshot: End of Year Results FY 1999 to 2001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Activity FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Audit Policy Settlements............. 106 companies.......... 217 companies.......... 304 companies
624 facilities......... 437 facilities......... 1754 facilities
Value of Injunctive Relief........... $3.4 billion........... $2.6 billion........... $4.4 billion
Civil Judicial Penalties............. $141 million........... $55 million............ $102 million
Civil Administrative Penalties....... $25.5 million.......... $25.5 million.......... $24 million
SEPs................................. $237 million........... $56 million............ $89 million
Inspections.......................... 22,000................. 20,000................. 18,000 (est.)
Administrative Actions............... 3500................... 5300................... 3200
Civil Referrals...................... 403.................... 368.................... 327
Criminal Referrals................... 241.................... 236.................... 256
Criminal Sentences................... 208 years.............. 146 years.............. 256 years
Criminal Fines....................... $62 million............ $122 million........... $95 million
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 3. In describing the accomplishments of EPA's climate
protection programs, the 2003 Annual Performance Plan and Justification
discusses the savings associated with EPA's climate change programs,
including a reduction of growth in greenhouse gas emissions by 20
percent in the 1990-2010 period, with a total of 450 MMTCE. Please
explain the relationship between these accomplishments and the
President' s recent announcement on climate change, in which he
announced a goal of reducing the carbon intensity in the U.S. by 18
percent. Since the baseline improvements during the period cited by the
President appears to be 14 percent, please explain if the
accomplishments of the EPA's climate programs are factored into that
baseline improvement of 14 percent, and if so, what portion of the 14
percent improvement is attributable to the EPA programs. Since the
President's climate change proposal appears to increase the carbon
intensity by 4 percent over the baseline by 2012, could we reach the
President's goal by simply investing more in the voluntary energy
efficiency programs at EPA? How much more of an investment would it
take?
Response. In its 2003 Annual Performance Plan and Justification,
EPA discusses a number of accomplishments that are attributable to its
climate protection programs. One of the savings figures cited, a
cumulative reduction of 450 MMTCE through 2010, is based on an EPA
analysis of investments made to date through EPA's voluntary programs.
Since many of the investments promoted through EPA's climate programs
involve energy-efficient equipment with lifetimes of decades or more,
the investments that have been spurred through 2001 will continue to
deliver environmental and economic benefits through 2010 and beyond.
The second savings figure cited is also based on accomplishments
through 2001 and shows that EPA's voluntary climate programs have
reduced the growth in greenhouse gas emissions since 1990 by about 20
percent from what it would have been without these programs. In 2001
alone, EPA's climate protection programs reduced greenhouse gas
emissions by more than 65 MMTCE equivalent to the annual emissions from
about 45 million cars.
EPA's partnership programs play a key role in the President's
climate change strategy. The accomplishments of EPA's climate
protection programs are a significant factor in the 14 percent
business-as-usual improvements cited in the President's policy, along
with the effects of current regulations and autonomous improvements in
efficiency. The President's plan will require the full implementation
and continued funding for EPA's existing climate protection partnership
programs, such as Energy Star, Natural Gas STAR, and the PFC Reduction
Climate Partnership with the Semiconductor Industry. In addition, new
business challenges, such as the recently announced EPA Climate Leaders
program and the Combined Heat and Power Partnership, will play a major
role in meeting the President's new emissions reduction goal of more
than 100 million metric tons of carbon equivalent in 2012. Climate
Leaders challenges businesses to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions
through setting an aggressive long-term emissions reduction goal and
performing a corporate-wide inventory to track their annual progress
toward this goal, while the CHP Partnership works with businesses to
promote use of these highly efficient co-generation technologies.
The President has challenged American businesses and industries to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions and is confident that voluntary
approaches can achieve his commitment. Already, agreements with the
semi-conductor and aluminum industries, and with industries that emit
methane, are dramatically reducing emissions of the most potent
greenhouse gases. The President's plan will build on these successes,
with broader agreements and greater reductions. The Administration is
confident that a combination of new EPA voluntary programs, such as
Climate Leaders, tax incentives for renewable energy and technology
improvements, and enhanced baseline protection through an improved
1605(b) program will encourage many more companies to undertake
voluntary greenhouse gas reductions and thereby achieve the President's
goal. The President has also committed that if progress is not
sufficient by 2012, the United States will respond with additional
measures that may include a broad, market-based program, as well as
additional incentives and voluntary measures designed to accelerate
technology development and deployment. The Administration is currently
assessing what resources will be necessary to accomplish the
President's goal, however the President's fiscal year 2003 Budget
includes $4.5 billion in spending and tax incentives related to
addressing the challenge of climate change.
