<DOC>
[109 Senate Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:42270.wais]
S. Hrg. 109-1022
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S
FISCAL YEAR 2007 BUDGET
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 15, 2006
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/
congress.senate
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
42-270 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ÿ091800
Fax: (202) 512ÿ092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402ÿ090001
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, Chairman
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia JAMES M. JEFFORDS, Vermont
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri MAX BAUCUS, Montana
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island BARBARA BOXER, California
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
JOHN THUNE, South Dakota HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York
JIM DeMINT, South Carolina FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia BARACK OBAMA, Illinois
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
Andrew Wheeler, Majority Staff Director
Ken Connolly, Minority Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
FEBRUARY 25, 2006
OPENING STATEMENTS
Bond, Hon. Christopher S., U.S. Senator from the State of
Missouri....................................................... 11
Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California... 6
Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware.. 13
Chafee, Hon. Lincoln, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode
Island, prepared statement..................................... 36
Clinton, Hon. Hillary Rodham, U.S. Senator from the State of New
York........................................................... 15
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma... 2
Isakson, Hon. Johnny, U.S. Senator from the State of Georgia..... 1
Jeffords, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont.. 9
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from the State of New
Jersey, prepared statement..................................... 37
Lieberman, Hon. Joseph I., U.S. Senator from the State of
Connecticut, prepared statement................................ 38
Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, U.S. Senator from the State of Alaska...... 16
Obama, Hon. Barack, U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois,
prepared statement............................................. 38
Thune, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of South Dakota.... 14
Vitter, Hon. David, U.S. Senator from the State of Louisiana..... 8
WITNESSES
Johnson, Stephen L., Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Accompanied by: Marcus Peacock, Deputy Administrator;
and Benjamin H. Grumbles, Assistant Administrator, Office of
Water.......................................................... 20
Prepared statement........................................... 39
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Clinton.......................................... 43
Senator Inhofe........................................... 45
Senator Jeffords......................................... 55
Senator Obama............................................ 66
Senator Thune............................................ 68
Senator Vitter........................................... 70
Senator Voinovich........................................ 70
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Articles, Forbes Magazine........................................ 77
A History of EPA's ``Politicized Science'' During the Clinton/
Browner Era.................................................... 75
CMAQ Information for the Metropolitan Planning Organizations..... 73
Clean Air Act Provisions-Particulate Matter Standard............. 77
Job Announcement-Energy Policy Act of 2005....................... 74
Mercury in Fish.................................................. 74
Office of International Affairs: Grants to Foreign Recipients.... 77
Rat Poisoning-Court Order........................................ 74
Seven Million Dollar Request to Identify and Repair Leaks in
Water Systems.................................................. 73
Table, U.S. EPA International Program/Activity Resources (Dollars
in Thousands).................................................. 83
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S FISCAL YEAR 2007 BUDGET
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2006
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:35 a.m. in room
628, Senate Dirksen Building, Hon. James M. Inhofe (chairman of
the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Inhofe, Warner, Bond, Chafee, Murkowski,
Thune, Isakson, Vitter, Jeffords, Boxer, Carper, Clinton,
Lautenberg, and Obama.
Senator Inhofe. The hearing will come to order.
I think what we will do, Mr. Administrator, we have seven
nominations, the confirmation motions that will have to be
made. We have to have 10 people here. So as soon as we get 10,
we are going to interrupt whatever we are doing, whether it is
you or me, and go into our confirmations.
Before that, if it is acceptable with Senator Jeffords, to
at this time recognize out of order Senator Isakson for a
statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHNNY ISAKSON, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF GEORGIA
Senator Isakson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and ranking
member.
On the confirmation of the board members to the TVA at our
previous committee meeting, I told the committee how much I
supported each and every one of those nominees from the
standpoint of their qualifications and their ability. I stand
by that statement.
I also expressed my concern over the lack of representation
of three States covered by TVA but ending up not being
represented on the board. As the chairman will remember, at
that time, I asked the prospective board members----
Senator Inhofe. I believe that was Virginia, North Carolina
and Georgia, right?
Senator Isakson. That is correct. I asked the prospective
board members to open a dialog with me to see if we couldn't
work out a way to ensure that when there were occasions on that
board that States served by TVA were not represented on the
board there would be a mechanism established for their input,
concerns, et cetera, to flow freely between the board and those
States.
I also met with the majority leader, who was the original
author of the legislation that created the new board. As of
last night, pending the receipt of some confirmation today, we
have worked out with me and with them a very satisfactory
arrangement on that representation. So I just wanted the record
to show that the hold I would have placed on the nominations on
the floor will be lifted as soon as I receive that
communication and they receive mine to them, which should take
place today.
I repeat what I said on that day with regard to these six
individual members: they are outstanding Americans, they will
do a great job. My concerns never dealt with their capability,
but rather with the structure and representation of that board
as it would be constituted.
Senator Inhofe. All right. Thank you very much, Senator
Isakson. That will be duly noted.
We will be waiting for 10 to show up so that we have a
quorum and we can get to the nominations. But we will go ahead
and proceed with the budget portion of the hearing. We will
follow our normal procedure, and that is, after opening
statements have concluded, anyone coming in late would not be
entitled to an opening statement, we will just continue with
the hearing.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
I welcome you, Administrator Johnson, and am pleased to
have you testify before the committee today on your fiscal year
2007 proposed budget. I expect that each Senator is going to
want to have time, so we are going to try to keep our opening
statements down to under 5 minutes if at all possible.
The Administration has proposed a $7.32 billion budget for
the fiscal year 2007. It is a $310 million cut to the EPA's
budget from 2006. I think that is a little deceptive, though,
and this is something that we are going to be exploring, as I
have told you privately. It seems to me that when we are trying
to do cuts, we have the insatiable appetite for cherry picking
and getting these things that we know will be reinstituted as
it goes through the process.
So as far as the $400 million cuts, which represent
actually an increase of some $90 million, because we know that
the $310 million will be reinstituted, since they are in the
two categories that historically they have used to represent
cuts. They always get reinstated. We are talking about some of
the members' projects and, what is the other big category? Oh,
yes, the revolving fund. Because this is something that is very
important to us.
So I am disappointed in that we are not doing it. What I
will be asking you to do is take this budget back and find a
net of $310 million in cuts that is not something that is going
to be automatically reinstated. Does that make sense? That is
what we are going to try to do.
One reason for these congressional earmarks is that in
their absence, the bureaucrats at the EPA would solely
determine how to spend those funds instead of Congress. It is
very similar to the situation in the Transportation bill.
People talk about earmarks and they don't realize that if we
don't have members' earmarks, there is still going to be, that
money is going to be spent, but it is going to be spent by
individuals who are bureaucrats who are not subjected to going
home and knowing what the real needs are. So I think this is
something that is very important that we keep in mind as we
come back with some changes to this budget.
This hearing focuses on the EPA budget and the EPA grants
are a major example of spending decisions of unelected
bureaucrats. We have already covered all that.
We have found that taxpayers' dollars being used for
purposes such as funding questionable environmental projects in
other countries, which included the funds to expand the
environmental capacity of the Moroccan non-governmental
organizations, NGO's, this is kind of interesting. Also that we
would pay to have a delegation come from Morocco to come to
Maryland to study our environmental situation when Morocco has
more money than we do. I look at this and I think, why are we
doing these things?
One thing I would like to have you do, Mr. Administrator,
because I asked my staff and they couldn't tell me, you have
the Office of International something or other, what is it
called?
Mr. Johnson. The Office of International Affairs, sir.
Senator Inhofe. Yes. In that we find that some of these are
international, some are not. In fact, I think the total budget
for that office is fairly nominal. I don't remember the exact
number I heard yesterday.
Then we find out that such things as this Moroccan
situation and one having to do with China are not actually out
of that office. So what I would like to find out is a number,
when you come back or as soon as you can get back to me for the
record, as soon as possible, as to how much money is spent on
international causes. Because it is not found in that one
office. So I would like to have you do that.
[The referenced material can be found on page 83.]
Now, along with grants oversight, my staff has been
investigating EPA regions and how they vary in their
implementation enforcement of environmental regulations. So far
we have learned that of the 10 EPA regions, there is often
little uniformity in how the same program is managed in
different regions. This concerns me because it appears that
regions have the ability to depart from the national guidelines
when enforcing Federal regulations without any repercussions.
For example, in Region V, the bureaucrats in Region V have
been notoriously autonomous in their enforcement of Federal
environmental law, finding people in violation of the law for
things no other region has cited for. This can lead to
situations that are patently unfair and stifle commerce and
fair international competition. I will continue to look into
situations in which regions move out of the acceptable variance
of enforcement and no longer will regions advance their own
agenda without being noticed and held accountable.
I have several oversight priorities critical to my State of
Oklahoma, as you well know, Tar Creek, which was considered to
be the most devastating of all the Superfund sites. We have
been throwing money on that for a long period of time. We now
have this under control. I have to say, with the cooperation of
our Governor, Governor Brad Henry, of my predecessor, David
Boren, who is the president of Oklahoma University, we have a
partnership where the EPA and the different organizations here,
the Corps of Engineers and others in Washington, with Oklahoma
University and the DEQ of the State of Oklahoma, we have really
gotten it under control. We have determined the ownership of
the CHAP piles, we have determined how to deal with that.
Just recently, we ran into something that was very, very
serious. A man named Ed Keheley, who is a well-respected
scientist onsite down there, said that we are going to have to
study the subsidence to see what the problem is. All of a
sudden we find out that the subsidence problem is more serious
than the air problem was before. We are going to have to shift
our gears in a modest way to handle that. Because right now, we
have some, in some areas, only 32 feet, taking our school
children from the air to the underground.
So we have made some great progress there. But we have some
new challenges.
In addition, I am deeply concerned that nearly 80 percent
of the small drinking water systems in my State are not in
compliance with the disinfection byproduct stage 1 rule. To add
insult to injury, EPA recently finalized an additional two
drinking water rules that will place additional burdens on
these small communities. In addition to my legislation to
provide these communities regulatory relief, I will continue to
examine the cost of the science behind these proposals.
I might add, it is not just the State of Oklahoma. I have
talked to Senators from New Mexico and other States who are
having the same type of problem.
So I would also like to encourage the Agency to create a
more open and transparent scientific process. The American
people deserve to truly understand the risks to which they are
exposed, including any uncertainty about that risk, and how the
particular risk compares to another. The American taxpayer
funds these efforts in this. They should be able to evaluate
them and make judgments about how their dollars are spent.
So I will be anxious to get into this. I notice here
Senator Jeffords has asked that Senator Boxer be recognized
first on the minority side. We will do that, but I hope that
doesn't mean you are leaving. Because we have to get 10 people
here.
[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:]
Statement of Hon. James M. Inhofe, U.S. Senator from the
State of Oklahoma
Welcome Administrator Johnson. I am pleased to have you testify
before the committee today on the President Bush's Fiscal Year 2007
budget proposal for the Environmental Protection Agency.
I expect that each Senator on the committee will wish to make an
opening statement and will have several questions for the
Administrator. Therefore, I am asking that opening statements be kept
under 5 minutes.
The Administration has proposed $7.32 billion for the EPA for
fiscal year 2007. This is a $310 million cut to the EPA's budget from
the 2006 enacted level. However, this budget includes $199 million in
cuts to the clean water SRF and more than $200 million in cuts to
regional water programs and other Congressional priorities. These cuts
will not be sustained throughout the process. I truly understand that
in the current fiscal environment we need to make tough choices.
However, I am frustrated by the unrealistic cuts. There are many
opportunities to make further cuts that could survive the process that
were overlooked by the Administration.
This is disappointing because in addition to my demands at last
year's hearing, I sent a letter to you earlier this year urging you to
propose cuts that stand a realistic chance of being reduced or
eliminated. A budget that focuses so much of the pain on regional
programs and Congressional priorities does not meet this goal.
The proposed cuts to the Clean Water SRF, regional water programs,
and other Congressional priorities are likely to be restored and the
Administration knows it. Cuts to these programs account for more than
$400 million far more than the overall budget cut of $310 million. This
allows the Administration to increase other programs, even though they
know that in the end Congress will restore much of their proposed cuts.
My colleagues on the Minority and the so-called environmentalists are
attacking you for making cuts, when at the end of the day you have
actually failed to realistically reduce the budget.
Congress would be justified in restoring many of the cuts you
proposed. There is a nationwide crisis and need for more water
infrastructure money. It is clear from the cuts you have proposed that
the Administration does not fully understand this crisis.
Another reason for these Congressional earmarks is that in their
absence, the bureaucrats at the EPA would solely determine how to spend
those funds instead of Congress. If we don't earmark, the career
bureaucrats will make the decisions, thus taking the decision out of
the control of the people who are most responsive and accountable to
their constituents. Furthermore, without funding that is distributed in
accordance with a formula, our communities that are struggling with
unfunded mandates, must compete with one another for the attention and
approval of the career bureaucrats that dole out the EPA's
discretionary grants. Members of Congress know very well the needs in
their districts. I assure you that I know the needs of Oklahoma far
better than any unaccountable bureaucrat in Washington.
This hearing focuses on the EPA budget, and EPA grants are a major
example of spending decisions by unelected bureaucrats. Each year, the
EPA awards half of its budget in a wide range of grants to a variety of
recipients. However, over the past 10 years, EPA has received criticism
from the Office of Management and Budget, the EPA Inspector General,
and the Government Accountability Office for preferential treatment in
grant making, awarding grants without competition or peer-review, and
requiring no environmental results. Due to oversight from this
committee, EPA has begun to make progress in grant making. However, let
me provide some examples this committee has uncovered of spending
decisions made by bureaucrats within EPA.
We have found taxpayer dollars being used for dubious projects such
as funding questionable environmental projects in other countries
which included funds to expand the environmental capacity of Moroccan
non-governmental organizations and government agencies, including a 10-
day United States study tour for Moroccan officials to Maryland.
Additionally, grants funds have been allocated to implement regional
energy efficiency standards for buildings in the Russian Federation and
implement an indoor air initiative in the Yunnan community of China. I
believe and I know the taxpayers in Oklahoma agree with me that funding
for these grants could be better spent at home.
Along with grants oversight, my staff has been investigating EPA
regions and how they vary in their implementation and enforcement of
environmental regulations. So far, we have learned that of the ten EPA
regions, there is often little uniformity in how the same program is
managed in different regions. This concerns me because it appears that
regions have the ability to depart from national guidelines when
enforcing federal regulations without any repercussions. For example,
Region 5 bureaucrats have been notoriously autonomous in their
enforcement of federal environmental law finding people in violation of
the law for things no other region has cited for. This can lead to
situations that are patently unfair, that stifle commerce, and fair
national competition. I will continue to look into situations in which
regions move out of the acceptable variance of enforcement and no
longer will regions advance their own agenda without being noticed and
held accountable.
I would like to applaud the Agency's recent efforts to reduce the
compliance burden associated with the Toxic Release Inventory, or TRI.
Last fall, EPA proposed allowing certain TRI reporters to use the
shorter TRI Form A instead of the longer TRI Form R. This move would
save an estimated 165,000 hours of burden each year while retaining 99
percent of current long form data. This is the type of streamlining the
Agency should do and I encourage you to continue to look for other
areas where you can create efficiencies and reduce burdens while
maintaining environmental protection. The Agency also said it would
begin to examine the possibility of altering the timing of TRI data
reporting, perhaps moving to an every other year schedule, potentially
resulting in $2 million in savings in the ``off year.'' I know that you
will carefully evaluate the issues associated with these burden
reduction efforts and balance them with the Agency's commitment to
providing information to the public.
I have several oversight priorities critical to my State of
Oklahoma. As you know, Tar Creek has been my top priority for some
time. We have made tremendous progress, but much more needs to be done.
I appreciate the EPA working with me and Governor Henry. Just 2 weeks
ago, a subsidence report was issued. The study was the result of one of
my visits to Tar Creek, riding around the chat piles with Ed Keehely a
retired nuclear engineer from DOE who lives in the area and has been
very involved in the Tar Creek superfund site. This report provided
very new information detailing undermining and potential cave-ins some
200 structures, including homes and churches, were found to be at risk.
This new information has brought about a reevaluation of our
priorities, and I will be seeking your commitment to work with myself,
Governor Henry, and the other Federal agencies in order to do whatever
is necessary to address this risk.
In addition, I am deeply concerned that nearly 80 percent of the
small drinking water systems in my State are not in compliance with the
disinfection byproduct stage I rule. And to add insult to injury, EPA
recently finalized an additional two drinking water rules that will
place additional burdens on these small communities. In addition to my
legislation to provide these communities regulatory relief, I will
continue to examine the costs and science behind these proposals.
I would also like to encourage the Agency to create a more open and
transparent scientific process. The American people deserve to truly
understand the risks to which they are exposed, including any
uncertainty about that risk and how a particular risk compares to
another. The American taxpayer funds these efforts and thus they should
be able to evaluate them and make judgments about how their dollars are
spent.
Administrator Johnson, I look forward to your testimony. I again
urge my colleagues to keep their statements brief.
Senator Boxer. Senator, I have an obligation at the Foreign
Relations Committee where Secretary of State Rice is going to
be. I have to be over there.
Senator Inhofe. I understand. You are recognized.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much. It is very nice of you,
Senator Jeffords. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, thanks very much, and Administrator Johnson,
thank you for being here this morning. EPA's mission, to
protect public health and the environment, is critical to the
lives of all Americans. Sometimes I think we get so caught up
in the weeds, we forget the reason that we are here. We forget
the reason we have an Environment Committee.
I believe this value of protecting the health of the
American people is a value shared by our people. Ensuring that
communities are healthy, safe and not threatened by pollution
in the air, water or soil is a moral issue. Any of us who goes
to our schools, wherever they may be located, from the deep
South to the East to the West, and every place in between, we
see the increase in asthma cases among children. This isn't
happening for no reason. There is a reason. We have to try and
make life healthier for our people.
Unfortunately, I come at this budget a little differently
than the Chairman, not surprisingly. We do have different
philosophies on this. I believe this 2007 budget reveals the
fact that the protection of public health and the environment
is not a priority for this Administration. EPA's budget does
not commit the resources necessary to assure the quality of
life and clean environment that Americans expect and Americans
deserve.
Since this Administration's first budget, EPA funding has
been cut by 16 percent. This year alone, most domestic agencies
were cut an average of a half a percent, but EPA was cut by 4
percent, a total of $310 million. The funding levels sought by
this Administration takes the Country back to funding levels
not seen in 8 years.
These cuts are not only harmful to public health, they are
also fiscally irresponsible. The cost of failing to invest in
these critical programs at a time of rising rates of childhood
asthma, as I discussed, also childhood cancer is growing and
neurological, developmental and reproductive disorders are
growing. This is the wrong time to cut.
The President's proposed budget cuts include $199 million
from the Clean Water Revolving Fund, despite the fact that 40
percent of streams, 45 percent of lakes and 50 percent of
estuaries are polluted. Thirty-five million dollars from State
air quality managers, weakening enforcement of Clean Air laws,
when 150 million Americans live in areas with unhealthy air and
$11 million cut from Superfund cleanups when one in four
Americans lives within four miles of a Superfund site. A lot of
those Americans are children. And children are more adversely
affected.
EPA's own documents estimate a shortfall of $750 million to
$1 billion needed to clean up sites deferred due to continuing
budget shortfalls. The pace of cleanup has dropped in half
since the Clinton administration. EPA has also revealed that
there are well over 100 Superfund sites where human exposure is
not under control, including sites directly affecting children.
I will make the EPA document I have obtained summarizing the
threats posed by these sites part of the record, and I want to
thank the Chairman, Mr. Chairman, I want to take a minute to
thank you very much, because with your help we have been able
to get documentation on a lot of these issues.
The Administration has also proposed to eliminate all
funding for the National Children's Health Study, which is a
seminal inter-agency study that includes the effect of the
environment on children's health. How can we sit here and
preside over the dismantling of a program that has been set up
to track children's health? EPA has made an important
contribution to this ongoing study in the past. This is a
terrible signal. This study is a good example of the
Administration's misguided policies. It would contribute to a
better understanding and control of the causes of asthma,
diabetes and impaired mental abilities in children, including
environmental factors.