Question 4. Please explain the relationship of EPA's request for
funds ($9,775,800) for the Montreal Protocol's Multilateral Fund to the
U.S. commitment to that Fund. Please explain what other funds are being
targeted to meeting this commitment. Is EPA and the State Department
requesting ``full funding'' for our present commitment; if not, what is
the requested shortfall? Has the United States met all of its past
financial commitments to the Fund? If not, how much in arrears is the
U.S. in regarding its negotiated commitments to the Multilateral Fund?
Response. Every 3 years, the Protocol Parties commission a study on
the funding needed to meet the needs of developing countries through
the next triennium. On that basis, the Parties decide on a Fund budget.
Payments of donor countries are then based on the U.N. scale of
assessment. After considering the last report in 1999, the eleventh
meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol took Decision XI/7,
which set the US commitment for the Montreal Protocol Multilateral Fund
for 2000, 2001 and 2002 at $36.7 per year. A report detailing the needs
of the Fund for the next triennium (2003-2005) is due to the Parties
next month. It is widely expected to suggest the need for increasing
the level of replenishment in order to enable developing countries to
meet their upcoming 2005 phaseout requirements which include a 50
percent reduction in CFCs and Halons, an 85 percent reduction in carbon
tetra chloride, and a 20 percent reduction in both methyl bromide and
methyl chloroform.
As noted in your question, EPA is requesting $9,775,800 for 2003.
We understand that the State Department, which also requests funds for
the Multilateral Fund, is requesting $23m for 2003. The shortfall, if
any, will not be known until the Parties review the technical needs
assessment report and reach a final decision on replenishment.
Because Fund payments are technically due at the beginning of the
year, the US is currently some $58m in arrears to the Fund. However,
taking into account the US payments that are expected to be finalized
in the next few months with fiscal year 2002 funding, the US is
expected to be some $25.5m in arrears compared with its negotiated
commitments. This is a cumulative shortfall which is a result of the US
funding at a level that is less than the commitment level over a number
of years due to reductions in funding by Congress.
______
Responses of Hon. Christine Todd Whitman to Additional Questions from
Senator Smith
Question 1. As you may recall, during the 106th Congress, Senator
Crapo and I introduced legislation to create a TMDL pilot program which
allowed local communities to experiment with different approaches to
reaching their clean water goals.
I commend the Administration for proposing a similar initiative
that would give $21 million in grants for local watershed projects. Can
you describe this initiative in more detail and please explain, if and
how it will help communities faced with large TMDL implementation
costs?
What would be the criteria to apply for this program and how will
watersheds be chosen to participate?
Response. The Administration plans to invest this money in
community-based watershed efforts to protect and restore America's
waterways. The initiative will support watershed resources that sustain
human health, economic stability, ecosystem integrity, recreational
opportunity, natural or cultural significance, or other important uses.
Most importantly, the initiative will foster and encourage the
development and implementation of innovative and novel approaches to
clean water. For example, grant money could be used to support projects
such as third party TMDLs, pollutant trading, watershed NPDES permits
under the Clean Water Act, and other creative approaches to advance
protection of the resources.
EPA will distribute the funds through a competitive grant process.
Candidates can include States, municipalities, non-profit
organizations, universities and other groups. The Agency will be
consulting with a wide variety of stakeholders in the coming months to
develop the most appropriate selection criteria. EPA hopes to make the
final selections as early as next fall and begin the process of
dispersing funds as soon as the budget is approved.
One of the pressing issues facing EPA and States is how TMDLs can
be implemented more cost-effectively. The development of more cost-
effective TMDLs on a watershed basis creates opportunities to shift
pollution control responsibilities from high cost controls over point
source discharges to comparatively low cost controls over nonpoint
sources.
Question 2. In the Department of Defense fiscal year 2002
appropriations bill, Congress provided EPA with $90 million for
drinking water vulnerability assessments, security at EPA labs and
anthrax decontamination activities.