An NIH commissioned analysis estimated a cost saving of
$9.7 billion a year that could be gained from the canceled
children's study. So we cancel the children's study, we lose
the benefits that could come, and it costs us all more money in
the end as we have to face these diseases in our children.
These cuts come on top of efforts to politicize and weaken
EPA and environmental programs as never before. A few quick
examples, and then I will be done. In recent testimony before
the EPA's Clean Air Science Advisory Committee, Mr. Bart
Ashtro, the chief of the Air Pollution Epidemiology Unit at
California's EPA, reported that the White House Office of
Management and Budget improperly interfered with EPA's analysis
on a proposed rule governing the control of toxic dust in rural
areas, rural areas.
The recent resignation of a 24-year-old political appointee
at NASA, after the New York Times revealed his efforts to
intimidate NASA's senior climate scientist, raises similar
concerns. This Administration has demonstrated a pattern of
distorting scientific evidence when the conclusions do not
match the policies they wish to pursue. This is a dangerous
pattern that must be stopped.
Despite all this, I understand that the Administrator will
testify today that EPA is committed to successful programs like
Superfund, it is committed to sound science. Well, these words,
so far, have not been backed up by the facts or the reality of
this budget. The President's budget speaks for itself, cutting
critical programs like Superfund. The budget is a road map to
our values and our morality. This budget fails the test. These
proposed cuts, along with the Administration's concerted effort
to distort science, tell the real story.
The oversight role of Congress is an essential one here.
EPA's budget must reflect the high priority placed by all
Americans on living in a clean and safe environment. The
dollars saved in this budget are swallowed up by the cost to
public health and the environment if cuts to critical programs
are allowed to stand.
Now, Mr. Johnson, you have a really hard job here. You
heard the chairman say, please go back and find more savings.
You heard me say, and I think others, perhaps on both sides of
the aisle, we don't know where people are coming out on this,
who are going to tell you there are too many cuts. The bottom
line is the American people. It is not about us. It is about
them. It is about their health, it is about their welfare.
So I hope we can put politics aside and care about them for
a change. I think if we did that, we would have a much better
budget and would have a priority of keeping the American people
healthy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. Thank you, Senator
Jeffords.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Boxer.
If you would just stay her for just a moment, we will
recess our budget hearing and go to nominations. We now have
10.
[Whereupon, the committee recessed to conduct other
business.]
Senator Inhofe. We will return now and recognize Senator
Vitter, I believe you would be next.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID VITTER, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF LOUISIANA
Senator Vitter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having this
hearing today, and Mr. Johnson, thanks for being here. I want
to start by saying thank you for all the hard work that EPA has
done for almost 6 months in the Gulf region. The EPA has played
a crucial role in the response and cleanup efforts.
Senator Inhofe. I don't think your microphone is on,
Senator. I might suggest you use the other microphone there,
because we do want to make sure the record reflects your entire
statement.
Senator Vitter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Yes, Mr. Johnson, EPA has played a very crucial role in
response to the hurricanes, in immediate response as well as
cleanup efforts and monitoring. The key to Louisianians moving
back to New Orleans and surrounding areas as well as southwest
Louisiana is security through stronger hurricane protection. It
is also important that the environment is safe for human
health. You all have done two crucial things that are equally
important. No. 1, you have helped identify and respond to the
serious situations that have occurred on a localized basis in
terms of different sorts of contamination.
Equally as important, you have helped dispel the media myth
that there is this widespread, global, toxic soup in the region
that made the whole region uninhabitable. That widespread toxic
soup myth wouldn't have killed anyone, but it would have killed
our economy and our future if it had been allowed to stand. So
thank you for bringing science to bear on both of those counts.
Even after 5 months, there is still much to be done to
recover and rebuild. So I look forward to continuing to work
with you and EPA in terms of that response.
Another example I want to mention briefly of your important
work in Louisiana is Lake Pontchartrain, one of America's most
significant bodies of water. In 2000, Congress passed the Lake
Pontchartrain Basin Restoration Act. EPA is an active member of
that stakeholders conference and is the chief Federal Agency
involved in the program. So I look forward to continuing that
work.
Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the hearing. I look
forward to following up.
[The prepared statement of Senator Vitter follows:]
Statement of Hon. David Vitter, U.S. Senator from the State of
Louisiana
Mr. Chairman, thank you for having this hearing, and, Mr. Johnson,
we appreciate your being here today.
I would like to start by saying thank you for the hard work
conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency over the past almost 6
months since Hurricanes Katrina and Rita devastated Louisiana and the
Gulf Coast region.
The EPA has played a crucial role in the response and clean-up
efforts in Louisiana through testing and monitoring air and water
quality throughout the disaster area. The key to Louisianians moving
back to New Orleans is security through stronger hurricane protection
but it is also important that the environment is safe for human health.
EPA has been very involved in ensuring a safe environment as
Louisianians return home.
Even after 5 months, there is still much to be done to recover and
rebuild the areas destroyed by the Hurricanes especially in the area of
debris removal. Mr. Johnson, I look forward to continuing to work with
you and appreciate your commitment to cleaning up Louisiana.
Another example of an area where EPA's work in Louisiana is very
important is Lake Pontchartrain, one of America's significant bodies of
water. In 2000, Congress passed the Lake Pontchartrain Basin
Restoration Act, which was my first bill to pass Congress. EPA is the
chief Federal Agency involved in the program and I look forward to
EPA's continued involvement to further promote efforts to improve the
water quality of Lake Pontchartrain. Again, thank you Mr. Chairman. I
look forward to asking questions.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Vitter.
Senator Jeffords.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. JEFFORDS, U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF VERMONT
Senator Jeffords. Good morning, and welcome, Administrator
Johnson. It is good to see you.
As I enter my last year as a member of this committee, I
remember those who have sat before us, Senators Stafford and
Chafee and Moynihan come to mind. Each believed that investment
in environmental programs support our economy. Each in their
own way felt that the key to the economic sustainability was
environmental stewardship.
The President's budget worries me, as I believe it would
worry our predecessors. Just three budgets ago, this Congress
approved $8.4 billion in spending for EPA. The proposed budget
represents a decline of 13 percent from 2004 and a 4 percent
reduction in spending last year.
However, when inflation is taken into account, next year's
cut would be well over 7 percent. The brunt of these cuts will
be felt by our States, which are already struggling with budget
shortfalls. This budget will mean even less money and therefore
fewer resources for our States to ensure cleaner air and water
by our citizens.
If I were to use an analogy, this budget is like an ostrich
sticking its head in the sand. As we all know, ignoring our
problems won't make them disappear. If only it were that easy.
I would argue that ensuring our Nation's water infrastructure
is up to date should be a homeland security problem. The EPA's
own analysis found the spending gap for clean water to be $270
billion. That is the gap between what we have and what we need,
not the total.
In the face of this and other documented analyses of this
spending gap, the Administration continues to cut spending.
This proposed budget would cut the Clean Water State Revolving
Fund, or SRF, by almost 50 percent, from what the annual
appropriations were when President Bush took office. This
committee has reported out legislation authorizing $35 billion
over 5 years for the Clean Water and Drinking Water SRFs over
the course of three separate Congresses. There is enormous
public support for this spending. There isn't a member sitting
on this committee who hasn't heard from our constituents about
this need.
This Administration seems to recognize the importance of
the clean water overseas but not at home. We have dedicated 12
percent of reconstruction funds in Iraq to water projects. We
are planning to complete 712 water projects in Iraq. We have
already finished 434. Some might say, well, we can't afford it,
let's just weaken our regulations. Weaken the regulations,
after witnessing the improvement in the quality of our Nation's
waters? I can't understand why we as a Nation still fail to
recognize the importance of water for our economy, our health
and our environment.
I also feel like a broken record when it comes to
challenging the adequate funding levels for Lake Champlain, the
pace of Superfund cleanups and the cuts to the environmental
education and air toxics research. I hope that when EPA is
asked to embark on new missions it is provided with the
necessary resources and is not forced to scale back on other
important obligations. I fear that this may be already
happening, as it appears that some homeland security activities
are being financed at the expense of cleaning up Superfund
sites.
Before closing, I would like to mention one issue that has
cropped up recently that is of grave concern to me. That is,
EPA's proposal to convert the annual toxics release inventory
report into an every other year report. The EPA should be
expanding, rather than rolling back, our community right to
know protections. I do not understand how weakening these laws
protects public health.
Again, thank you, Administrator Johnson, for being with us
today. I look forward to hearing your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Senator Jeffords follows:]
Statement of Hon. James M. Jeffords, U.S. Senator from the
State of Vermont
Good morning and welcome Administrator Johnson.
As I enter my last year as a member of this committee, I remember
those who have sat here before us. Senators Stafford, Chafee, and
Moynihan come to mind. Each believed that investment in environmental
programs supports our economy, and each in their own way felt that the
key to economic sustainability is environmental stewardship.
The President's budget worries me, as I believe it would worry our
predecessors. Just three budgets ago, this Congress approved $8.4
billion in spending for the EPA. The proposed budget represents a
decline of 13 percent from 2004 and a 4 percent reduction in spending
from last year. However, when inflation is taken into account, next
year's cut would be well over 7 percent.
The brunt of these cuts will be felt by our States, which are
already struggling with budget shortfalls. This budget will mean even
less money, and therefore fewer resources, for our States to ensure
cleaner air and cleaner water for our citizens. If I were to use an
analogy, this budget is like an ostrich sticking its head in the sand.
As we all know, ignoring our problems won't make them disappear. If
only it were that easy.
I would argue that ensuring our Nation's water infrastructure is
up-to-date should be a homeland security priority. The EPA's own
analysis found the spending gap for clean water to be $270 billion.
That's the gap between what we have and what we need, not the total. In
the face of this and other documented analyses of this spending gap,
the Administration continues to cut spending. This proposed budget
would cut the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, or SRF, by almost 50
percent from what annual appropriations were when President Bush took
office.
This committee has reported out legislation authorizing $35 billion
over 5 years for the Clean Water and Drinking Water SRFs over the
course of three separate Congresses. There is enormous public support
for this spending. There isn't a member sitting on this committee who
hasn't heard from our constituents about this need.
This Administration seems to recognize the importance of clean
water overseas, but not at home. We've dedicated 12 percent of
reconstruction funds in Iraq to water projects. We're planning to
complete 712 water projects in Iraq we've already finished 434.
Some might say, well, we can't afford it, let's just weaken
regulations. Weaken the regulations? After witnessing the improvement
of the quality of our Nation's waters, I cannot understand why we, as a
Nation, still fail to recognize the importance of water for our
economy, our health, and our environment.
I also feel like a broken record when it comes to challenging the
inadequate funding levels for Lake Champlain; the pace of Superfund
cleanups; and cuts to environmental education and air toxics research.
I hope that when the EPA is asked to embark on new missions, it is
provided with the necessary resources and is not forced to scale back
on other important obligations. I fear that this may already be
happening, as it appears that some homeland security activities are
being financed at the expense of cleaning up Superfund sites.
Before closing, I would like to mention one issue that has cropped
up recently that is of grave concern to me. That is an EPA proposal to
convert the annual Toxic Release Inventory report into an every-other-
year report. The EPA should be expanding, rather than rolling back, our
Community-Right-to-Know protections, and I do not understand how
weakening these laws protect public health.
Again, thank you Administrator Johnson for being here today. I look
forward to hearing your testimony.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, 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, for
holding this hearing on the budget. I agree wholeheartedly with
the comments you made at the beginning. I am happy to see
Administrator Johnson and glad to see an ex-patriot from OMB,
Mr. Peacock, here. We would like to be able to welcome you to
the real world and find out what some of the challenges are
that OMB never has seemed to recognize in the past.
Prior to the delay of our appropriations structure last
year which caused some restructuring, I wound up with highway
spending in my appropriations committee, but I was very sad to
lose EPA. Some in EPA may not share that sorrow. I was
delighted to work with my committee to attempt to right the
obvious wrongs proposed by OMB in both Republican and
Democratic administrations for the EPA's budget.
We launched a bipartisan effort against the budget cutters
from both parties whose green eye shades obscured the plight of
everyday Americans. Working with my partner, Senator Murkowski,
I was proud every year to help restore cuts to the Clean Water
and Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Funds, which are vital
in my State and I assume in other States to help local cities
and towns provide their residents with clean and safe water.
The job these communities face is overwhelming: hundreds of
billions of dollars in infrastructure costs to meet the
mandates imposed by Washington. The job we faced was hard, but
we were able to restore the water funds.
But times are tougher. I see OMB now proposes to cut
Federal contributions to the State water funds by $200 million,
cut the fund contributions almost in half from historic levels.
What do we tell our constituents back home? Drink only half a
glass of water? Fill the bathtub only halfway? Don't worry
about half our rivers? Forget about half our fish? It's only
half of a one-two punch.
At the same time, they are pulling, the Government proposes
to pull the rug out from under local water systems, EPA is
knocking them down with expensive, new regulations. Systems
across the Country are struggling to implement EPA's arsenic
standard. The Phoenix area has spent a couple of hundred
million dollars just to control arsenic. El Paso has spent
nearly $100 million. Medium and small size systems don't have
those kinds of resources. EPA has told people to go to the
revolving fund and get a loan. That is the same fund, Mr.
Chairman, to which I remind you they would recommend cutting
our contributions by half.
Also, small systems in my State, and I assume many others,
if not all States, don't have the technical ability or the
revenue base either to provide the local match or make payments
on such a loan. Even if towns of 1,000 residents triple their
water rates, it would still not be enough to get these loans.
EPA helps these systems select their treatment technology,
but that does little good if you can't afford to buy and
install the technology. EPA also cites flexibility in variance
programs. However, EPA rarely and in some programs has never
granted the variances.
Similarly, new policies that do not apply retroactively
could be little help at all. As if this is all not bad enough,
we have a new rule from EPA to address disinfectant by
products. Where on earth does EPA think that small water
systems will get the money for this new rule, when they can't
even afford the arsenic rule is beyond me.
My big fear is that these heavy new burdens, without
funding, will shut down many systems, forcing perhaps hundreds
of thousands of families to rely on much less safe drinking
water sources, groundwater, wells, cisterns, and the risks to
those families will be much higher. I wonder if EPA has ever
looked at the cost benefit of some of these regulations which
may give away many of the benefits that existing small systems
can provide in cleaning up the water in hopes of achieving an
absolute standard. It appears that the perfect may be the real
enemy of the good for many of these water systems.
We have to restore some reality to this situation. New
budget cuts and new obligations are not the solutions. New
policies that do nothing are no solution, either. If
environmental leaders really want to make a difference, they
have to find solutions that are doable or provide people the
means to accomplish these solutions.
I look forward to the testimony and debate on this and
other EPA issues. These are matters of serious concern to the
people who have the responsibility in my State who have told me
of their great frustration and concern about where they are
going to go in the future. Thank you.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Bond.
Senator Carper.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF DELAWARE
Senator Carper. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Administrator Johnson, welcome. It is good to see you. I
want to welcome your Deputy Administrator, Mr. Peacock, as
well. Thanks for joining us today. Thank you for taking our
arrows and being willing to give us your testimony and respond
to our questions.
I just want to start off with a word of thanks. I want to
thank you for the decision you made last year to model several
Clean Air proposals dealing with utility emissions and multi-
pollutant bills, the President's Clear Skies proposal, Senator
Jeffords' proposal and the proposal, a third proposal that
Senators Alexander and Chafee and Gregg and I had offered.
Thank you very much for doing that and for playing it straight
and letting us have your, I think, your heart-felt analysis.
That was much appreciated.
I know that folks on our committee are going to criticize
EPA for not allocating sufficient funds to actually make the
air as clean as we would like it to be, or to make our water as
clean as we would like for it to be. I would just remind my
colleagues, if things like clean air or clean water are worth
having, they are worth paying for. To the extent that we don't
allocate enough money for EPA's budget or for other programs
that are meritorious, then we shouldn't be surprised that
sometimes the moneys that we want, whether it is for programs
like revolving loan fund for clean water, which is important to
us, I know to many, see that cut as painful.
We are pleased that you were able to find $50 million to
allocate for the diesel retrofit program that Senator Voinovich
and myself, I know Senator Clinton, Senator Inhofe and others
have promoted. We are grateful for that. We are concerned with
the possibility that we may sort of have robbed Peter to pay
Paul. Nonetheless, we appreciate the acknowledgement of the
importance of our efforts to reduce the emissions from all the
diesel vehicles on our roads.
I am not going to go on beyond that. I just want to say
that we are happy you are here and we look forward to talking
with you today and to working with you as we go forward. Thank
you very much.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Carper.
Senator Thune.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA
Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also want to
thank Administrator Johnson and Deputy Administrator Peacock
for being here today. Also, I notice Susan Bodine is here. Glad
to have her here as well, and to see that a lot of those top
positions at EPA are being filled and that the team is in
place. We appreciate the good work you do.
I want to thank Administrator Johnson for coming to South
Dakota in the dead of January. That is a bold thing, and a very
dedicated public servant, when someone is willing to do that.
For your good work with our corn growers out there, and the
people who are interested in renewable energy, which is an
issue that is very important to my State. So I thank you for
working with me and with the folks in South Dakota who have a
very keep interest in that subject.
I look forward to continuing to work with you on that
issue. There are a number of things with respect to the
renewable fuels standard, we want to acknowledge the dollars
that were put into the budget, I think $11 million in the
budget for development and implementation of the RFS, which is
a critical component of our energy policy going forward. So
thank you for doing that.
I have, like a lot of folks, these budgets are always a
great target to shoot at, concerns regarding the
Administration's proposed reduction for the Clean Water SRF
program. Based on my calculations, South Dakota would lose
about $1.3 million compared to the funding that it received
last year. I know that Congress continues to fund this program
at a level higher than the Administration supports, largely due
to I believe what are the overwhelming needs, not only in my
home State, but across the country.
So as we look at these, at Congress evaluates and looks at
these programs, I am sure we will have plenty of debate about
what those priorities should be. I will just say that in South
Dakota, 50 percent of the assessed rivers and 84 percent of the
assessed lakes are designated as having impaired water quality.
So that is a program that is very important to my State.
I also would, if I don't get a chance to stay around until
we get fully into the questioning, would like to submit for the
record some questions with respect to the Leaking Underground
Storage Tank program. There are a couple of observations that I
have about that program with respect to the challenges that we
face and also the way that the funds are being allocated this
next year. I won't get into that at this point. We just want to
welcome you and thank you again for your good work and look
forward to working with you in the future on issues that are of
great importance to the people on this committee and the people
of this Country. Thank you.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Thune.
The record probably will stay open for only maybe 3 days,
because we are going to keep things moving, so try to get your
questions for the record in.
Senator Clinton.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, U.S. SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Senator Clinton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Welcome
to the committee, Administrator.
I am going to keep this brief. I do want to thank you for
the work that you have done with me on behalf of New York. We
haven't always agreed, but I greatly appreciate your openness
and willingness to consult and listen.
There is one bright spot in the budget for me, and that is
the funding of the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act. I assume
that means that the ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel standard is
still on track.
Mr. Johnson. Yes.
Senator Clinton. However, there are a number of very
serious problems with the budget. I hope that as it goes
through the process we are able to prevail on the
Administration to revisit the Clean Water State Revolving Fund,
which has been cut dramatically. That would mean $22 million
less for clean water projects in my State. It will have real
impacts from the Great Lakes to the Long Island Sound.
There are specific programs which we have been working on
literally for decades and have made progress on that I really
regret seeing the budget levels for, the Long Island Sound
program was cut from $1.8 million to less than $470,000. That
clearly jeopardizes the Agency's ability to implement the
comprehensive cleanup and management plan that we have spent
years developing and we are now on the brink of really
implementing it and getting results and we are cutting back on
the funds that would enable you to do that.
The budget completely eliminates funding for the Long
Island Sound Restoration Act, which was funded at nearly $4
million last year. Again, this important act, which we recently
reauthorized for 5 years, has provided funding for projects to
protect the water quality of the Sound, including nitrogen
reduction projects and upgrades to wastewater treatment plants.
Another big investment that we have made jointly with the
Federal Government that is now in danger, the National
Estuaries program cut by $5.3 million, further threatens the
cleanup of the Sound, as well as 27 other nationally important
estuaries.
I am dismayed that we have so many cuts in programs that
are not new programs, they are programs that have really been
proving their viability and success, but need to continue if we
are going to get the results that we should expect. Finally, I
am dismayed by the $35 million cut in grants to State and local
Agencies for the purpose of administering the Clean Air Act.
New York, along with a few other States, is really on the front
lines of pollution control. We have gone way out on a limb
trying to make sure that we take steps regionally as well as
locally to do what is required with respect to clean air. So it
would be very disadvantageous to see those funds cut.
So there are a number of issues that I have with the
budget. I look forward to working with you and my colleagues in
trying to get a budget that more carefully and clearly reflects
what are the real priorities for our environment. Thank you
very much.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Clinton.
Senator Murkowski.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF ALASKA
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and
Administrator Johnson, welcome, Deputy Administrator Peacock,
thank you for being here this morning. I want to join my
colleague in thanking you for visiting my State. You say you
went to South Dakota in the dead of winter, but you had, I
think, a relatively eye-opening experience. I want to thank you
for following up on your commitment to visit.
I want to make some comments here this morning that will
probably not be new to you. These are issues that are
critically important to my constituents in so many of our
remote Alaska communities.
During last year's budget hearing, I did invite you to come
north to visit Alaska Native communities first-hand, and you
joined Claude Allen, the President's top domestic policy
advisor at that time, you visited some hot spots, Kasigluk,
Atmautluak, Nunapitchuk, and I suppose if you can pronounce
them and then spell them you get extra credit this morning. You
went to some very remote parts of the Country, and I know that
during your visit, the water and sewer conditions that you saw,
I think, made an impression in terms of what you observed.
These communities often rival the conditions in Third World
countries as it relates to their water and sewer needs.
Residents in some villages in Alaska have to go to central
water sources in the community to get their fresh water. This
is from a well source, not very sophisticated. Kind of like the
tripod system back here, I think we will just use human hands
here. A very unsophisticated source, where this is where
everybody goes to get their clean water.
Instead of flushing toilets, what you saw was the use of a
honey bucket, again, a very unsophisticated device, but this is
what we use in many of the communities to this day. In our
clinics, honey buckets are being used. The honey bucket is
nothing more than a toilet seat that you buy at the hardware
store over a plastic bucket. When the honey bucket is full, you
take it down the boardwalk or you haul it out down the trail
and you usually dump it in the sewage lagoon. You either dump
it in the lagoon or you dump it in the water. Sometimes these
dump sources are located next to sources of drinking water.
This last picture here is an area where not only the waste
from the community is dumped, but this is where the human waste
is dumped. As you know, these locations are not miles away.
These are just on the edge of the community. Sometimes the
community grows up around them.
I use the pictures this morning to again impress upon the
need for continued action, continued funding when it comes to
village safe water. When we look at the sanitation aspects and
the impact on health, there is a very immediate, a very direct
connection. We had the budget hearings yesterday in the Indian
Affairs Committee. When I have an opportunity to talk to Dr.
Charles Grim, the Indian Health Service Director, about the
health aspects of Alaska natives, it is directly and
immediately tied to the sanitation issues.
Infants in the Alaska Native villages with less than 10
percent of homes with water and sewer service are 11 times more
likely to be hospitalized for pneumonia, 5 times more likely to
be hospitalized for lower respiratory tract infections. So as
you know, Mr. Administrator, I have very grave concerns about
the Administration's proposed budget cuts to the EPA program
that addresses the basic drinking water and sewer needs of
these communities.
The Administration is proposing a 57 percent reduction in
EPA funding for this program. This funding goes to the State of
Alaska's Village Safe Water program, which provides the
matching funds and works with non-profits and other Federal
agencies to make sure that we are getting the funding that the
communities need.
In previous years, the Department of Agriculture, their
Rural Development Administration, has also provided funding for
the Village Safe Water program. In their budget request, the
USDA doesn't include any funding, zero funding for the program,
and I am very, very troubled by that. So the budget outlook for
this critically important program is really very bleak at this
time.
If you include both the funding stream from your Agency as
well as the Department of Agriculture, the Administration is
essentially requesting a 75 percent funding cut for the
program, which is unacceptable. I do realize as we have had the
conversation that those in EPA and OMB don't see this funding
request as a cut, because last year's request was approximately
the same.
We certainly, in Alaska, see this as a cut. In fact, when
the budget was announced last week, the front page in the
State's largest newspaper announced that Alaska bush water
funding could be cut. So we believe very strongly that this is
not holding steady, that this is a cut that has a devastating
effect.
Now, according to the budget document that was released,
there is a suggestion that this low funding request is related
to the PART report that was issued in 2004. I know that the
State Department of Environmental Conservation is working to
address the various concerns. I know that there have been
efforts made on both ends to make sure that the accountability
is there. We have had a discussion in that vein as well. I am
concerned that the Administration has requested a low level of
funding, even when both the State of Alaska and EPA have
undertaken the efforts to very directly address the concerns
that were raised in that PART report from 2004.
I do want to underscore that the Federal funding for the
State of Alaska's Village Safe Water program has been a huge
success. We have seen dramatic progress. Over 200 rural Alaska
communities have received funding from the program.
Approximately 95,000 rural Alaskans have benefited from it. So
we are seeing the progress, but we know that there is yet great
need. Thirty-three percent of Alaska's rural homes still don't
have running water and sewer.
In planning for the rural water and sewer projects for the
next 3 years, the State of Alaska, EPA and USDA have identified
approximately $206 million in project needs. So we have a long
way to go. We are making progress, but we need to have your
continued help.
I know that my time has run out, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
the opportunity to highlight these concerns. We do have other
areas that we will be discussing in terms of where we feel we
need a little bit of help. I wanted to take the time this
morning to again highlight the very important need for this
particular program. So we would appreciate your help with it.
[The prepared statement of Senator Murkowski follows:]
Statement of Hon. Lisa Murkowski, U.S. Senator from the State of Alaska
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased that the committee is holding
a hearing to examine the EPA's Fiscal Year 2007 budget and that
Administrator Johnson is able to appear before the committee today.
There are a number of issues that I'd like to address today the
first of which has critical importance to my constituents in remote
Alaska Native communities.
During last year's budget hearing, I invited the Administrator to
travel to Alaska to visit rural Alaska Native communities firsthand.
I'm pleased that Claude Allen, the President's former top domestic
policy advisor, and the Administrator were able to visit the villages
of Kasigluk, Atmautluak, and Nunapitchuk, among other Alaska
communities, last August.
As they saw during their visit, the water and sewer conditions in
these communities often rival the conditions in third world countries.
For example, residents in some villages in Alaska have to go to a
central source in the community to get fresh water. This source is
often a well and, in some cases, a nearby river. Instead of flushing
toilets, residents in some villages have to use a device called a
``honeybucket.'' This device is a large bucket with a toilet seat on
top. When the honeybucket is full, it is usually dumped in a sewage
lagoon or on land. Sometimes, these dump locations are near sources of
drinking water.
This lack of sanitation has a startling effect on the health of the
residents of these communities. According to the Centers for Disease
Control, infants in villages with less than 10 percent of homes with
water service are 11 times more likely to be hospitalized for pneumonia
and 5 times more likely to be hospitalized for lower respiratory tract
infections.
I have grave concerns regarding the Administration's proposed
Fiscal Year 2007 budget cuts to the EPA program that addresses the
basic drinking water and sewer needs of these communities. The FY07
request for this program is $14.85 million, while the FY06 enacted
level is approximately $34.65 million. That's a 57 percent reduction in
funding. This funding goes to the State of Alaska's ``Village Safe
Water'' program, which provides matching funds and works with non-
profit and other Federal Agencies to ensure that this funding gets to
the communities that truly need it.
In previous years, the Department of Agriculture's Rural
Development Administration has also provided funding for the Village
Safe Water program. The FY07 request for USDA does not include any
funding for this program. I am quite troubled by that. The FY06 enacted
level is $25 million.
The budget outlook for this critically important program is quite
bleak at this time. Including both streams of funding, the
Administration is essentially requesting a 75 percent funding cut for
this program. Frankly, this is unacceptable.
I realize that EPA and OMB does not see this funding request as a
cut since this year's request is approximately the same amount as last
year's request $15 million. However, both my fellow Alaskans and I see
this as a cut. In fact, there was an article about this on the front
page of the Anchorage Daily News the day after the budget was submitted
last week. The headline was ``Alaska Bush water funding could be cut''
and the sub-headline was ``Federal Budget: Program aiding rural
dwellers listed as 'ineffective'''.
According to the ``Major Savings and Reforms in the President's
2007 Budget'' document that was also released last week, the low
funding request was linked to the negative PART report issued in 2004.
That PART report rated this program as ``ineffective.'' The budget
document states ``The funding reduction will be reconsidered once the
program can demonstrate that funding is likely to effectively and
efficiently help villagers.''
I know that the State of Alaska's Department of Environmental
Conservation is working to address the various concerns raised about
this program. Specifically, they have the following initiatives
underway: (1) implementing procurement and contracting improvements,
(2) hiring an in-house accounting staff, (3) implementing a new project
accounting system, (4) implementing a new project tracking and
reporting system, and (5) improving project management generally. In
addition, the State of Alaska has informed me that they have been
working with EPA Region 10 to address issues of concern.
I am concerned that the Administration has requested a low level of
funding even when both the State of Alaska and EPA have undertaken an
effort to address the concerns raised in the PART report, the EPA
Inspector General's audit, and the Alaska Legislature's audit. In fact,
the State of Alaska has requested that OMB conduct another PART
assessment in order to document this program's improvements. However,
they have so far not agreed to reassess this program. In effect, this
funding reduction penalizes Alaska for OMB's failure to conduct a
timely PART reassessment.
I want to underscore that the Federal funding for the State of
Alaska's Village Safe Water program has been a success over the years.
Over 200 rural Alaska communities have received funding from this
program and approximately 95,000 rural Alaskans have benefited from it.
However, there is still a great deal of need. Thirty-three percent
of rural homes in Alaska still do not have running water and sewer. In
planning for rural water and sewer projects for the next 3 year period,
the State of Alaska, EPA, and USDA have identified approximately $206
million in project needs.
I'd like to address a few other issues of note in EPA's budget
request.
The State of Alaska informs me that the 16 percent reduction in
funding for the State and Local Air Quality Management program, along
with effectively increasing state match requirements will eliminate
efforts to assess and correct air quality issues in remote Alaska
Native villages from diesel generator exhaust and dust. The budget
request also includes $50 million for the Clean Diesel Initiative. This
funding might help other states but the State of Alaska informs me that
the language of the budget request will disqualify almost all Alaska
entities from applying for these grants. Both of these budget items are
of concern to me since many remote Alaska Native villages use diesel
generators as their primary power source it is usually their only
option since these villages are not on the road system and are far from
major power grids.
I am also concerned that the budget includes a 23 percent reduction
in funding for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund loan program. This
funding is intended to help communities finance sewer-related
infrastructure projects. This cut will lower the amount the State of
Alaska has available to loan to communities. Approximately one and a
half percent of this fund is set aside for grants to tribes or Alaska
Native Villages. Subsequently, the State of Alaska informs me that this
budget request will also reduce the amount available to Alaska's remote
Native Villages to address sewer-related needs by approximately $1
million.
In effect, the Administration's Fiscal Year 2007 budget request for
EPA hits Alaska hard, particularly remote Alaska Native communities.
With regard to Village Safe Water funding, the proposed reduction
in the President's budget unfairly punishes Alaska Natives and other
rural Alaska residents for shortcomings that both the State of Alaska
and EPA are working to address. I want your commitment to help ensure
that OMB recognizes the work that is underway to improve this
critically important program.
I have nothing further. Mr. Chairman, thank you once again for
holding this hearing.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Murkowski. This will
conclude our opening statements.
We will start using the same first come, first served basis
line of questioning. Let me ask a question, maybe this would be
better--oh, that's right. She reminded me you haven't testified
yet.
[Laughter.]
Senator Inhofe. All right, make it quick.
[Laughter.]
STATEMENT OF STEPHEN L. JOHNSON, ADMINISTRATOR, U.S.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ACCOMPANIED BY: MARCUS PEACOCK,
DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR; AND BENJAMIN H. GRUMBLES, ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF WATER
Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, Senator Jeffords and
members of the committee, I am pleased to be here today to
discuss with you the President's fiscal year 2007 budget
request for the Environmental Protection Agency. The
President's budget reflects his continued commitment to
providing the critical resources needed for our Nation's
highest priorities: fighting the war on terror, strengthening
our homeland defenses; and sustaining the momentum of our
economic recovery.
The President's pro-growth economic policies coupled with
spending restraint will keep the Government on track to cut the
deficit by more than half by the year 2009. As the President
said in the State of the Union address, ``Keeping America
competitive requires us to be good stewards of tax dollars.''
The President's budget exercises this fiscal discipline by
focusing on priorities while targeting resources.
EPA shares in the responsibility of being good stewards of
tax dollars. In keeping with the need for spending restraint,
the President has included $7.3 billion to support the work of
the Environmental Protection Agency and our partners nationwide
in his budget. This budget fulfills every Presidential
environmental commitment and maintains the goals laid out in
EPA's strategic plan while spending less.
As you may know, throughout the year, we at EPA are
celebrating the 35th anniversary of the Agency's founding. As
we look back, we see much to celebrate our air is cleaner, our
water is purer, and our land is better protected. These
national successes have continued to advance under the
leadership of President Bush.
Since 2001, air pollution emissions have been reduced by 10
percent and over 1,400 abandoned industrial sites have been
restored to productive use through the Brownfields program.
From 2002 to 2003, toxic chemicals released into the
environment declined by 6 percent. In 2004 alone, 800,000 acres
of wetlands were enhanced. Over these years of environmental
gains, our economy's gross domestic product has increased 10
percent, clear evidence that a growing economy and
environmental results can in fact go hand in hand. The
President understands this.
When I accepted the position of EPA Administrator,
President Bush charged me with accelerating the pace of
environmental progress while maintaining our Nation's economic
competitiveness. As we prepare for tomorrow's environmental
challenges, EPA will meet the President's charge by focusing on
three principles.
The first is results and accountability. EPA must operate
efficiently, effectively and competitively. At EPA, we focus on
environmental outcomes, not environmental programs, so we can
hand the American people a cleaner, healthier environment. The
President's budget includes three programs that have been
delivering some of the longest standing and greatest
environmental successes. The President requested nearly $1.3
billion for the Superfund program, that is a $17 million
increase over last year's enacted budget; $841.5 million for
the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund; and $688 million for
the Clean Water State Revolving Fund.
The second principle is innovation and collaboration. By
focusing on cooperation over conflict, and by developing
collaborative partnerships, EPA and our partners are
accelerating the pace of environmental protection by promoting
market-based strategies, advancing stewardship opportunities
and investing in breakthroughs in new, innovative technologies.
The Great Lakes program is an excellent example of regional
and international collaboration, and in his budget, President
Bush requested over $70 million to clean and protect the Great
Lakes. This includes $50 million for the Great Lakes Legacy Act
cleanup program, an increase of over $20 million over last
year's enacted budget, demonstrating a true commitment to
preserving this natural wonder.
Our President understands the importance of our waters and
in his budget he requested $26 million for the Chesapeake Bay
program. This increase of $4 million over last year's enacted
budget will help accelerate the restoration of this national
treasure.
As the President said in his State of Union address,
breakthroughs in new technology are empowering our economy and
dramatically improving our environment. Nowhere is this more
apparent than the Administration's investment in energy
innovation. Since 2001, our Nation has funded nearly $10
billion in developing energy sources that are cleaner, cheaper
and more reliable. EPA plays a substantial role in this effort
through the implementation of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
The President's budget request for 2007 includes over $100
million to support the development and implementation of the
renewable fuels standard rulemaking, to strengthen the measures
for underground storage tanks, and to support programs to
reduce diesel emissions from existing engines.
The third principle to accelerate environmental protection
is best available science. The President shares this commitment
to sound science. In his 2007 budget request for EPA, he
includes $7 million for a Water Infrastructure initiative.
These funds will allow EPA to conduct a major research effort
to reduce the cost of operation, maintenance, and replacement
of aging drinking water and wastewater systems.
This focus on science is also evident in the budgets
funding to study the impacts of manufactured nanomaterials on
human health, funds for the Integrated Risk Management
Information System, and investment in the Computational
Toxicology program. These three principles that I mentioned are
consistent with the President's mandate to create a Government
that is citizen-centered, results-oriented, and market-based.
Before I conclude, I need to mention EPA's responsibility
in supporting the President's top priority: the safety and
security of the American people. EPA has a responsibility in
protecting our citizens and our environment from the effects of
attacks using chemical, biological, and radiological agents,
with special responsibilities for water security and
decontamination efforts.
For 2007, the President has requested $184 million for
homeland security efforts, an increase of $55 million over last
year's enacted budget. While our Nation is at war, EPA is
tightening its belt, while maintaining our commitments to the
American people. The President's budget focuses on the programs
that effectively deliver environmental results, while providing
$540 million to fund our continued efforts to vigorously
enforce our Nation's environmental laws.
By reaffirming our commitment to results and
accountability, innovation and collaboration, and the best
available science, the funding of the President's budget will
allow EPA to meet the environmental challenges of the 21st
century and beyond. That concludes my prepared statement, Mr.
Chairman. I would be pleased to answer any questions you and
members of the committee may have regarding EPA's work and our
fiscal year 2007 budget request.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Administrator.
I would like first of all to ask, perhaps Mr. Peacock would
be a better one to answer this question, though, so that I
understand it, the two areas that you have reduced by
approximately $200 million are the members' requests and the
Revolving Fund, is that correct?
Mr. Peacock. That is correct.
Senator Inhofe. All right, then, if the total or the net
reduction is $310 million, that means somewhere else there is a
net increase of $90 million. Am I correct there?
Mr. Peacock. That math works, yes.
[Laughter.]
Senator Inhofe. I wanted to make sure my notes were right
on that. Because everyone up here in opening statements has
complained about the State Revolving Fund, about the benefits
and about the problems that we are having in our respective
States. I think certainly Senator Murkowski points out unique
situations that occur in Alaska, but not all that unique.
Because we have the same problems. As I mentioned in my opening
statement, 80 percent of our communities are having this
problem with the clean water.
I can allay the fears of anyone on this committee in terms
of the fact that the Revolving Fund is not going to be there.
That is going to be reinstated. I think you knew that. I told
you this during confirmation time. Also, several times we have
discussed the fact that all too often, you put something in
there as a reduction that you know will be reinstated during
the process somewhere. These are two things that will be. I
know that, you know that, everyone in this room knows that. I
think all the members up here have expressed their feelings
about that.
So what I am going to ask you to do is to go back. I
recognize we have OMB and the Administration that want to deal
with on this. But reinstating those, still come up with the
goal of a net reduction, Mr. Peacock, of $310 million and let
us look at it and see if it is something that can be more
accepted by this committee. There are a lot of things that we
can do to force this, but we think this is a very reasonable
approach. And again, we talked about this before. Making
reductions in areas that we all know are going to be put back
in as it goes through the process is something that we can't
continue to do. We don't want to start with this budget process
to keep from doing that.
Do you have any thoughts about that?
Mr. Johnson. Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate the comments. As
Senator Jeffords pointed out, there clearly is a gap for our
Nation's water infrastructure. The gap, as was mentioned, is on
the order of about $270 billion. As we put together the budget
for 2007, we looked at a couple of things. One is,
historically, no Administration carries over congressionally
mandated projects, earmarks, if you will. That has been,
certainly in my 25 year history of EPA, through multiple
Administrations, always been the case.
Senator Inhofe. What has always been the case? Repeat that.
Mr. Johnson. We have not carried over congressional
earmarks from year to year in total.
Senator Inhofe. OK.
Mr. Johnson. The second is, looking at what are the
President's commitments and the Administration's commitments
are. With regard to the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, the
President committed that there will be sufficient funds in that
fund so that the fund would revolve at an annual amount of $3.4
billion. We are on track to meet that. This budget achieves
that.
So while the needs are great, there is no question the
needs and the gap are tremendous, it is a question of how we
are going to get there. That is one piece, the Revolving Loan
Fund.