I am particularly interested in making sure that the vulnerability
assessment funds are distributed to drinking water systems as quickly
as possible so that vulnerabilities can be identified and appropriate
safeguards put in place. Can you shed some light on how your Agency
plans to distribute these funds to drinking water systems? And the time
line for doing so?
Response. EPA is continuing to partner with the States, tribes,
U.S. Territories, and water quality organizations to identify the most
efficient and effective distribution of the funds to increase
protection of our Nation's critical water infrastructure. EPA's goal is
to help make the most systems safest soonest. The Office of Water
received the Supplemental Security funds within 3 appropriations;
Science and Technology, State and Tribal Assistance Grants, and
Environmental Programs and Management. The proposed breakout within
each appropriation is as follows:
Science and Technology (S&T)/Budgetary Resources (in millions).
$82.8 Timing of Obligation.
<bullet> About $50.0 M of these funds will be used to provide
direct assistance to the approximately 400 largest drinking water
systems to carry out vulnerability assessments and enhance emergency
response plans. EPA's goal is to complete the majority of the awards by
the end of July 2002.
<bullet> $23.0 M will support technical assistance and training to
small and medium drinking water systems on vulnerability assessments
and either developing emergency response plans or strengthening
existing plans. EPA is working jointly with States and utility
organizations in determining a specific allocation plan, and expects to
begin obligation of funds in July through September 2002.
<bullet> $3.0 M will support wastewater utilities' undertaking of
vulnerability assessments, developing emergency operations plans, and
collecting data on appropriate remediation efforts. EPA intends to
award funds by September 2002.
<bullet> About $5.8 M will support activities to further develop
and conduct additional training on vulnerability assessments and other
counter terrorism tools, and investigate security-related detection,
monitoring, and treatment tools. EPA intends to begin awarding funds
from July through September 2002.
<bullet> About $1.0 M will support salaries and travel expenses of
10 FTEs in both EPA Headquarters and Regional Offices who are working
exclusively on critical water infrastructure protection.
Obstacles to Obligation of Funds
<bullet> At the request of the Governors, EPA will jointly review
grant applications from the largest drinking water systems with State
Drinking Water and Emergency Response agencies. Timely award of funds
will depend on receipt of State comments and resolution of any issues.
<bullet> Award of remaining funds will depend on completion of
interagency research plans and State/EPA medium and small systems
strategy.
State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG)/Budgetary
Resources (in millions). $5.0
Timing of Obligation:
<bullet> $5.0 M will be awarded to States and Territories to
support counter-terrorism coordination work in conjunction with EPA and
drinking water utilities to implement homeland security activities.
Funds will be awarded by the September fiscal year 2002.
Obstacles to Obligation of Funds:
<bullet> Award of funds to support counter-terrorism coordinators
is subject to receipt of grant applications from States which may be
dependent on internal State processes.
Environmental Programs and Management (EPM)/ Budgetary
Resources (in millions). $1.0
Timing of Obligation:
<bullet> $1.0M will support wastewater utilities activities,
including development and testing of counter terrorism tools and
training for vulnerability assessments. EPA intends to award funds by
September 2002.
Obstacles to Obligation of Funds:
<bullet> At the request of the Governors, EPA will jointly review
grant applications from the largest drinking water systems with State
Drinking Water and Emergency Response agencies. Timely award of funds
will depend on receipt of State comments and resolution of any issues.
Question 3. As you know, EPA failed to finalize a large number of
MACT regulations within the statutory deadlines, because both the
Clinton and Bush Administrations denied the Air Office the 3-4 million
per year that would have allowed timely completion.
As a result, by March, each State will now have to develop its own
emission standard for each industry and substance without a MACT. This
is a superb example of penny-wise and pound foolish. What plans does
the EPA have regarding finishing these regulations and addressing the
burden on States?
Response. This Administration is committed to reducing toxic air
pollution. As you know, the Clean Air Act set out ambitious schedules
for EPA to promulgate technology-based standards for 189 hazardous air
pollutants emitted from 174 source categories. The programs to reduce
toxic air pollution have removed hundreds of thousands of tons of
toxics from the air since the program began in 1990 historic reductions
that dwarf all previous efforts to control emissions of carcinogenic
chemicals. As you have noted, delays in the Maximum Achievable Control
Technology (MACT) program preceded the current Administration.