Second, as I mentioned, there is money in this budget to
help innovative technologies. We need to invest in innovative
technologies to help solve this problem. Obviously, the systems
need to be sustainable. There are a number of pieces to
sustainability, including full cost pricing, ratepayers have a
role to play, the Federal Government has a role to play. Using
technology there are things we can do to also help in the water
quantity issue. We have some ideas in that.
We believe and I believe, it is not just one solution for
the Clean Water and the Drinking Water Revolving Loan Funds. If
my numbers are correct, the Drinking Water Loan Fund is
actually up by $4 million from what was enacted.
So it is a combination of those Revolving Loan Funds. It is
also use and focusing on technologies to help us deal with this
gap. It is also helping.
Senator Inhofe. Mr. Administrator, I appreciate that.
What we are going to do, we are going to have two rounds of
questions, at least, maybe more. We are going to try to stay
within our 5 minutes, and I am going to set that example.
Senator Jeffords.
Senator Jeffords. The President's budget proposes to reduce
the funding provided to the States for the implementation of
the environment and public health programs for the third
straight year. Federal funds are about one-third of the budgets
for State programs. Budget reductions combined with increasing
workloads may lead some States to determine they can no longer
continue to sustain all of their delegated programs and they
may return them to the Federal Government.
With the further reduction of funding for State program
implementation, is EPA prepared to handle the workload
associated with the return of delegated programs?
Mr. Johnson. We are certainly committed to work with our
State partners and tribal as well as territory partners, as we
have in the past. In fact, when you look at the State
assistance grant reductions that are part of the 2007 budget
and compare that to EPA's operating budget, actually EPA's
operating budget represents a 3.8 percent decrease and the
State grants represents a 2.1 percent decrease.
So again, we are operating in an environment of fiscal
restraint. We are trying to do this in an informed way so that
we would be good stewards of the environment and also good
stewards of taxpayers' dollars given the fiscal constraint we
are dealing with.
Senator Jeffords. International Paper. I was attorney
general, so this is bringing old problems back to focus again.
You are probably aware, the International Paper Company is
seeking a permit to burn tires for fuel at its plant in
Ticonderoga, NY. That can release dangerous particulate matter,
even under short term exposure conditions. Breathing
particulate matter can cause numerous health effects, including
premature death.
That is why I have asked the Ticonderoga plant to do what
other plants that burn tires have done: install electrostatic
precipitator or a fabric filter. So far, the company has
refused.
My question is this. In the absence of controls, can you
assure us that allowing the plant to burn tires will not have
any adverse consequences on the people of Vermont and New York?
Mr. Johnson. Yes, Senator. I am very familiar with the pulp
and paper mill issue. As it stands today, New York has not
issued the final permit for the test burn. The next step in the
process would be for them to do a test burn which will be fully
monitored. We have been working with both your State and
Senator Clinton's State in making sure that this test burn is
done appropriately.
Following the results of that, we will all evaluate it. It
is certainly our belief that should the test burn be
successful, that before a final decision would be made with
regard to using it as a fuel source, that they would need a
revised permit. Of course, as you are well aware, there is a
structured process that one has to go through to make that
happen.
Senator Jeffords. I assure you I will be watching this very
closely.
Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir.
Senator Jeffords. According to Dr. James Hansen, Director
of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, 2005 was the
hottest year on record. Dr. Hansen has warned us that the
earth's climate is nearing, but has not passed a tipping point
beyond which it will be impossible to avoid climate change with
far-ranging, undesirable consequences. According to Dr. Hansen,
such consequences would ``constitute practically a different
planet.'' The Administration's response to global warming is to
set a voluntary goal of ``intensity reductions'' which would
still allow actual increases in greenhouse gas emissions. The
Administration also opposes any further discussion of binding
international commitments for the period of 2012.
Given the importance and the urgency of taking real action
on climate change now, how can we be sure that the
Administration is doing enough to stop irreversible climate
change?
Mr. Johnson. Senator, climate change is a very important
topic. In fact, as an Administration, the President has been
investing approximately $5 billion a year, both in research as
well as technological solutions. EPA plays a portion, a small
portion, in the 2007 budget, I believe. It is about $100
million.
Our focus from EPA's perspective is on a number of
programs: Energy Star, which is a very highly successful
collaborative program encouraging people, both domestically and
internationally, to move toward Energy Star products, because
they reduce the energy consumption. Obviously that has an
effect on climate change and greenhouse gases in particular.
We have launched a program called Methane to Markets. Where
methane is a potent greenhouse gas, it is also an energy
source. We using technology to capture that gas and to use it,
not only to capture it to protect the environment but also to
use it as an energy source. We believe we can export that
technology and in fact are doing so with other countries.
Another area which we have been very actively involved in
is the Climate Leaders program, working with industry to help
them to use these technologies to achieve great input. Then the
last item, which is an item that EPA has a $5 million request
as part of this budget, and it is called the Asia Pacific
Partnership. We will work with major Asian countries, such as
China and India, to help bring our technology to bear to help
deal with global climate change. This is part of a $52 million
Government-wide program.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you.
Senator Inhofe. Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Administrator Johnson, I know that you knew I was going to
focus on the water and sewer infrastructure funding. I would
like to give you an opportunity to discuss what you saw. The
pictures that I have presented were pictures that I and others
on my staff have taken. I want to know your impressions of what
you saw. I don't expect you to take very much time. I just want
you to state for the record what it is that you saw on your
visit.
Senator Inhofe. Let me ask you, Mr. Administrator, to try
to be more concise and brief in your responses, because you are
using up all the time that we have to ask questions.
Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir.
The pictures do not do the issue justice. I appreciate the
time and energy you spent taking me around and showing me. It
is a serious problem and it is one that needs to be corrected
for the public health of the citizens of Alaska.
Senator Murkowski. I thank you for that very direct
statement.
Then the next question is of course the troubling one,
recognizing that, how do you reconcile the reduction in the
budget request? How are we going to make the progress that you
recognize that we need to do?
Mr. Johnson. Given the available funds, we want to invest
those and use those wisely. Of course, we appreciate the work
that both the State and certainly our regional people have done
to help make sure that we are delivering the results, that we
have good grant accountability, and that we have very good
accounting practices. We have made significant progress and I
am trusting that between us we will be able to correct the
problems of the past this year.
Senator Murkowski. Let me ask you about the accountability
aspect of it. Because that was what was raised in that PART
report. There is a conflict between what I understand the
reason for the reduction was, which is basically all areas were
taking a reduction. Then the budget document refers to the PART
report. How much weight was given to that 2004 report given the
progress that you acknowledge we have made with this program?
Mr. Johnson. In my judgment, we do not carry over
congressionally mandated projects. So whatever those were, and
this happened to be one, a portion of it, that was not carried
over. That was the first, as we prepare our budget submissions.
The second, it was recognized that it did go through the
PART assessment and there were deficiencies found. We
acknowledged that last year. This year and last year, we have
made great progress. Certainly it is my hope that we will be
able to close that. In fact one of the issues I would like to
talk to you about is actually re-PARTing, of having the folks
come back in and do a re-program evaluation. I think when we
take the steps that we are taking, it will address that and the
issue will be put aside.
Senator Murkowski. Recognizing then the progress that has
been made in improving the management here, in your opinion
what remains to be done? What do we need to address so that we
make sure that that PART report comes back good and sound?
Mr. Johnson. I think certainly the remaining piece that I
am aware of is the reconciliation of financial accounts that
have been done, and particularly focusing on this Spring and
successful tracking of projects by the Indian Health Service. I
think with those two aspects, they are the key pieces.
I also would like to note, Senator, that one of the issues
that has been part of the, if you will, earmarks from year to
year, is the Alaska Operations Office. There is a small staff
of eight people and about a little over $1 million, $1.5
million. Having seen the need first hand, I felt it was
important that that group of people not be subject to
congressional mandate projects, but be part of our base
operations.
This budget reflects it as part of the base operation,
again, trying to show that we are committed and believe that
there are real needs in Alaska. Alaska, as I found out first
hand, is very large.
Senator Murkowski. That's an understatement.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Murkowski.
Senator Lautenberg.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Sir, we were all kind of torn by committee hearings that
are going on in different places, different committees at the
same time. So we have to jump in and we hope that the question
that we will ask has not already been answered.
Mr. Chairman, I ask consent that my full statement would be
included in the record as if read.
Senator Inhofe. Without objection, so ordered.
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Johnson, we are glad to see you and
believe that you can't be really satisfied with the tools that
you are getting to do this job, the tools being money. Your own
Agency has estimated a need of $388 billion over the next 20
years, to modernize and upgrade the Nation's wastewater
treatment infrastructure. The investment is needed to keep
sewage and chemicals and other pollutants out of the waters
that we use for not only drinking and household use, but
recreational, fishing and swimming, particularly important for
our kids.
Without that money, aren't we placing America's health at
risk in a significant way?
Mr. Johnson. Senator Lautenberg, with regard to the Clean
Water State Revolving Loan Fund, as Senator Jeffords mentioned,
the need is great. It is on the order of $300 billion. So we
need to do everything we can to try to close that gap,
obviously first honoring the President's commitment which is
revolving loan fund of approximately $3.4 billion. This budget
helps to achieve that. We are looking for innovative
technologies to try to solve the problem, working with our
States and communities. Ratepayers play a key role as well.
So it is not just one solution. The need is great, but
working together, we can make some significant progress.
One last thing that I didn't mention was that I did ask, in
a letter to our financial advisory board, consisting of an
independent group of experts, to advise us on financial
matters. This particular topic is something that I have put
before them, and I should be getting the report some time this
Spring. These independent financial experts may help us think
through whether there are innovative ways that we can help
address this problem from a financial standpoint.
We are looking at it from a technology, we are looking at
it from a financial innovative standpoint, we are looking at it
from a sustainability standpoint.
Senator Lautenberg. Does financial innovative mean more
money?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Johnson. We know we need more money, but the need far
exceeds what EPA's budget would ever be. So how are we going to
solve that problem?
Senator Lautenberg. I think since you are our man in the
ring, you have to fight harder to try to get the resources you
need. Because the job that you are required, expected to do, is
very important. You have seen this report issued by your
Agency. When we see the human health benefits, for instance,
from acid rain programs, and ozone reduction and see the
monetary value by paying attention to the program, the clean
air, potential savings over $100 billion a year.
More importantly is the number of cases that are put upon
our citizens because of problems from acid rain and
PM<INF>2.5</INF> and ozone reductions. Those programs put
enormous pressure on us as legislators, as representatives of
the people, to try to get something more done. It is painful,
in my view. I am troubled about what happens with the $35
million cut that EPA proposes to cut to help States attain air
quality standards. We need to continue improving the quality of
our air and setting the standards that protect the public
health.
Now, you are aware that air pollution can trigger asthma
attacks among children, 6 million that have childhood asthma.
One of those kids is my oldest grandson, who is 12 years old.
You have perhaps heard me say this before, when my daughter
takes him to play sports, that one of the first things that she
does is look for where the nearest emergency clinic is. Because
if he runs and gets exhausted and so forth, it is not unusual
that he is taken to the hospital. It is painful to see. That
situation is being seen all across the Country.
So how do you feel about the $35 million of cuts that are
going to reduce our capacity to protect these kids?
Mr. Johnson. The Clean Air Act has a requirement that for
continued monitoring programs, there be a 40 percent cost share
by the States. When we issued the final PM<INF>2.5</INF> or the
fine particle regulation, we established monitoring programs at
the States for that pollutant. The Federal Government has been
paying for that 100 percent since 1997.
Now it is time, as the Clean Air Act directs us, to
transition to that cost share of 40 percent. That is what we
are in fact doing. We are trying to abide by what the Clean Air
Act says.
Senator Lautenberg. That is not going to make up----
Senator Inhofe. Senator Lautenberg, we will have another
round, so you will have another chance. We are trying to stay
within the timeframe.
Senator Lautenberg. I will get out of your way and----
Senator Inhofe. No, I want you to have another full 5
minutes.
Senator Lautenberg. Can I ask a final question? Do my
colleagues want to vote on it?
Senator Inhofe. If it's all right with Senator Carper and
Senator Thune, that's fine with me.
Senator Lautenberg. That is this. We have a site, Mr.
Chairman, in New Jersey called the Ringwood Mine site. It was
delisted in 1994. However, and I have been up there, additional
toxic sludge has been found repeatedly at the site since then.
Region II Administrator Steinberg supports relisting this site.
Will you commit to relisting that site by the end of this
year?
Mr. Johnson. Senator, we are in the process of relisting
that site on the NPL listing now. I am not sure about the
specific timing, but we are in the process of doing that. Our
intent is to relist that site.
Senator Lautenberg. All right. It shouldn't take forever to
do that, right?
Mr. Johnson. I would not think so.
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Chairman, you have been generous.
Thank you very much.
Senator Inhofe. Senator Carper.
Senator Carper. In a minute or two, Mr. Johnson, I am going
to ask you a question relating to clean coal technologies, as
part of a best available controlled technology determination. I
am going to ask you about that.
Before I do, we keep coming back to this issue of the Clean
Water Revolving Fund. You have mentioned a time or two in your
testimony today, trying to figure out how to harness innovation
and technology to stretch further the dollars that we do have
to spend. I was having a sidebar conversation with Senator
Clinton, talking about the magnitude of the challenges that we
face in some of our urban areas with respect to combined sewer
overflows. It is a daunting challenge in my little State, in
Wilmington, especially. I can't imagine what it's like in a
place like New York, or New Jersey, for that matter.
We are being asked to, as we look at the amount of money
that's in the budget here for Clean Water Revolving Fund, I
think we are being asked to in the aggregate live with about a
25 percent reduction. I think that's, if I'm reading the
numbers right, and if I'm wrong, correct me. It is a cut of
about $200 million.
Mr. Johnson. It's about $199 million, yes.
Senator Carper. We are trying to find ways to do more with
less in Wilmington, DE in combined sewer overflows. We have
actually borrowed some technology from St. Louis, some things
that they are doing that we think are encouraging.
Let me just ask you, if you and Mr. Peacock might be able
to share with us, if we end up with $200 million less as a
Country to work with on problems we could easily spend tens of
billions of dollars, as you know, what are some ways that you
have heard or seen around the Country where innovation and
technology is enabling jurisdictions like ours to do more with
less in this regard?
Mr. Johnson. Well, I don't have a specific technology that
I have seen that's been the answer. What I have heard from a
number of communities, in fact I was just out in California
last week and saw a brand new wastewater treatment system that
we are using a number of cost effective and sustainable
technologies that they believe will not only work, but they
will be sustainable for generations to come.
One of my goals is to try to take that experience that you
just mentioned and bring that information together so that for
communities that are struggling or do have problems, we can
bring all the forces to bear to try to help them. Our research
and development effort has been working on that. Again, as I
said, we have some new moneys in the 2007 to even further help
that.
Mr. Peacock. I just wanted to mention, we are requesting $7
million in research and development for technology, some of
which already exists, to identify and repair leaks in water
systems. You can identify them much faster and then repair them
much more easily than with the technology we have today, which
is more hit or miss.
Senator Carper. Do you have a center for best practices
that the States and localities can visit, a web site or
something like that, where real people will tell them?
Mr. Johnson. May I ask Ben Grumbles, who is our Assistant
Administrator for Water?
Mr. Grumbles. Senator, your questions are right on point.
One of the focuses of the Office of Water is on sustainability.
That means watershed management to help respond to the concerns
about sewer overflows, to use technologies and innovations
upstream in the watershed, more wetlands used, or buffers. Also
reductions in the use of water, voluntary measures that can
help reduce the flow coming into the sewage treatment plants.
There are a lot of technologies. Our web site, epa.gov/
water, has a wastewater management section in it that talks
about technologies to help further reduce the flow. Also to
trap the floatables that might occur before they go into the
stream at the emergency outfalls.
[The referenced material can be found on page 73.]
Senator Carper. Good, thanks. Let me just offer a trade or
a swap. Thank you very much for that. We will share with you
what we are doing in Wilmington and St. Louis with respect to
doing more with less on CSOs. If you could share with us some
further information that Mr. Peacock alluded to, that would be
most helpful.
Two other things and I'm done. One of those is, I'm going
to be submitting for the record a question, and it was an issue
raised by some home builders in Delaware with respect to
stormwater runoff and EPA's plans to address that. Not a new
issue, an old issue. I would just like to send a question for
the record and ask you to respond.
The other thing I want to say, and then I'm done, but the
budget the President has provided to us and submitted to us
provides about $5 million for EPA's participation in something
that's called the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development
and Climate. I think the partnership aims to promote
development and transfer of cleaner, more efficient
technologies that can address greenhouse gas migration and
energy security. It seems to me a good way to promote the
development and transfer of cleaner technologies is to promote
their development right here in the United States.
However, I'm told that EPA recently issued guidance in the
form, I believe, of a letter to a consulting company named E3
Consulting. In this guidance document, EPA declared that when
States are processing an application for an air permit for a
new coal plant, they don't need to consider clean coal
technologies like IGCC as part of the best available control
technology determination.
Here is my question. The President is going to spend, or
would have us spend $5 million trying to promote the
development and transfer of cleaner, more efficient
technologies. It just seems to me that the Agency's policies
should reflect that commitment. I would just like to ask if you
might reconsider this guidance, in light of the President's
technology development priorities.
Or at the very least, I would ask that you open the issue
up to public comment, so that the Agency can learn more about
the potentials of these clean coal technologies.
Mr. Johnson. First, we are very supportive of, and in fact,
there is, as you are probably well aware, there is a tax credit
for Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) as part of
the 2005 Energy Act. The issue that came before us is IGCC to
be used as a best available control technology. It was our
judgment that it was not a candidate to be considered under
best available control technology for a number of reasons. One
of those reasons again, in our judgment, was that if one were
using one of these, it would probably require a redesign of the
emission source, which we don't consider to be part of a best
available control technology.
I understand what you're saying. We are certainly very
supportive of the technology. We just don't believe that IGCC
really is and should be considered as a candidate technology.
Senator Carper. Thank you. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, thanks for
the time. This is one we would like to follow up with you on in
particular. Thank you very much.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Carper.
Senator Clinton.
Senator Clinton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Administrator Johnson, I just want to confirm that there
will be no further delays in implementing the ultra-low sulfur
diesel fuel, is that correct?
Mr. Johnson. That is correct.
Senator Clinton. Thank you.
Last year, Chairman Inhofe and I worked together on a
provision included in the Highway bill to make diesel retrofits
on non-road vehicles eligible for funding under the Congestion
Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) program. The incentive would
arise from guidance that EPA agreed to issue, which would
enable municipal planning organizations to get conformity
credit with the emission reductions achieved by funding diesel
retrofits with Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ).
Will that guidance be issued in the near future? Will it
provide a sufficient incentive for the municipal planning
organizations to use their CMAC allocation?
Mr. Johnson. Let me first say, Senator, thank you for your
support on the diesel campaign, to get diesel emissions under
control. In fact, the President's budget reflects the $49.5
million for diesel retrofits. This is a competitive grant
program, one that we want to see implemented quickly because of
the health benefits.
With regard to the conformity credit issue, I am not sure
myself. Let me get back to you for the record.
[The referenced material can be found on page 72.]
Senator Clinton. If you could get back to us, because this
is something that I worked on with the Chairman. We think it
holds a lot of promise.
Mr. Johnson. OK.
Senator Clinton. With respect to a recent Environmental
Quality Institute study, which found from interim data in a
national study to determine mercury levels in hair samples, one
out of every five women of child-bearing age exhibited mercury
levels higher than the one microgram limit recommended by the
EPA. The researchers noted these increased mercury levels were
directly related to levels of fish consumption.
This report follows recent disclosure that cans of white
tuna, one of the fish that was listed in the 2004 joint EPA-FDA
advisory on mercury and fish as a lower risk often contains
albacore tuna, which is likely to contain unsafe levels of
mercury. Therefore, it troubles me, because consumers who are
trying to be diligent, following the guidelines, may
unknowingly be exposing themselves to higher mercury levels.
Given this new information, I would suggest that the EPA
and FDA make additional information about mercury in fish
available to consumers and at least consider, I would argue,
please do, update your joint advisory. Would you look into
that, please?
Mr. Johnson. I will be happy to look into it, yes.
[The referenced material can be found on page 74.]
Senator Clinton. Also, I want to raise a question about rat
poisoning. In 1998, the EPA determined that rat poison
exposures were an unreasonable health risk in violation of
Federal pesticide laws, and refused to approve rat poisons
unless manufacturers included two safety measures to protect
children: an ingredient that makes the poison taste more bitter
and a dye that would make it more obvious when a child ingested
the poison.
In 2001, however, EPA revoked these safety regulations,
announcing it had come to a mutual agreement with the
rodenticide manufacturers to rescind the bittering agent and
indicator dye requirements. According to the Poison Control
Center data, the number of reported child poisonings has
increased annually since EPA's policy reversal. This is not
hypothetical, this is looking at the data. Between 2001 and
2003, poison control centers reported nearly 60,000 cases
nationwide of poisonings by rat poisons, more than any other
pesticide. Roughly 250 of these result in serious outcomes,
including death.
Now, many of these involve children, as you might guess,
because the poisons often come in loose pallets that are placed
as bait on the floor. Every year, more than 15,000 children
under the age of six accidentally eat rat poisons. Several
hundred require hospitalization, which results in internal
bleeding, bleeding gums, anemia, even comas if death is
escaped. As you might assume, poor children living in
dilapidated housing where there are more rat poisons necessary
suffer disproportionately.
Now, a Federal court recently held that EPA's failure to
protect these children violates the law. I want to ask two
questions. First, what are EPA's specific plans and timing to
comply with the court order to protect children from these
accidental poisonings? Second, some in Congress are now pushing
for liability relief for distributors of bittering agents in
anti-freeze. That's clearly a bad idea. I oppose it. We need to
do what we can to put the bittering back into the rat poison,
as well as the dye indicators.
Could I have your assurance that you will act on this to
try to comply with the court order?
Mr. Johnson. Senator, let me first say, obviously, we're
very concerned about any children who are harmed or have the
potential to be harmed. I will go back and look into it and
take appropriate steps to address this.
[The referenced material can be found on page 74.]
Senator Clinton. Mr. Chairman, I thank the Administrator,
and if I could have a response in writing on both the mercury
in fish and the rat poisoning, then we will look forward, as
well, to get information in a timely manner about the CMAQ
information for the metropolitan planning organizations.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Clinton.
Were you going to be around for another round of
questioning?
Senator Clinton. No.
Senator Inhofe. All right. Mr. Administrator, first of all,
I brought up this international grants question. There have
been some 300 international grants in the last 10 years. I
asked for a dollar amount and I found out it wasn't nearly as
much as I thought it was. In fact, I still question the $64
million as the total over that 10 year period.
Still, it is a sizable sum. I would like to have, for the
record, someone really get into this, particularly the two
examples that I used with China. Right now, China is creating a
very serious problem for us in our energy crisis in tying up
the oil markets, the reserves around the world.
Morocco is, while they have been an ally of our country, it
is a very wealthy country, and I don't think we need to be
spending money for their environmental programs. So with those
specifically and any others you have, I would like to have you
advise us as to what they are.
[The referenced material can be found on page 77.]
In January 2006, the EPA's Office of Transportation Air
Quality sought candidates to conduct analysis of environmental
strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and criteria air
pollutants from the transportation sector. One of the
qualifications listed for this position, when you were
advertising for the position, was knowledge of emissions
trading. This office does not, now, I'm talking about the
Office of Transportation within EPA, have authority over the
emissions trading program that Congress has approved. That's
the acid rain program.
Given that Congress has repeatedly rejected cap and trade
program for greenhouse gases most recently by defeating the
McCain-Lieberman cap and trade program that was an amendment to
the Energy Policy Act of 2005 by a resounding 62 to 38 vote,
why would the EPA have an official job announcement on its web
site for a person with these qualifications?
Also, under what specific program, regime or authority is
the EPA expending funds as such in pursuit of greenhouse gas
regulatory initiatives? If a position is not to pursue
legislation then what is this guy supposed to do?
Mr. Johnson. Mr. Chairman, I'm unfamiliar with that
particular job description. I will get back to you for the
record.
[The referenced material can be found on page 74.]
Senator Inhofe. Are you, Mr. Peacock?
Mr. Peacock. No, I am not familiar with it, either.
Senator Inhofe. It's disturbing, because if we have a
policy that has been established by Congress or the absence of
a policy to advertise for such a person, when there is nothing
else that person could do other than to try to change that
policy, I find that very disturbing. Why don't you do that for
the record.
I need also to mention, I meant to do this while Senator
Boxer was here. She brought up this incident of the 25-year-old
political appointee named George Deusch who told James Hansen,
who is a scientist, that he couldn't speak on NPR. The New York
Times picked it up and made a story of it. I think it probably
should have been a big story. I think it was wrong. The guy is
not there any more, he has resigned. I think that seemingly is
under control.
Later on, Senator Boxer said that this is part of a
pattern. I would like to suggest, and would point out, and want
to have a matter in this record, that during the Clinton
administration, Vice President Gore and his allies ostracized
climate skeptics with the Administration, which is one reason
there aren't any of them left in the Administration, or not
very many.
In addition, Carol Browner and the EPA were criticized
repeatedly for politicizing the science. At this point, I would
like to submit for the record a list of quotes detailing those
science abuses under the Clinton administration. Without
objection, that will be the order.
[The referenced material can be found on page 75.]
Senator Inhofe. Senator Jeffords.
Senator Jeffords. Mr. Johnson, I want to return to the
issue of climate change.
Senator Inhofe. We just did.
[Laughter.]
Senator Jeffords. As I noted previously, Dr. James Hansen
has suggested that we may be nearing a tipping point on climate
change that will be impossible to recover from and that will
fundamentally change our planet. Do you think we've reached the
tipping point, and if not, when will it happen, in your
opinion?
Mr. Johnson. Well, Senator, I don't know that we have
reached that point. I have read a number of articles that there
is great debate as to when, or if, it will happen. For me, and
certainly for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, our
charge and our interest and our piece of climate change is to
focus our energies on Energy Star, Methane to Market, Climate
Leaders Program and the Asia Pacific Partnership using
technologies to help address the situation. That's what my
focus is on.
Senator Jeffords. A question on Toxic Release Inventory.
The Toxic Release Inventory corporate disclosure program is
widely hailed as one of the Nation's most successful
environmental statutes. EPA recently proposed converting the
annual toxic release report into an every other year report and
allowing thousands of facilities to withhold details of their
pollution volumes and waste management practices.
Using EPA's estimates, facilities eligible for this burden
reduction would save about $2.50 per day. Administrator
Johnson, isn't it worth the cost of a Starbucks coffee to
empower communities with information about toxic releases in
their neighborhood?
Mr. Johnson. Senator, you are absolutely right, it is
important to empower citizens with the right to know and
information. In fact, our proposal for the TRI or Toxic Release
Inventory program, is to look for how can we improve the
efficiency and the effectiveness of the program. We looked at
two aspects.
One is the thresholds of reporting, 500 versus 5,000 pounds
of material, and the other is this issue of alternate year
reporting. In the alternate year reporting, there are
significant savings to not only the people who are filling out
the forms, but to the Federal Government.
Our intent is to still have a very important program, and
have that information available. When you look at it, year to
year, there are not a whole lot of changes, frankly, from year
to year. We could save the taxpayers and save all of us money,
money that could be reinvested in doing quality assurance,
could be reinvested in providing much more analysis of what the
information is. The information is still there.
I think it's also important to note that for those highly
hazardous materials, there are still requirements under EPCRA
for that information to be provided to States and local
responders, obviously for first responders information. We are
looking at how to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of
the program. With regard to the poundage, at least our
estimates show that 99 percent of the information that is
currently available, if we went to this new approach, would
still be available, 99 percent, and save everyone a lot of
money and time.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you.
Last year's EPA Funding bill rescinded $80 million in funds
prior to the fiscal year 2000. Would you explain how EPA is
allocating these cuts and ensuring that they do not come out of
the fiscal year 2006 funding?
Mr. Johnson. Senator, what we are currently doing is
looking at our grants and our contracts as well. We have not
made any decisions on that $80 million rescission. As soon as
we have sorted through that, we would be happy to provide that
information to yourself and the Chairman.
[The referenced material can be found on page 77.]
Senator Jeffords. The Clean Air question, although the
Clean Air Act requires that attainment with any national
ambient air quality standard must occur as expeditiously as
practicable, EPA has recently proposed that compliance with any
new particulate matter standard may not be required under 2020
or 2023. Will you provide me with an analysis of how many
health effects, including cases of premature mortality, will
occur between 2010 and 2023 if compliance occurs under the
timeframe set forth in EPA's recent notice?
Mr. Johnson. I would be happy to do so. I think it's also
important, Senator, to put it in the context of what the Clean
Air Act provisions and the current regulations allow States to
do with regard to the developing the State implementation
plans. I think it's important to lay that process out. Then,
because it's in that context, you come up with that kind of a
date.
[The referenced material can be found on page 77.]
Senator Jeffords. I have a question on the Superfund. The
proposed budget justification indicates that EPA plans to slow
down the investigation of new Superfund sites and move the
money to finish old ones. It is clear that an untold number of
new sites would be stalled. These sites continue to be among
the worst in the Country.
How do you justify staling the progress on these sites if
the new sites are not elevated in a timely manner? How will the
Federal Government ensure that public health is protected?
Mr. Johnson. That is a very important question, and our
focus is making sure those sites that have or present those
potential health risks are the first ones that are addressed.
So those are our priority. In fact, we go through a process to
make sure that is the priority for the new starts.
We also know that there are a number that we would like to
bring across the finish line as construction completes. As part
of the President's budget, there is, as you noted, a $4 million
increase, bringing the total to about $455 million for
construction.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I notice that the retiring EPA Inspector
General is in the audience. I would like to publicly thank
Nikki Tinsley for a job well done and wish her well in her next
adventure. Would you mind standing?
[Applause.]
Senator Inhofe. I would like to join Senator Jeffords in
that. You were very helpful to us in our grants oversight, and
we appreciate your tireless efforts in our behalf. Thank you so
much.
Do you have any other questions?
Senator Jeffords. I don't think so.
Senator Inhofe. OK. I was noticing when Senator Jeffords
talked about James Hansen, being on the threshold of disaster,
I think a lot of people really enjoy disaster. I think quite
often, I was trying to remember, and I'm going from memory now,
but when I was debating the McCain-Lieberman amendment, I saw
showing charts of the front pages of Newsweek Magazine and Time
Magazine of the late 1970's, when at that time everyone's
concern was about the world coming to end because of a new ice
age. It seems to me I remember his name at that time, but I am
going to have to go back and look to be sure.
I appreciate very much your being here and responding to
the questions. We do have a lot of questions for the record.
I would like to ask one thing. I would like to see a show
of hands of those here who are not employees of the
Environmental Protection Agency. It's eight. All right, thank
you very much.
[Laughter.]
Senator Inhofe. We're adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:24 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]
Statement of Hon. Lincoln Chafee, U.S. Senator from the
State of Rhode Island
Good morning. I would like to thank Chairman Inhofe and Senator
Jeffords for holding today's hearing on the important issue of the
Fiscal Year 2007 Budget for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
I would also like to welcome EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson and
Deputy Administrator Marcus Peacock who have been invited to testify on
the 2007 Budget. I look forward to their testimony, and learning more
about the President's proposals for funding several critical EPA
programs under the jurisdiction of this committee and the Subcommittee
on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water, which I chair.
First, let me say that I am pleased the FY 2007 EPA Budget
recognizes the increased need for funding several priority programs,
including the Safe Drinking Water Act State Revolving Loan Fund; the
Brownfields Grant Program; the Diesel Emissions Reduction Grant
Program; and the agency's ongoing focus toward drinking water system
security through the Water Sentinel Initiative.
The $26 million increase included in this year's budget for the
Underground Storage Tank (UST) Program is also important. This new
funding will provide much needed resources for States and Tribes, so
that they are able to carry out existing oversight of the UST program,
as well as new inspection requirements and increased prevention
detection.
As we are entering a tight budget year, and funds will need to be
stretched farther than ever, there are several aspects of the EPA
Budget that indicate difficult choices had to be made. Funding cuts
were directed toward State and Tribal Assistance Grants; research;
environmental education; and regionally-focused programs. I will work
with my colleagues to address these funding decreases. However, the cut
I find most troubling is the significant reduction in the Clean Water
State Revolving Loan Fund (SRF) Program. Each year, we have witnessed
significant declines in funding for this program, and this year is no
different. The President's Budget requests $688 million for the Clean
Water SRF, a 23 percent reduction over last year's enacted level, and a
37 percent reduction from the $1.09 billion provided to the program
only 2 years ago.
Since the 1972 enactment of the Clean Water Act, nearly $250
billion has been invested in our Nation's wastewater infrastructure. As
a result, today our lakes, rivers, streams and bays are cleaner; public
health is improved; and the fishermen, farmers, tourism industries, and
local economies that rely upon clean water have all benefited.
In September 2002, the EPA released a Clean Water and Drinking
Water lnfrastracture Gap Analysis which found that there will be a $535
billion gap between current spending and projected needs for drinking
water and wastewater infrastructure over the next 20 years if
additional investments are not made. With thousands of publicly owned
treatment systems across the Country facing the financial implications
of needing to upgrade aging and deteriorating infrastructure and
failing facilities, the challenge of continuing to provide clean water
is increasingly threatened. Despite the improvements made to our
Nation's water quality over the past 3 decades, these gains may be lost
unless the Federal Government collectively works with States and
localities to address our burgeoning water infrastructure problems.
In the months ahead, I will be joining several of my colleagues to
urge the Senate to increase funding for the Clean Water SRF Program. I
look forward to working with Administrator Johnson and Deputy
Administrator Peacock to ensure that our limited federal dollars are
allocated in the best way to carry out the mission of EPA to protect
the public health and the environment.
Thank you.
______
Statement of Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg, U.S. Senator from the
State of New Jersey
Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling this hearing and giving us the
opportunity to examine the President's proposed budget for the
Environmental Protection Agency.
A budget is supposed to be a blueprint for the future. It points
the direction in which our Country will move.
It tells us what kind of nation we are going to bequeath to our
children and grandchildren.
I'm afraid that this budget will take our Nation in the wrong
direction.
The Bush administration wants to slash 300 million dollars from the
EPA.
This includes a $203 million cut in funding to states for clean
water. In other words, it will drastically reduce the ability of local
communities to provide clean water for drinking, swimming and fishing.
Based upon EPA's most recent estimates, almost 40 percent of our
lakes and rivers are too polluted for swimming and fishing. Is this
good enough for our grandchildren? Or can we do better?
President Bush also wants to cut $35 million for State and local
Clean Air programs, and four million dollars from research on the
health risks posed by hazardous air pollution almost one-fourth of the
total amount currently spent on such research.
Mr. Chairman, air pollution is a serious problem.
According to a study from the Harvard School of Public Health, as
many as four percent of the deaths in the United States can be
attributed to air pollution.
Another study indicated that air pollution kills about thirty
thousand Americans needlessly or prematurely every year.
About six million children in our Country today are living with
asthma including one of my grandchildren. There are many days,
especially in the summer, when it is not safe for these children to
play outside because the air is so unhealthy.
Is this good enough for our grandchildren or can we do better?
The Administration has also rejected, yet again, the principle that
polluters should pay to clean up toxic sites in our communities.
This means that fewer of the Nation's worst toxic waste sites will
be cleaned up and when they are, the American taxpayers, not polluting
industries, will foot the bill.
That doesn't reflect the priorities of average American families.
We can do better for our grandchildren.
I hope we will. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
______
Statement of Hon. Joseph I. Lieberman, U.S. Senator from the
State of Connecticut
The testimony of Administrator Johnson this morning concerning the
Environmental Protection Agency budget for 2007 raises many troubling
questions about the priorities of the Administration. Because my
colleagues have already addressed many aspects of the EPA budget, I'll
limit my statement to three specific aspects of particular importance.
Long Island Sound Restoration funding.--Long Island Sound is home
to 8,000,000 people. It is a national treasure, with 10 percent of the
United States population living within 50 miles. Nevertheless, as
Senator Clinton has stated, the 2007 budget contains no additional
funding for Long Island Sound Restoration. Funding for 2007 is proposed
to continue at a level of approximately $470,000.
Over many years the Long Island Sound Study has made much progress
in many aspects of Long Island Sound restoration. Nitrogen pollution
has been reduced, more than 510 acres of habitat has been restored, and
more than 60 miles of river migratory corridors have been restored for
anadramous fish passage. Beyond these ecological measures of progress,
conferences and workshops have educated and engaged the larger
community in New York and Connecticut. Because of this past work, in
part, the broader community has a much greater understanding of the
importance of protecting the Sound.
With passage of the Long Island Restoration Act last year, Congress
authorized funding for Long Island Sound restoration work on a larger
scale through FY 2010. The extended authorization, at a level of
$40,000,000 per year, will provide grants to support restoration at 20
carefully chosen sites in both New York and Connecticut.
I am committed to protecting and restoring the ecological health of
Long Island Sound. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the
House to secure the funding necessary to continue Long Island Sound
restoration, and to passing the Long Island Sound Stewardship Act.
Energy Star.--The Energy Star program is broadly recognized as an
effective tool for increasing the efficiency of United States energy
use. In fact, the Administration cites the Energy Star program as a
prominent component of the Climate Protection Program, the EPA response
to the threat of climate change. Even in this hearing, the EPA has
again offered the Energy Star program as evidence of the White House
commitment to the threat of climate change. EPA literature claims that
every dollar spent by EPA on its technology deployment programs, (of
which Energy Star is one example), has reduced greenhouse gas emissions
by more than 3.7 tons of CO<INF>2</INF>, and delivered more than $75 in
energy bill savings. Thus, it makes no sense that the Energy Star
budget has been cut by almost 10 percent for 2007. There is a
disconnect between the EPA citation of Energy Star as evidence of the
White House commitment to the threat of climate change, (and the
efficacy of those voluntary climate measures), and the budget cut.
Clean Water State Revolving Fund.--The Clean Water State Revolving
Fund has been slashed by 23 percent from last year. These proposed cuts
to the Clean Water fund follow years of inadequate funding. I joined 26
other Senators this fall in signing a letter demanding that President
Bush not cut funding for the Clean Water Fund in 2006. The importance
of the Clean Water State Revolving Fund has been articulately
recognized by committee members of both parties, and I look forward to
working with them to adequately fund this important program.
______
Statement of Hon. Barack Obama, U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the nominees for appearing
before the committee today and congratulate them on their nominations.
I am also looking forward to the testimony of Administrator Stephen
Johnson on the President's budget recommendations for EPA.
As the Administrator knows, two of my major environmental
priorities are restoring the Great Lakes and removing lead hazards that
affect children. Both of these issues are very important to Illinoisans
throughout my State.
I have serious concerns about the lack of appropriate funding for
these programs in next year's budget. I apologize in advance for not
being able to stay for the entire hearing. However I plan to submit
questions for the record and look forward to hearing from Mr. Johnson
on the rationale for the President's budget recommendations.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
______
Statement of Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am pleased to be here
today to discuss the Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 budget request for the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The President's FY 2007 budget
request of $7.3 billion reflects the Administration's strong commitment
to carrying out EPA's mission of protecting human health and the
environment. The request demonstrates the President's continued
commitment to providing the resources needed to address our Nation's
highest priorities which include: continued support of homeland
security, fighting the war on terror, and sustaining the recovery of
our economy. At the same time, there is a need for discipline in our
federal budget, and this request shows such discipline through its
results-oriented approach.
EPA's programs can work even more efficiently than they do today.
We expect to be held accountable for spending the taxpayers' money more
efficiently and effectively every year. To assist you, the
Administration launched ExpectMore.gov, a website that provides candid
information about programs that are successful and programs that fall
short, and in both situations, what they are doing to improve their
performance next year. I encourage the members of this committee and
those interested in our programs to visit ExpectMore.gov, see how we
are doing, and hold us accountable for improving.
This FY 2007 budget incorporates the Administration's vision of a
results-oriented and market-based approach to environmental protection
while focusing on achieving measurable outcomes in the form of cleaner
air, purer water, and better protected land. EPA will implement an
environmental philosophy based on three principles in order to better
fulfill its mission of protecting human health and the environment.