Appropriations constraints and legal challenges have contributed to
slow progress in this program. The deadline for all of the technology-
based MACT standards was November 2000. EPA missed that deadline. The
time lost cannot be made up now.
However, when Governor Whitman came into office, she confirmed that
we need to issue these standards as soon as possible, and EPA is now on
a tight time line to complete all of the regulations by May 2004. The
Governor has signed 14 MACT standards either proposals or final rules
since she took office. In addition, EPA staff has drafts of all but 3
of the 21 remaining MACTs to be proposed. After the May 15, 2002
deadline, 34 standards will remain to be finalized, which will then be
subject to the Clean Air Act Section 112(j) ``hammer'' provisions.
We believe there will be little or no burden on States if we
complete all the standards by May 2004. The Section 112(j) provisions
require major sources to submit a part 1 Title V operating permit
application on May 15, 2002 followed by a part 2 permit application 2
years later, or May 15, 2004. In a Part 1 application, the source sends
general information about the facility to the permitting authority
usually the State. Part 2 is a more comprehensive, detailed application
containing information on specific pollutants, emission points, and
controls to the permitting authority. However, barring further legal
challenges and assuming that EPA hews to the time line, all MACT
standards will be promulgated before the part 2 application is due.
Therefore, the sources will not need to submit the part 2 and
permitting authorities will not need to develop case-by-case MACT.
______
Responses of Hon. Christine Todd Whitman to Additional Questions from
Senator Wyden
The purpose of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) STAR
Fellowship program is to encourage promising students to obtain
advanced degrees and pursue careers in environmentally related fields.
The program is consistent with the mission of EPA to provide leadership
in the nation's environmental science, research, education, assessment,
restoration, and preservation efforts.
STAR Fellowships have provided a unique opportunity for students at
Oregon State University and doubtless many other universities as well.
The program allows the best students to choose their own cutting edge
area for research and multidisciplinary training.
One of EPA's targets is environmental monitoring and impact
assessment. Many of the STAR fellows in Oregon have worked on
biodiversity and ecological research with an applied focus. This
program often provides the sole source of support for these students
and is instrumental in developing a pipeline of environmental
professionals to meet national needs.
In your fiscal year 2003 Annual Performance Plan and congressional
justification you stated, ``A blue ribbon panel of the Science Advisory
Board recommended in 1994 that EPA enhance its environmental education
programs for training the next generation of scientists and
engineers.''
Question 1. In view of this recommendation from your own Science
Advisory Board and the national demand for talented, environmental
professionals, how can you justify cutting the STAR program from your
fiscal year 2003 budget?
Response. The President's Budget proposes to strengthen math and
science education in the United States by improving the quality of math
and science education in grades K-12 and by attracting the most
promising U.S. students into graduate level science and engineering by
providing more competitive stipends. The President's K-12 math and
science initiative and the higher graduate stipends are being funded
through the National Science Foundation's (NSF) budget. NSF is noted
for its expertise and success in funding competitive programs in math
and science. The Budget increases NSF's annual stipends for fellowship
and tranineeship programs from $21,500 to $25,000. Funding for EPA's
STAR Fellowship Program was eliminated in fiscal year 2003 as part of
the larger initiative to strengthen math and science programs through
the National Science Foundation (NSF). However, EPA will continue
funding for its Minority Academic Institutions (MAI) Fellowships
program at $1.5 million in fiscal year 2003.
Question 2. EPA is apparently transferring part of the funding
formerly used for the STAR program to support education programs at the
National Science Foundation (NSF). Do you believe that NSF has the
capability and track record to provide educational opportunities
comparable to EPA, and if so, please provide me with the rationale and
the safeguards that will be used to ensure that the money goes for the
same purpose and not research or other activities.
Response. As stated in the response to question a, the President's
Budget proposes to strengthen math and science education in the United
States by improving the quality of math and science education in grades
K-12 and by attracting the most promising U.S. students into graduate
level science and engineering by providing more competitive stipends.
NSF is noted for its expertise and success in funding competitive
programs in math and science. Funding for EPA's STAR Fellowship Program
was eliminated as part of the larger initiative to strengthen math and
science programs through the National Science Foundation (NSF). NSF has
conducted an excellent graduate research fellowship program in many
science disciplines for many years.