The first principle is results and accountability. EPA must focus
on environmental outcomes, not environmental programs. This budget
request includes three programs that have delivered some of the
greatest environmental successes. These three programs include:
Superfund, for which $1.3 billion is requested, the Drinking Water
State Revolving Fund for which $841.5 million is requested, and the
Clean Water State Revolving Fund, for which $688 million is requested.
The second principle is innovation and collaboration. This means
the Agency will focus on collaborating with its state, tribal, local,
and private enterprise partners. EPA will work with these partners to
promote market-based strategies, advance stewardship opportunities, and
invest in new and innovative technologies. The Great Lakes Program is
an example of regional and international cooperation, and this budget
requests over $70 million to clean and protect the Great Lakes. This
request includes $50 million for the Great Lakes Legacy Act program, a
$20 million increase, which will accelerate the cleanup of contaminated
sediment that has accumulated for many years in the Great Lakes as a
result of historical industrial sources.
Using the best available science is the third principle which the
Agency will utilize to fulfill its mission. Strong science and data are
integral to making decisions about environmental issues. This budget
supports the use of science and data by requesting $7 million for a
Water Infrastructure initiative. These funds will provide EPA with the
resources needed to conduct a major research effort which will reduce
the cost of operation, maintenance, and replacement of old drinking and
wastewater systems. The focus on the best science is also demonstrated
in the request to fund the study of nanomaterials and their effect on
human health. Additionally, our request supports the Integrated Risk
Information System and Computational Toxicology programs to promote the
best available science.
Mr. Chairman, while the Agency has accomplished a great deal in its
past efforts to clean the water, improve our air quality, and protect
our lands, there is still much to be done. The environmental challenges
that we face are enormously complex and expensive but by incorporating
the Administration's environmental philosophy with its focus on
results, I believe we can meet the challenges that lie ahead in an
efficient and productive manner.
This budget will enable us to carryout our goals and objectives as
set forth in our Strategic Plan and help us to meet our challenges. It
supports the Administration's environmental philosophy which is
committing to achieving measurable outcomes and results while carrying
out EPA's mission of protecting human health and the environment.
HOMELAND SECURITY
Homeland Security is a top priority for the Administration and an
integral component of this budget. For FY 2007, the President requests
$184 million for Homeland Security. This is an increase of $55 million
over FY 2006 enacted levels. EPA plays a leading role in protecting
United States citizens and the environment from the effects of attacks
that release chemical, biological, or radiological agents. Following
the cleanup and decontamination efforts of 2001, EPA has focused on
ensuring we are prepared to detect and recover quickly from deliberate
incidents. The emphasis for FY 2007 is on a few key areas:
decontamination of threat agents, ensuring trained personnel and
standardized lab capabilities to be called upon in the event of an
emergency, and protecting our water and food supplies.
Protecting our water supplies is imperative and this budget
requests $42 million for improved water security including the
WaterSentinel pilot program. The WaterSentinel pilot program
demonstrates how EPA has taken a leading role in protecting the
citizens of this Nation. This program is designed to monitor and
protect the Nation's drinking water infrastructure and will provide
early warning of any intentional drinking water contamination.
WaterSentinel consists of: enhanced physical security monitoring, water
quality monitoring, routine and triggered sampling of high priority
contaminants, public health surveillance, and consumer complaint
surveillance. In FY 2007, EPA will establish, in selected cities,
additional pilot contamination warning systems with water utilities
through water intensive water monitoring and other surveillance. The
addition of water utilities in FY 2007 will allow for more
comprehensive testing of contaminant warning systems. Ultimately, an
expansion of the number of utilities will serve to promote the adoption
of WaterSentinel within the water sector, as functioning warning
systems among several utilities of potentially divergent configurations
will afford a more compelling outcome than just one utility. By the end
of FY 2007, EPA expects to begin disseminating information learned from
the pilots to other water utilities.
CLEAN AIR AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
The FY 2007 President's Budget requests $932 million for the Clean
Air and Global Climate Change goal. EPA implements this goal through
its national and regional programs which are designed to provide
healthier air for all Americans and protect the stratospheric ozone
layer while also minimizing the risks from radiation releases, reducing
greenhouse gas intensity, and enhancing science and research. In order
to carry out its responsibilities, EPA utilizes programs that include
many common elements, including: setting risk-based priorities;
facilitating regulatory reform and market-based approaches; partnering
with state, Tribal, and local governments, non-governmental
organizations, and industry; promoting energy efficiency; and utilizing
sound science.
The Clean Air Rules issued over the past two years are a suite of
actions that will dramatically improve America's air quality. These
rules address the transport of pollution across state borders. In FY
2007, we will continue to implement these rules which provide national
tools to achieve significant improvement in air quality and the
associated benefits of improved health, longevity and quality of life
for all Americans. Taken together, they will make significant air
quality improvement in years to come.
EPA's Climate Protection Programs continue to assist in reaching
the President's goal of reducing greenhouse gas intensity by 18 percent
by the year 2012. The United States has joined five other countries
(Australia, China, India, Japan, and the Republic of Korea) in the
Asia-Pacific Partnership for Clean Development and Climate. In 2007,
EPA requests $5 million to support this partnership which will focus on
deploying cleaner technologies in partner countries in order to reduce
poverty, enhance economic growth, improve energy security, reduce
pollution, and reduce greenhouse gas intensity.
This FY 2007 budget request includes $50 million for the new Diesel
Emission Reduction Grants Program authorized by the 2005 Energy Policy
Act. The program will provide grants for projects that reduce diesel
emissions from existing engines by using cleaner fuels, retrofitting
them with emissions reduction technology, or replacing them with newer,
less-polluting engines.
CLEAN AND SAFE WATER
The FY 2007 President's Budget requests $2.7 billion to implement
the Clean and Safe Water goal through programs designed to improve the
quality of surface water and drinking water. EPA will continue to work
with its state, Tribal, and local partners to achieve measurable
improvements to the quality and safety of the Nation's drinking water
supplies as well as the conditions of rivers, lakes, and coastal
waters.
Also in FY 2007, EPA will continue to work with states and tribes
on implementing core Clean Water programs, including innovations that
apply programs on a watershed basis. Water quality monitoring is a top
priority in protecting and improving water quality and will provide the
scientifically defensible water quality data that is necessary to
defend our Nation's waters. Additionally, the Agency will support the
protection and restoration of wetlands through its own programs such as
Section 319 and State Revolving Fund, as well as other Federal programs
such as those administered by Fish and Wildlife Service.
The Budget also continues the Administration's commitments to the
Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds (SRFs). The Budget
provides $688 million for the Clean Water SRF, keeping the program on
track to meet the cumulative capitalization commitment of $6.8 billion
for 2004-2011. This funding level will allow the Clean Water SRF to
provide $3.4 billion in loans annually, even after Federal
capitalization ends, and will ensure communities have access to capital
for their wastewater infrastructure needs.
The Budget proposes $841.5 million for the Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund, a $4 million increase over the 2006 enacted level. This
request keeps the administration's commitment to provide sufficient
capitalization grants to allow the Drinking Water SRF to provide $1.2
billion annually, even after Federal capitalization ends.
LAND AND PRESEVATION AND RESTORATION
The Agency's FY 2007 budget request to Congress implements the Land
Preservation and Restoration goal through EPA's land program activities
which promote the following themes: Revitalization, Recycling, Waste
Minimization, and Energy Recovery; Emergency, Preparedness and
Response, and Homeland Security.
In FY 2007, this goal will include new responsibilities as EPA
takes on an important role in implementing the Energy Policy Act of
2005. Energy issues are increasingly tied to quality of life and
economic competitiveness in this Nation. The President recognizes the
significance of dealing with these energy issues and it is reflected in
the 2007 budget request. This budget includes $38 million for State and
Tribal Assistance Grants to support EPA's underground storage tank
(UST) program. This is a $26 million increase over FY 2006 enacted
levels. The UST program will continue working with states to implement
the base UST program as well as the new provisions of the EPAct. The
EPAct provisions focus on preventing future releases from USTs and
include inspections, operator training, delivery prohibition, secondary
containment, and financial responsibility.
Revitalized land that was once contaminated can be used in many
proactive ways, including creation of public parks, the restoration of
ecological systems, the establishment of multi-purpose developments,
and the establishment of new businesses. EPA uses its cleanup programs
(including Superfund, RCRA, Corrective Action, Brownfields, Federal
Facilities, and Underground Storage Tanks) to facilitate the cleanup
and revitalization of contaminated properties. In FY 2007, the Agency
will continue to promote the minimization of waste. EPA's municipal
solid waste program will implement a set of coordinated strategies,
including source reduction (also called waste prevention), recycling
(including composting), combustion with energy recovery, and
landfilling. The Agency will work with other Federal Agencies within
the National Response System to respond to incidents which involve
accidental or intentional releases of harmful substances and oil.
Enforcement activities are a significant component of the Land
Preservation and Restoration goal which support the Agency's ability to
clean up the majority of the most hazardous sites in the Nation.
Enforcement allows the Agency to collect funding from Potentially
Responsible Parties (PRPs) to finance site-specific cleanup. These
accounts segregate site-specific funds obtained from responsible
parties that complete settlement agreements with EPA. The Agency will
continue to encourage the establishment and use of these Special
Accounts within the Superfund Trust Fund in order to finance cleanups.
These funds create an incentive for other PRPs to perform cleanup work
they might not otherwise be willing to perform and the result is that
the Agency can clean up more sites and preserve appropriated Trust Fund
dollars for sites without viable PRPs.
HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
In FY 2007, EPA's Budget carries out the Healthy Communities and
Ecosystems goal via a combination of regulatory, voluntary, and
incentive-based programs. A key component of the Healthy Communities
and Ecosystems goal is to reduce risks to human health and the
environment through community and geographically-based programs. Some
of these community and geographically-based programs include:
Brownfields, Wetlands Protection, and programs that concentrate on our
nation's large bodies of water such as the Great Lakes, Gulf of Mexico,
and Chesapeake Bay.
Community and Geographically-based programs comprise one of the
most important components of the Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
goal. In FY 2007, the Agency requests $163 million for the Brownfields
program to restore abandoned contaminated properties. This is a slight
increase over the FY 2006 enacted level for Brownfields. The Chesapeake
Bay program also supports the Healthy Communities and Ecosystems goal.
This program protects the Bay which needs improved water quality,
overall protection, and restoration. This budget requests $26 million
for cleaning up and protecting the Chesapeake Bay. This request is $4
million over the FY 2006 enacted level. Community Action for a Renewed
Environment (CARE) is another program which is vital to achieving the
goal of Healthy Communities and Ecosystems. This program offers many
communities the opportunity to improve their environment through
voluntary actions.
Another major focus of the Healthy Communities and Ecosystems goal
is identifying, assessing, and reducing the risks from chemicals and
pesticides. In FY 2007, EPA will continue identifying and assessing
potential risks from pesticides. In addition, EPA will set priorities
for addressing pesticide and chemical risks, strategize for reducing
such risks, and promote innovative and alternative measures of pest
control. Also related to reducing pesticide and chemical risk, EPA will
continue its Homeland Security activities which focus on identifying
and reviewing proposed pesticides for use against pathogens of greatest
concern for crops, animals, and humans in advance of their potential
introduction. EPA will work closely with other Federal agencies and
industry in order to carry out these activities.
COMPLIANCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP
EPA's FY 2007 Budget Request of $540 million for the enforcement
program helps realize the Compliance and Environmental Stewardship goal
through programs that monitor and promote enforcement and compliance
with environmental laws and policies. In FY 2007, EPA will continue
with its strong commitment to compliance and enforcement through
collaborating with its state, Tribal, and local government partners.
The Agency also will support stewardship through direct programs,
collaboration and grants for pollution prevention, pesticide and toxic
substance enforcement, environmental information, and creation of an
environmental presence in Indian Country.
Compliance assistance and enforcement are critical components of
the Compliance and Environmental Stewardship goal and EPA supports
these components by assuring requirements are clearly understood and by
assisting industry in identifying cost-effective compliance options. In
FY 2007, EPA will use a two-part approach in ensuring compliance
assistance and enforcement. First, EPA will help clarify environmental
laws and regulations for regulated communities. The second step is for
the Agency to reduce noncompliance through inspections, monitoring, and
via enforcement when needed.
In FY 2007, EPA also will focus on promotion of Environmental
Stewardship. Environmental Stewardship is a concept that seeks more
than just minimal compliance with environmental regulations. Instead,
it promotes voluntary environmental protection strategies in which
States, Tribes, communities, and businesses are invited to participate.
EPA will promulgate stewardship by educating, providing incentives,
tools and technical assistance to states, Tribes, communities, and
businesses. EPA will implement a performance-oriented regulatory system
that allows flexible strategies to achieve measurable results.
In FY 2007 EPA will continue to work with industrial sectors to set
pollution reduction goals, provide tools and technical assistance, and
identify innovative strategies to reduce risks. In the tribal GAP
program, the Agency will support approximately 517 federally recognized
Tribes in assessing environmental conditions on their lands and
building environmental programs tailored to their needs.
Also in FY 2007, the agency will continue to fortify the
Environmental Information Exchange Network (Exchange Network). In FY
2007, EPA, states, Tribes, and territories will continue to re-engineer
data systems so that information previously not available or not easily
available can be exchanged using common data standards. By the end of
2007 all fifty states and approximately ten Tribes will have
established nodes on the Exchange Network and will be mapping data for
sharing with partners and submission to EPA.
In 2007, EPA also will continue its work with Performance Track by
recognizing and rewarding private and public facilities that
demonstrate strong environmental performance, beyond current
requirements. To provide incentives to business to participate, EPA
continues to implement and develop new regulatory incentives at the
state level. It will support and leverage state environmental
leadership programs by aligning Performance Track with at least 20
State programs and double the measurable environmental improvements
achieved to date.
In summary, this budget will enable us to carry out the goals and
objectives as set forth in our strategic plan, to meet challenges
through innovative and collaborative efforts with our state, tribal,
and private entity partners, and to focus on accountability and results
in order to maximize environmental benefits.
The requested resources will help us better understand and solve
environmental problems using the best available science and data, and
support the President's focus on the importance of Homeland Security
while carrying out EPA's mission.
______
Responses by Stephen L. Johnson to Additional Questions from
Senator Clinton
CONFORMITY GUIDANCE FOR CMAQ
Question 1. Last year, Chairman Inhofe and I worked together on a
provision included in the Highway bill to make diesel retrofits on non-
road vehicles eligible for funding under the Congestion Mitigation and
Air Quality, or CMAQ program. The amendment was designed to give state
departments of transportation and metropolitan planning organizations
an incentive rather than a mandate to use CMAQ to fund diesel
retrofits. This incentive would arise from guidance that EPA agreed to
issue which would enable MPOs to get conformity credit with the
emission reductions achieved by funding diesel retrofits with CMAQ.
When will that guidance be issued and what is being done to ensure that
it provides a sufficient incentive for MPOs to use their CMAQ
allocation to fund diesel retrofits?
Response. EPA issued a draft version of State Implementation Plan
(SIP) and conformity retrofit guidance for stakeholder comment in
December 2005 that offered two options for using nonroad retrofit
reductions to meet transportation conformity requirements. Since then,
we have been working with representatives from those stakeholder
organizations (AASHTO, AMPO, State and Territorial Air Pollution
Program Administrators, and environmental organizations) to resolve
issues they have raised. As a result, we are currently redrafting the
guidance to better meet their needs. This draft will include a model
rule that States could directly incorporate as a SIP revision to allow
trading of CMAQ-funded nonroad retrofit reductions for use in
conformity determinations. We are also adding detailed information on
the steps needed to implement the options in the guidance. We plan to
have this guidance available, following stakeholder review, in late
spring of 2006.
LOCOMOTIVE AND MARINE ENGINE RULES
Question 2. Locomotive and marine engines today are legally
permitted to emit pollutants at a much higher rate than trucks, buses,
and non-road diesel engines. A typical train, for example, will emit as
much particulate pollution over its lifetime as 500 trucks. EPA
promised in 2004 to issue standards by mid-2005 to reduce emissions
from locomotives and marine engines, but has not yet acted. According
to a recent study, emissions from these engines cause nearly 4,400
premature deaths, 5,700 nonfatal heart attacks, and over 73,000 asthma
attacks in children. When will EPA take action to bring these dangerous
unregulated sources of pollution under control?
Response. We agree that locomotive and marine diesel engines are
major contributors of harmful emissions. To address this significant
environmental problem, the Agency issued an Advance Notice of a
Proposed Rulemaking in May 2004 stating our intention to pursue
stringent standards for these engines. This program continues to be a
high priority for the Agency and we are working toward the development
of a proposal to address this source of emissions.
GREAT LAKES FUNDING
Question 3a. I am very disappointed that the President's budget
fails to adequately fund Great Lakes restoration actions. In May 2004,
the President set in motion the ``Great Lakes Regional Collaboration'',
which brought together 1,500 leaders at all levels of government and
from all the relevant stakeholder groups to come up with a plan of
action for the most pressing Great Lakes problems. That process
produced a plan last December that had buy-in from across the Great
Lakes region.
I am very pleased that Senator Voinovich is taking the lead on a
hearing that will take place in this committee this spring to look at
how we can move that plan forward.
But in discussing the budget here today, it is impossible to ignore
the cuts to funding for activities endorsed by the Great Lakes Regional
Collaboration.
For example, the GLRC restoration plan recommended that the Clean
Water State Revolving Fund be funded at $1.35 billion. Yet the
Administration asks for over $660 million less.
The restoration plan asks for increased investments in non-point
pollution programs at EPA. This budget cuts those programs by $10
million.
And the Great Lakes National Program Office's budget is cut even
though they are being asked to do more.
In fairness, the budget does fund the Great Lakes Legacy Act at
nearly $50 million. That's a sizable increase, but cleaning up
contaminated sediments, as this Act provides for, is just one piece of
the Great Lakes puzzle. The budget gives with one hand and takes away
with the other.
Over 60 Great Lakes scientists reported in early December that the
Great Lakes are near a tipping point, and stated that, ``we need to
start treating the lakes holistically, and not just as a series of
isolated problems to be solved one at a time.''
Mr. Administrator, please tell this committee how this budget--
taken as a whole--will benefit Great Lakes restoration and protect the
world's largest source of fresh surface water?
Response. The Administration shares your interest in protecting the
Great Lakes and therefore proposed approximately $70 million for EPA's
Great Lakes activities, an approximately $20 million increase over 2006
enacted. As you noted, this request funds sediment cleanup at its
authorized level. The Federal Great Lakes Interagency Task Force
coordinates Great Lakes programs and projects, shares information
pursuant to the Great Lakes, and carries out other functions as
required by the Great Lakes Executive Order. The task force recently
identified a number of substantive actions the Administration will take
in support of Great Lakes restoration. All parties recognize existing
economic realities impose limits on what can be accomplished
immediately; consequently, the Administration's response to the
strategy is focused on what can be accomplished within current budget
constraints. Through effective targeting of base programs, and through
48 near-term commitments, EPA and its partners will continue to
demonstrate advances in Great Lakes environmental protection.
Question 3b. How does this budget meet the needs that were
identified by people from the region who were part of the Great Lakes
Regional Collaboration that was started by the President?
Response. Based on an Interagency Task Force report to the
President, we estimate that each year the Federal Government spends
approximately half a billion dollars in the Great Lakes region on
programs that directly benefits water quality.\1\ When the President
signed the Great Lakes Executive Order in May 2004, it was with the
hope that all levels of government would come together to better
coordinate Great Lakes activities, policies, and projects in order to
address nationally significant environmental and natural resource
issues involving the Lakes. The Administration is working with all of
our partners to continue to protect the Great Lakes in the coming
years, using the Collaboration's strategy as a guide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ http://www.epa.gov/grtlakes/collaboration/final rttp
10282005.pdf (page 47 of the report)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This budget for EPA, as you noted, includes essentially full
funding of the authorized levels in the Great Lakes Legacy Act for
cleanup of the Areas of Concern, approximately $50M. Other EPA
commitments in response to the Strategy include:
<bullet> joining with the States and other Federal Government
partners in an equally shared effort to develop plans that will
restore, enhance, and protect 200,000 acres of wetlands in the Great
Lakes
<bullet> working with State and local partners to develop a
standard to help identify sources of contamination at beaches
<bullet> committing $25M to clean up contaminated sediments in
Ohio's Ashtabula River
<bullet> issuing improved policy guidance on managing peak flows at
sewage treatment plants to restrict dumping, reduce overflows, and
increase pollution prevention efforts.
The Great Lakes effort is larger than just EPA and also includes:
<bullet> through USDA, conducting rapid watershed assessments on
critical watershed areas to collect natural resource data, and applying
critical conservation on the ground.
<bullet> supporting establishment in Chicago of a national Alliance
for Water Efficiency--a national clearing house and advocate for water
efficiency research, evaluation, and education.
<bullet> supporting authorization to make permanent the
demonstration barrier on the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal.
<bullet> through the Army Corps of Engineers and EPA, improving and
streamlining the general permitting process for wetlands restoration
projects in the Great Lakes to advance water quality, habitat
protection, and other values.
<bullet> a portion of an increase in funding of $1.5M for NOAA's
Aquatic Invasive Species Program. (These funds will be spread
nationwide, and a portion of this increase is envisioned to support
more of the research and activities needed to address the growing issue
of invasive species in the Great Lakes.)
<bullet> continuing construction of the McCook Reservoir flood
damage reduction project by the Army Corps of Engineers that will
virtually eliminate the backflows of raw sewage to Lake Michigan,
reducing beach closings, and enhancing coastal health.
<bullet> continued construction by the Army Corps of Engineers of a
facility for the safe and effective management of more than 4 million
cubic yards of contaminated sediments from the Indiana Harbor
navigation channel and adjacent areas.
<bullet> a portion of an increase for the North American Wetlands
Conservation Fund, which will help wetland restoration in the Great
Lakes.
RODENTICIDES (RAT POISON)
Question 4. What are EPA's specific plans, and timing, to comply
with the court order to protect children from accidental exposures to
rodenticides?
Response. In 2001, EPA decided that it would not require bittering
agents and indicator dyes across the board in all rodenticide products.
EPA's decision was based, in part, on the recommendations of a broad
stakeholder workgroup convened to evaluate potential actions to reduce
rodenticide risks to children, which included representatives from EPA,
the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA), State officials, the medical community, public
interest groups, the pesticide industry, and members of the general
public. The decision reflected the public health risks posed by rodents
and significant concerns expressed by the public health community and
the CDC that requiring all products to contain bittering agents and
indicator dyes could hinder the effectiveness of rodenticides to
control rodent populations in certain circumstances. In August 2005,
the district court issued an order affirming EPA's decision with
respect to indicator dyes, but reversing the Agency's decision with
respect to bittering agents and remanding that decision to EPA for
further consideration. Following the court's order, and in connection
with the Agency's ongoing work on rodenticides, EPA has been pursuing
several mitigation strategies to make rodenticide products safer for
use around children.
EPA is evaluating the advantages and disadvantages of the possible
mitigation approaches, and will consult with its Federal partners,
including the CDC, before issuing its decision. The Agency anticipates
publishing its mitigation decision, along with an assessment of the
benefits and impacts of the new safety requirements, for public comment
during the fall of 2006. EPA's decision will ensure that rodenticide
products are both effective for controlling rodents and safe for use in
homes with children. In the interim, EPA is encouraging rodenticide
manufacturers to voluntarily implement additional safety precautions to
reduce the potential for a child to be exposed. For example, the Agency
is encouraging registrants to voluntarily incorporate bittering agents
into certain formulations where decreasing the risk of exposure is
important. To date, over half of the rodenticide products currently on
the market contain a bittering agent.
______
Responses by Stephen L. Johnson to Additional Questions from
Senator Inhofe
Question 1. In the President's budget request, funding for civil
and criminal enforcement will increase by $3 million and $500,000
respectively. How will you ensure that EPA regions will enforce Federal
environmental laws consistently and fairly across the country?
Response. EPA is committed to ensuring compliance with the Nation's
environmental laws and to improve public health and the environment in
the fairest manner possible. EPA has in place a framework of common
fundamental principles and management mechanisms to ensure that in
general terms violators in similar circumstances receive similar
treatment under Federal environmental laws. EPA's goal is fair and
consistent enforcement of Federal environmental laws as balanced with
the flexibility to respond to regional-specific environmental problems.
Consistent civil and criminal enforcement is ensured through
multiple factors:
<bullet> The civil and criminal programs coordinate closely to
ensure the appropriate response to the environmental violation is
taken, whether civil, criminal or other response.
<bullet> Fundamental principles of enforcement are embodied in
statutes, regulations and policies that specify appropriate response
criteria for EPA personnel.
<bullet> With respect to criminal enforcement, the fields agents
investigating environmental crimes are part of a nationally managed
program, with Headquarters oversight, including periodic docket reviews
and office audits to ensure consistency with investigatory discretion
guidance and enforcement priorities.
<bullet> EPA's National and Regional Enforcement Priorities and
initiatives focus enforcement efforts on the highest priority
environmental issues-consistently and appropriately depending on the
regional need.
<bullet> While consistent enforcement is our goal, EPA expects
variations to occur in decisions to bring and settle enforcement
actions due to a variety of factors, including the duration and
severity of the violations; the nature and viability of the violator;
the weight of evidence; the availability of prosecutorial resources and
other litigation considerations.
OVERALL FUNDING LEVELS
Question 2. As I stated in my opening remarks, the budget looks
like a $310 million cut on the surface, but when one inspects it
further, they find that only two areas receive any real cuts, the clean
water SRF and Congressional priorities. These cuts will be largely
restored by Congress. This means one of two things: Congress will
either appropriate more money for EPA than the Administration is
requesting or Congress will have to make real cuts to the rest of the
budget. I would like to reiterate the request I made at the hearing
that you review the entire budget and knowing that the earmarks will
likely be put back and that some if not all of the SRF cut will be
restored, what other programs can be reduced for a total reduction in
EPA's budget of $310 million? Please provide a specific list of
programs totaling $310 million that can be eliminated.
Response. I understand the importance of this issue to the Chair.
Nonetheless, the President's budget includes the Administrator's
formal, proposed budget savings. We believe additional reductions
elsewhere in EPA could impact the ability of the Agency to meet stated
performance goals. We share your interest in carefully managing
taxpayer dollars, identifying efficiencies, and trying to eliminate
inefficiencies in the Agency.
$80 MILLION RESCISSION
Question 3. The 2006 Interior and Environment appropriation bill
included an $80 million rescission of unobligated funds provided in
appropriation bills in 2000 and prior. This provision allowed the
Administration broad discretion in determining from which programs to
take funding. When will you finalize exactly which programs will be
subject to the rescission and what amount? And how are you making these
decisions. Are there additional funds that have remained unobligated
for numerous years that could be rescinded this year?
Response. The Agency has been working intensively to examine the
status of contracts, grants and interagency agreements that have
expired to determine whether the balance remaining can be rescinded.
There have been a number of legal and statutory issues to work through
in addition to the financial review. The majority of determinations
will be made regarding affected programs and amounts as soon as
possible, but certain final determinations must wait until September 1,
2006 to meet requirements under the law. We have included funds that
have remained unobligated for some time in our review to identify the
$80 million rescission.
CLEAN WATER
Question 4. Last year, the Administration published a rule
reiterating years of federal policy that pesticide sprayers did not
have to have NPDES permits for pesticides sprayed in accordance with
their FIFRA approved labels. As you know this is a very important issue
to me and in fact, I have introduced legislation to codify the policy
with some important modifications in statute. What is the status of the
rule and when do you expect it to become final?
Response. EPA issued a final Interpretive Statement and Proposed
Rule on the Application of Pesticides to Waters of the United States in
Compliance with FIFRA as a revision to the NPDES regulations on
February 1, 2005. The circumstances addressed under the proposed
regulations are:
(1) The application of pesticides directly to waters of the United
States in order to control pests. Examples of such applications include
applications to control mosquito larvae, aquatic weeds, or other pests
that are present in the waters of the United States.
(2) The application of pesticides to control pests that are present
over waters of the United States, including near such waters, that
results in a portion of the pesticides being deposited to waters of the
United States; for example, when insecticides are aerially applied to a
forest canopy or when pesticides are applied over, including near,
water for control of adult mosquitoes or other pests.
EPA is reviewing comments on the Proposed Rule, selecting options
to address concerns raised by the commenters, and developing final
regulatory language. The Agency expects to publish the final rule by
October 2006.
CLIMATE RESEARCH: GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM
Question 5. The United States Global Change Research Program is
composed of thirteen federal agencies and charged with identifying
natural and human-induced sources of climate change. How is EPA's
contribution to this program unique and how is EPA's program avoiding
duplication of effort?
Response. EPA's global change research program is closely
coordinated with the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP), whose
mission and vision is articulated in its 2003 Strategic Plan.\1\ CCSP
brings together senior managers representing all 13 member agencies to
integrate the planning and implementation of agencies' programs, reduce
overlaps, identify and fill programmatic gaps, and synthesize products
and deliverables generated under the auspices of the larger Federal
effort.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Climate Change Science Program, Strategic Plan for the U.S.
Climate Change Science Program (2003). Available at <http://
www.climatescience.gov/Library/stratplan2003/final/>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using its strategic plan as a guiding framework to avoid
redundancy, CCSP annually conducts a science planning process to
identify the highest priority research, observation, and decision-
support needs. As a result of this planning, EPA's program positions
itself to support both the goals identified in CCSP's Strategic Plan
and specific CCSP products that meet the near-term objectives of the
President. For example, CCSP has tasked EPA to lead production of three
Synthesis and Assessment Products (sea level rise, ecosystem
adaptation, and socioeconomic and environmental impacts of climate
variability). In its capacity as the Federal lead in these areas, the
program coordinates closely with other agencies to avoid duplication in
achieving CCSP's common goals. EPA is also conducting planned research
to support seven other S&A products, which are being coordinated by
other agencies.
The emphasis of EPA's CCSP research is on evaluating the potential
consequences of and adaptation strategies for global change, as opposed
to the causes of global changes or ways to mitigate those causes. The
program directly supports EPA's unique mission to protect the
environment by focusing on understanding the implications of global
change for air quality, water quality, ecosystems, and human health in
the United States. For example, the program's assessment of climate
change's potential effects on air quality (unique within CCSP) directly
supports EPA's Office of Air and Radiation (OAR), which must ensure
that states and cities can meet EPA-set air quality standards in the
future.
CLIMATE RESEARCH
Question 6. EPA budget documents for FY07 under the category
Climate Protection Program show a $6.1 million reduction from FY 06
levels (from $18.7 million in 2006 to $12.6 in 2007). It is my
understanding that this reduction does not come from the agency's
climate change research program under the Office of Research and
Development, but solely from the Clean Automotive Technology Program
under the Office of Air and Radiation. Moreover, this reduction
reflects a phase down in Federal investment in this program as a result
of the successful transfer to the private sector of the hybrid and
clean diesel technologies developed under this program and adopted by
industry. Is this correct?
Response. It is correct that the President's FY 2007 budget request
does include a $6.1 million reduction under the category Climate
Protection Program and that this reduction is directed at the Clean
Automotive Technology program under the Office of Air and Radiation. It
is correct that this reduction reflects a phase down in Federal
investment in hydraulic hybrid technology development as a result of
the transfer to the private sector of hybrid and clean diesel
technologies.
DRINKING WATER FUNDING
Question 7. The Administration has established a goal of ending
Federal contributions to the Drinking Water SRF once the fund revolves
at $1.2 billion per year which should occur, in your estimation, in
2018. As you know I have been quite concerned about the number of
drinking water regulations that have been imposed on communities. Does
the $1.2 billion account for the costs imposed by the arsenic rule, the
two disinfection byproduct rules, the two long term surface water
treatment rules and the upcoming ground water rule? What percent of the
nationwide need will the $1.2 billion provide in 2018? Further, EPA
estimates that 17 percent of the current need is regulatory. Does the
current revolving level of the SRF cover that 17 percent?
Response. According to EPA's 2003 Drinking Water Infrastructure
Needs Survey, an estimated $276.8 billion is needed over a 20-year
period to install, upgrade, and replace the infrastructure on which the
public relies for safe drinking water. Assuming steady growth that
equates to a need of approximately $13.8 billion each year, of which
approximately 9 percent would be provided through annual loan
disbursements of the Drinking Water State Revolving Funds (SRFs). The
States' SRFs will continue to disburse average annual loans of $1.2
billion over the long term after federal capitalization ceases in 2018.
Although all of the infrastructure projects in the assessment
promote the public health objectives of the SDWA, $231.7 billion (83.7
percent) of the total national need is not driven by compliance with
any particular regulation. These non-regulatory needs include routine
installation, upgrade and replacement of basic infrastructure. These
needed investments are borne by the water systems, regardless of
regulation, to properly maintain each system's infrastructure which is
not only economical in the long run but also is protective of public
health. The other $45.1 billion (16.3 percent) of the total national
need is directly attributable to specific SDWA regulations. This
amounts to a direct regulatory need of approximately $2.3 billion per
year, of which slightly over half could be met through annual loan
disbursements from a fully-capitalized Drinking Water SRF. Most of
these regulatory-related needs, $35.2 billion, are needed to address
existing SDWA regulations (including the arsenic rule which is
effective in January 2006). Projects to address microbiological
contamination account for 86 percent, or $30.2 billion, of the needs to
meet existing SDWA regulations.
The regulatory need identified also includes $9.9 billion in costs
associated with proposed or recently finalized regulations. These
costs, which were taken from economic analyses prepared as part of each
rule-making, include $3.2 billion to address acute contaminants under
the final Long Term 1 and Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment
Rules (LT1 and LT2), the proposed Ground Water Rule, and the final
Filter Backwash Recycling Rule. $6.7 billion is needed to meet
requirements related to regulations for chronic contaminants, which
include the final Stage 1 and Stage 2 Disinfectants/Disinfection
Byproducts Rules (Stage 1 and Stage 2 DBPR), the Radon Rule, and the
final Radionuclides Rule.
More than $7.5 billion has already been provided to capitalize the
DWSRF since the 1996 SDWA Amendments. Total DWSRF funding available for
loans since 1997, reflecting loan repayments, state match dollars, and
other funding sources, is approximately $11.1 billion, of which more
than $9.4 billion has been provided to communities as financial
assistance. States and EPA can work to enhance the DWSRF as a tool
through which to encourage integrated use of all local, State, Federal,
and private sources of funding; promote use of innovative and efficient
technology; encourage rates that are appropriate to cover the costs of
supplying drinking water; promote comprehensive strategic planning; and
help states to manage their public health programs.
OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS: GRANTS TO FOREIGN RECIPIENTS
Question 8. Introduction by Inhofe: In our recent hearing on EPA's
FY07 budget, I expressed concern that over the past 10 years nearly 300
grants have been awarded to benefit foreign countries. My concern was
heightened when I learned that many of these grants are awarded from
program offices other than the Office of International Affairs (OIA),
despite the international nature of these grants. Yet, according to
EPA's website, one of OIA's responsibilities is to manage the Agency's
involvement in international policies and programs that cut across
Agency offices and regions. What then has been OIA's specific role, if
any, in awarding these grants to foreign recipients?
Response. EPA policy gives OIA a review and concurrence role on
assistance awards for work conducted abroad, whether awarded to
domestic or foreign recipients, prior to forwarding these to the
Department of State for their review and concurrence. OIA collaborates
with Program Offices as they implement their media-specific
international programs; and strongly supports the Agency's efforts,
chaired by the Grants Administration Division (GAD), to implement grant
policies. Those Offices also consult with GAD to ensure that all Agency
policies are followed.
POLICY FOR AWARDING GRANTS TO FOREIGN RECIPIENTS
Question 9. Introduction by Senator Inhofe: In our recent hearing
on EPA's FY07 budget, I expressed concern that over the past 10 years
nearly 300 grants have been awarded to benefit foreign countries. My
concern was heightened when I learned that many of these grants are
awarded from program offices other than the Office of International
Affairs (OIA), despite the international nature of these grants. Yet,
according to EPA's website, one of OIA's responsibilities is to manage
the Agency's involvement in international policies and programs that
cut across Agency offices and regions.
Does OIA have specific guidance and procedures that it requires the
agency's other program offices to implement and follow in awarding
grants to or for the benefit of foreign entities? Please describe and
provide these policies to the Committee.
Response. International assistance policy and procedures are
incorporated into the Agency's manuals and guidance documents (e.g.,
EPA's Delegations of Authority, and Project Officer Responsibilities
Handbook). OIA works with GAD to ensure that the roles and
responsibilities concerning international assistance are understood by
Project Officers. The purpose of these policy & procedures is to
provide clear guidance for obtaining appropriate approvals & clearance
prior to an award, extension, or modification of grant awards for work
conducted abroad, whether awarded to domestic or foreign recipients.
Specifically,
The EPA policy is the following:
<bullet> Preliminary clearance--The program office contacts OIA
staff before processing a grant application and OIA reviews to ensure
appropriateness.
<bullet> The program office's delegated officials review and concur
prior to submitting proposals to OIA.
<bullet> OIA reviews, and if appropriate concurs; OIA forwards to
State Department for concurrence.
Question 10. If OIA does not have any such policies for the other
program offices, what criteria do the other program offices use to
determine the merits of a grant for a foreign recipient?
Response. OIA does have policies in place. They are supplemented by
individual office procedures. Two examples are provided below.
The criteria used by the Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) in
determining the technical merits of a grant for a foreign recipient are
the same as those for non-foreign grant recipients: Our decisions are
based on the technical merits of the proposal, the applicability of the
recipient's scope of work, the consistency of the proposal with the
Agency's strategic goals, the demonstrated abilities of the recipient
organization, and the likelihood that the project will produce sound
environmental results to EPA/OAR's strategic goals as it relates to
OAR's overall mission. We give priority to projects that will reduce
environmental, health, or other risks to the United States, and also to
those projects that will yield results that are transferable to United
States concerns. We coordinate closely with OIA to review the scope of
work and to receive clearance from the Department of State. However,
foreign applicants are exempt from the competition policy, EPA Order
5700.5A1, ``Policy for Competition of Assistance Agreements''; so they
may not be subject to the same criteria used as ranking factors in
competitive grant solicitations (i.e., past performance) like non-
foreign recipients subject to the competition policy.
With the exception of the U.S.-Mexico Border Environmental program,
the Office of Water (OW) infrequently funds foreign recipients. The
U.S.-Mexico Border Environmental program's mission is to protect the
environment and public health in the U.S.-Mexico border region, a
shared border of over 2,000 miles. The rapid increase in population and
industrialization in the border cities has overwhelmed existing
wastewater treatment and drinking water supply facilities. Untreated
and industrial sewage often flows north into the United States from
Tijuana, Mexicali, and Nogales, and into the Rio Grande. The program is
a partnership of Federal, State, and local Governments in the United
States and Mexico, and United States border tribes. The U.S.-Mexico
Border program emphasizes a bottom-up, regional approach, anticipating
that local decision-making, priority-setting, and project
implementation will best address environmental issues in the border
region. EPA works closely with its partners to prioritize and evaluate
the environmental needs of the different border communities and to
facilitate the construction of environmental infrastructure through the
provision of grant funding for the planning, design, and construction
of high priority water and wastewater treatment facilities along the
border.
OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS: LIST OF GRANTS AWARDED
Question 11. Please provide the Committee with the following
information:
<bullet> an organizational chart of OIA's office
<bullet> OIA's FY07 budget request
<bullet> the amount of OIA's FY07 budget request for international
grants, and
<bullet> a list of all grants awarded by OIA over the past 5 years,
including the project title, a description of the project, the
recipient, and the amount of the award.
Response. See attached files.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2270.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2270.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2270.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2270.006
OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS: PRINCIPLE FUNCTIONS OF OIA
Question 12. What are the principle functions of the OIA that are
not covered by, or do not involve, either another EPA program office or
the Department of State?
Response. OIA has the lead on several important international
environmental activities, as well as the responsibility to coordinate
within ther Agency, and collaborates extensively with other Government
agencies and international organizations to implement international
programs. For example, OIA leads the USG's participation in the
Commission of Environmental Cooperation (CEC), which was established
for trilateral support following the passage of NAFTA. EPA's lead U.S.
Government role is critical to ensure that activities generate concrete
results consistent with U.S. goals and priorities. OIA also represents
EPA and the U.S. Government on the Environmental Policy Committee of
the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). OIA
performs three major functions pursuant to the Trade Promotion
Authority Act of 2002 which requires environmental reviews of trade
agreements and of the provisions in each agreement to prevent lowering
foreign environmental standards or weakening the enforcement of
existing laws to attract investment or trade.
______
Responses by Stephen L. Johnson to Additional Questions from
Senator Jeffords
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT COUNTERPART REGULATIONS AND ALTERNATIVE
CONSULTATION AGREEMENT
Question 1. The President's request for the pesticides program at
EPA is $6.4 million less than the 2006 level. What impact will this
reduction have on implementing the counterpart regulations and
alternative consultation agreement EPA has developed with the Fish and
Wildlife Service and NOAA for threatened and endangered species?
Response. Since the counterpart regulations were promulgated and
the Alternative Consultation Agreement was signed, EPA has gone forward
with implementation of the Endangered Species program. We expect to be
able to continue our implementation with the resources made available
to us in 2006 and requested for 2007. The FY 2007 funding request
includes additional fee revenues to address endangered species.
SUPERFUND: CONSTRUCTION FUNDING
Question 2. Just 2 years ago, the President's budget stated that
``funding for EPA Superfund construction projects is critical to
achieving risk reduction and construction completion and restoration of
contaminated sites to productive reuse.'' Yet today, the President
proposes $138 million less for actual Superfund cleanups than he did in
FY 05. At these levels, is the program going to be able to meet its
performance targets in FY 07?
Response. Yes, EPA expects to meet its FY 2007 performance targets
under the proposed budget.
SUPERFUND: PIPELINE FUNDING
Question 3. While the President proposes a modest increase in the
overall Superfund budget, actual cleanup funds are proposed to be cut
by over $7 million. This appears to have a significant impact on the
entire pipeline of cleanup activities, from site investigation to
construction completion. For example, EPA's target for completing site
assessments will plummet by 17 percent from 419 in FY 2006 to just 350
in FY 2007. Am I correct that the proposed cuts, if enacted, will
adversely impact the Agency's Superfund pipeline activities?
Response. EPA will continue site investigation and feasibility
study work. EPA will target site assessment work by concentrating on
sites with the highest expected risk. The cleanup program will continue
to focus on conducting and completing cleanups at NPL sites that have
construction projects underway or are ready to begin construction.
However, this priority must be balanced with other program objectives
(e.g., assessing possible new sites, evaluating and selecting remedies
at current sites, ensuring responsible party participation, documenting
and recovering EPA's response costs). EPA believes our proposal strikes
the right balance among Superfund program objectives.
PERFORMANCE TRACK-ENFORCEMENT INCENTIVE
Question 4. Has the ``low priority for inspections'' enforcement
incentive for Performance Track members impacted any State's ability to
inspect a Performance Track facility or pursue an enforcement action
against such a facility?
Response. No, the low priority for routine EPA inspections
incentive has not impacted any state's ability to inspect Performance
Track facilities or to pursue enforcement actions against such
facilities. By its very definition, this incentive applies only to
routine EPA (Federal) enforcement inspections. EPA encourages states to
follow this policy, but each state is free to follow whatever
inspection priorities they deem appropriate. The overwhelming majority
of all inspections are conducted by states. Performance Track
facilities cover less than 1 percent of the potential inspection
universe.
The policy of considering members to be a low priority for routine
inspection was developed to allow EPA, and states if they so choose, to
shift inspection resources from facilities with strong compliance
records to facilities that present a greater risk of non-compliance and
those which are rarely, if ever, inspected. EPA, however, does inspect
member facilities for cause, as outlined in guidance and when required
by statute or regulation.
LEAD-GAO
Question 5a. The GAO recently completed a report that I requested
with some of my colleagues on the House side about the EPA's lead in
drinking water regulations. GAO found that data gaps impair the
Agency's ability to oversee implementation of the existing lead and
copper rule and that the regulatory framework for lead in drinking
water should be improved to ensure that public health is protected.
Can you describe now generally, and more specifically for the
record, How and when the Agency plans to solve the data problems
identified by GAO?
Response. EPA clearly understands the importance of ensuring that
we have complete and accurate information from public water systems and
states on compliance with the Lead and Copper Rule (LCR). We are
continuing to work with States to ensure that relevant information is
loaded into our Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS). We have
modified our protocol for data verifications to include a component
that looks specifically at compliance data for the LCR. This includes
reviewing the accuracy of information in the files (e.g., calculation
of the 90th percentile), completeness of information (e.g., 90th
percentile values and individual sample results), and an evaluation as
to whether the utility and State have appropriately followed up on
exceedances of the lead action level. We believe that our increased
scrutiny of the data in State files will have the effect of ensuring
greater attention on their part to compliance by systems.
Question 5b. How and when the Agency plans to strengthen lead in
drinking water regulations?
Response. In 2006, EPA will propose a number of short-term
revisions to the LCR. Several of the areas that GAO recommended should
be reviewed, will be addressed by these short-term changes. We will
also be releasing guidance in 2006 that will help states and water
systems better evaluate the potential effects of making treatment
changes on their ability to control corrosion.
SUPERFUND: CLEANUP FUNDING
Question 6. The President proposed an $11 million decrease in
funding for the Superfund cleanup program. At the same time, abandoned
sites throughout the country are languishing on the National Priorities
List due to inadequate cleanup funds. In my State of Vermont, the
Elizabeth Mine site has waited for years to finally receive modest
funds to begin partial remedy construction, while the investigations at
the Ely Mine site and the Pike Hill sites are proceeding slowly due to
partial funding. Won't an $11 million cut in funding further delay
overall cleanups?
Response. EPA has provided cleanup funding to the Elizabeth Mine
site. In March 2003, EPA conducted a Superfund removal cleanup action
to address the instability of the tailing dam. EPA repaired internal
dam erosion and installed a new drainage pipe to help prevent future
erosion. In 2004, EPA installed a soil buttress to stabilize the
tailing dam to reduce the threat of a dam failure. Likewise, Remedial
Investigation and Feasibility Studies are underway at the Ely Mine and
Pike Hill Superfund sites. EPA believes the President's budget strikes
the right balance among Superfund program objectives. The program
expects to meet its FY 2007 performance targets under the proposed
budget.
SUPERFUND: IMPACTS OF HOMELAND SECURITY BUDGET ON SUPERFUND BUDGET
Question 7. Events over the past few years have illustrated the
vital role of Superfund in enhancing EPA's capacity to respond to a
variety of national emergencies. The Superfund program was actively
engaged in cleanup of debris from the World Trade Center and the Space
Shuttle Discovery, decontamination of the Hart Senate Office Building
and testing toxic sludge from Hurricane Katrina. The President proposes
to increase EPA's homeland security funding by over $12 million to $52
million in total. Despite this important new mission, the overall
Superfund budget has remained relatively flat. Why isn't the President
proposing additional resources for Superfund's homeland security
related activities instead of redirecting scarce resources away from
cleaning up toxic waste sites in communities across the nation?
Response. Cleaning up Superfund hazardous waste sites will remain a
Superfund program top priority. The Agency is increasing the Superfund
construction budget by $4 million over the FY 2006 enacted level by
redirecting funds from earlier phase activities to construction. The
Agency also expects to meet its 2007 performance targets. Resources
designated for Homeland Security will help build much needed capacity
to prepare and respond effectively to nationally significant incidents,
especially those involving chemical, biological and radiological
substances.
RCRA DEFINITION OF SOLID WASTE QUESTION
Question 8. It has been widely reported that EPA plans to broaden
its proposal to revise the definition of solid waste beyond intra-
industry recycling. While this concept was mentioned briefly in the
lengthy preamble to the proposed rule, this would be a major departure
from the approach on which EPA sought comment in 2003. Am I correct
that EPA will seek additional public comment before proceeding with
final rule on this issue that goes beyond the logical outgrowth of the
original proposed regulatory (not preamble) language?
Response. EPA continues its work to revise the definition of solid
waste. As we complete our analyses, should we determine that it is
appropriate to move beyond a logical outgrowth of our October 2003
proposal, EPA will provide additional opportunity for public comment.
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS
Question 9. What is the status of EPA's efforts to ensure that
institutional controls (ICs) at CERCLA and RCRA sites where residual
contamination is left in place are fully implemented and enforceable?
Response. EPA's RCRA Program is pursuing various activities to
ensure Regions and states are aware of the need to implement ICs that
are enforceable and protect the integrity of cleanups. The Agency
continues to facilitate the maintenance and exchange of information
concerning ICs internally through the RCRA Info-based IC tracking
system and externally through various websites.
In October 2004, EPA developed a strategy for ensuring that ICs are
successfully implemented at Superfund sites, with an emphasis on
ensuring the long-term protectiveness of sites where construction of
cleanup activities is complete. The Agency is two years into
implementing the Superfund 5-year strategy nationally and we continue
to devote a significant amount of time and energy to improve the
effectiveness of ICs.
Question 10. In addition, please address EPA's efforts to implement
the recommendations of last year's GAO report.
Response. Currently, EPA is developing guidance on IC
Implementation and Assurance Plans, Estimating the Life-Cycle Costs of
ICs and Evaluating the Effectiveness of ICs, and Ensuring Effective and
Reliable ICs at RCRA Facilities.
EPA continues to focus on gathering accurate IC tracking
information through population of the Superfund Institutional Controls
Tracking System. In addition, the Agency continues to emphasize the
importance of proper implementation and enforcement of ICs to RCRA
managers through training and regular meetings regarding IC issues and
implementation.
E-WASTE: HARMONIZE STATE EFFORTS
Question 11. The storage, safe handling, recycling, and disposal of
electronic waste pose many challenges for our nation. More than 22
million computers are sold each year in the United States alone and
most will be obsolete in 2-3 years. Each day, on average, 220 tons of
computers and other e-waste are dumped in landfills or incinerated in
the United States. In 2003, only 10 percent of consumer electronics
were recycled in the United States. Four States have banned landfill
disposal of cathode ray tubes and three States have passed e-waste
legislation (Maine, California, and Maryland) that are each uniquely
different laws. Twenty six additional States are also considering e-
waste legislation. This patchwork of State regulation and limited
industry involvement is not sufficient to address the expected growth
in e-waste and it could put some United States manufacturers at a
disadvantage if they have to comply with multiple State regulations.
What is the EPA doing to harmonize State efforts in this area?
Response. EPA is working closely with States by providing
stakeholder meetings and a conference where States can learn from each
other and share experiences in this area. In recognition of the need
for greater harmonization, EPA convened a national meeting of
stakeholders interested in e-waste issues in March 2005. As a result,
the Agency now works with the third-party organization, a private
multi-State entity in the Pacific Northwest, to develop Best Management
Practices for recycling of e-waste. This is one example of several
collaborative projects initiated by the meeting.
EPA also created the Plug-In To eCycling campaign to foster
partnerships between electronics manufacturers, retailers, and
Governments. Plug-In to eCycling encourages and supports innovative
voluntary partnerships to increase the availability of convenient and
affordable electronics recycling and reuse opportunities for citizens.
It is intended that the innovations illustrated by these partnerships
will inform State policymaking on electronics recovery. The program
currently has four State partners and 22 local Government partners.
E-WASTE: LIMITED STATE RESOURCES
Question 12. The storage, safe handling, recycling, and disposal of
electronic waste pose many challenges for our nation. More than 22
million computers are sold each year in the United States alone and
most will be obsolete in 2-3 years. Each day, on average, 220 tons of
computers and other e-waste are dumped in landfills or incinerated in
the United States. In 2003, only 10 percent of consumer electronics
were recycled in the United States. Four States have banned landfill
disposal of cathode ray tubes and three States have passed e-waste
legislation (Maine, California, and Maryland) that are each uniquely
different laws. Twenty six additional States are also considering e-
waste legislation. This patchwork of State regulation and limited
industry involvement is not sufficient to address the expected growth
in e-waste and it could put some United States manufacturers at a
disadvantage if they have to comply with multiple State regulations.
What is the EPA doing to help the States avoid duplicative efforts
that will drain the States' already limited resources?
Response. EPA is promoting information sharing, encouraging
consistent approaches which include Best Management Practices among
States, and supporting multi-State and regional efforts. These
approaches can potentially save scarce resources by limiting time
needed for gathering information, research, and building consensus.
E-WASTE: NATIONAL WASTE SYSTEM
Question 13. The storage, safe handling, recycling, and disposal of
electronic waste pose many challenges for our nation. More than 22
million computers are sold each year in the United States alone and
most will be obsolete in 2-3 years. Each day, on average, 220 tons of
computers and other e-waste are dumped in landfills or incinerated in
the United States. In 2003, only 10 percent of consumer electronics
were recycled in the United States. Four States have banned landfill
disposal of cathode ray tubes and three States have passed e-waste
legislation (Maine, California, and Maryland) that are each uniquely
different laws. Twenty six additional States are also considering e-
waste legislation. This patchwork of State regulation and limited
industry involvement is not sufficient to address the expected growth
in e-waste and it could put some United States manufacturers at a
disadvantage if they have to comply with multiple State regulations.
What, if any, EPA resources are being dedicated to establish a
national e-waste system (including FTE and extra-mural dollars)?
Response. EPA is not devoting resources to establishing a uniform
national system for e-waste management. We are helping to support
experimentation with different approaches that reflect varying
conditions around the country, including regional arrangements.
E-WASTE: REGIONAL/STATE LEGISLATURE & VOLUNTARY PROGRAMS
Question 14. The storage, safe handling, recycling, and disposal of
electronic waste pose many challenges for our nation. More than 22
million computers are sold each year in the United States alone and
most will be obsolete in 2-3 years. Each day, on average, 220 tons of
computers and other e-waste are dumped in landfills or incinerated in
the United States. In 2003, only 10 percent of consumer electronics
were recycled in the United States. Four States have banned landfill
disposal of cathode ray tubes and three States have passed e-waste
legislation (Maine, California, and Maryland) that are each uniquely
different laws. Twenty six additional States are also considering e-
waste legislation. This patchwork of State regulation and limited
industry involvement is not sufficient to address the expected growth
in e-waste and it could put some United States manufacturers at a
disadvantage if they have to comply with multiple State regulations.
What, if any, EPA resources are being dedicated to support regional
State e-waste efforts in the form of legislation and voluntary programs
(including FTE and extra-mural dollars)?
Response. EPA has limited resources dedicated to support for
regional State e-waste efforts. The third party organization and a
portion of the funds and FTE in the Plug-In to eCycling program are
resources dedicated to such efforts. We can follow up with more
information if desired.
TPO: .2 FTE $22K
Plug-In .2 FTE
EPEAT .2 FTE
EPA is not devoting FTE to support State legislation. While section
8003(d) of RCRA authorizes EPA to recommend model codes, ordinances and
statutes, in cooperation with appropriate State and local agencies,
8003(g) of RCRA imposes restrictions on the ability of the EPA to
represent an Agency position in favor of such provisions.
E-WASTE: RCRA SECTION 1005 INTER-STATE COOPERATION AND COMPACTS
Question 15. The storage, safe handling, recycling, and disposal of
electronic waste pose many challenges for our Nation. More than 22
million computers are sold each year in the United States alone and
most will be obsolete in 2-3 years. Each day, on average, 220 tons of
computers and other e-waste are dumped in landfills or incinerated in
the United States. In 2003, only 10 percent of consumer electronics
were recycled in the United States. Four States have banned landfill
disposal of cathode ray tubes and three States have passed e-waste
legislation (Maine, California, and Maryland) that are each uniquely
different laws. Twenty six additional States are also considering e-
waste legislation. This patchwork of State regulation and limited
industry involvement is not sufficient to address the expected growth
in e-waste and it could put some United States manufacturers at a
disadvantage if they have to comply with multiple State regulations.
Please describe any steps that the EPA is taking to promote and
facilitate inter-State cooperation and inter-State compacts, pursuant
to RCRA Section 1005, to address the e-waste problem?
Response. EPA is supporting experimentation with Regional third
party organizations. EPA is also looking into how it may assist States
in the development of inter-State cooperation to assist in implementing
multi-State solutions on e-waste. The Agency is also looking for
examples of inter-State compacts and other arrangements for inter-State
cooperation supported by EPA in the past. Section 1005 of RCRA
explicitly recognizes that States may wish to work together to carry
out solid waste management functions envisioned under RCRA by way of
inter-State Agencies or compacts.
HIGH PRODUCTION VOLUME (HPV) PROGRAM RESOURCES
Question 16. The Center for Disease Control has detected over a
hundred industrial chemicals in our bodies, many of which lack basic
health and safety data. The chemical industry has voluntarily stepped
up to this challenge and spent millions of dollars to generate this
essential information for High Production Volume chemicals produced
over one million pounds per year. Last year, EPA committed to use this
data to complete an in-depth review of the chemicals of greatest
concern within 2 years.
Now, the President proposes a $2.2 million dollar cut in funding of
this program, which raises two questions:
(a) First, if the President's budget is enacted, will EPA have
adequate resources to meet its commitment?
(b) Second, given the limitations of our toxics law, what steps
does EPA envision taking after reviewing the data to address potential
health risks posed by the chemicals of greatest concern?
Response. Yes, the enactment of the President's budget for FY 2007
will provide EPA with adequate resources for the HPV Challenge Program.
The FY 2007 HPV budget request has been reduced by $2.2 million for FY
2007 because Congress appropriated an additional $2 million to the HPV
program in the FY 2006 Enacted Budget beyond what had been requested in
the FY 2006 President's Budget request. The $2.2 million decrease will
return the HPV program to its previously planned pace for reviewing and
making basic screening level hazard data obtained through the HPV
Challenge Program available to the public. The pace for those two
activities was accelerated in FY 2006 in response to the increased
appropriation. If EPA determines that there are concerns associated
with any of these chemicals it will take appropriate actions to
mitigate the risk.
EXISTING CHEMICAL PROGRAM QUESTION
Question 17. According to a GAO report on chemicals issued last
year, EPA has reviewed fewer than 200 of the 62,000 chemicals in
commerce when EPA began reviewing chemicals under the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA) in 1979. Why?
Response. The TSCA Inventory contains approximately 82,000
chemicals:
<bullet> Over 18,000 of these chemicals have been reviewed through
the New Chemicals Pre-manufacture Notice (PMN) Program.
<bullet> About 32,000 are polymers which, because of their size
(e.g., high molecular weight), are less likely to be absorbed following
exposure and, because of other characteristics, are generally
considered less likely to present significant risk concerns.
<bullet> An additional 34,000 substances are low volume, non-
polymers produced below 10,000 pounds/year.
<bullet> The remaining approximately 15,000 chemicals on the
Inventory are identifiable as non-polymeric organic and inorganic
substances produced/imported annually at levels of 10,000 pounds or
more. Of these:
<bullet> 2,800 are High Production Volume (HPV) chemicals
(manufactured/ imported at levels of one million pounds or more
per year) that EPA has targeted under the HPV Challenge
Program. Launched in 1998, this program has resulted in
companies and consortia agreeing to sponsor data development on
over 2,200 chemicals. Currently, OPPT is focusing on the review
of data packages submitted through the HPV Challenge Program
and developing a searchable database that will assist in our
efforts to make basic screening level data available to the
public and facilitate EPA's review of the data.
<bullet> Under the Voluntary Children's Chemical Evaluation
Program (VCCEP), EPA is assessing 20 chemicals that are of
concern based on their potential risk to children.
<bullet> Assessments have also been conducted in support of
Significant New Use Rules (SNURs) on individual chemicals and
several classes of chemicals including perfluorooctyl
sulfonates (PFOS) (88 chemicals), and polybrominated
diphenylethers (PBDEs) (approximately 6 chemicals), benzidine-
based dyes (24 chemicals).
<bullet> Assessments have also been conducted for 13 chemicals
in support of Enforceable Consent Agreements (ECAs).
ACCURACY OF PREDICTIVE MODELS
Question 18. According to a GAO report issued last year, the models
used by EPA to predict potential exposure levels and toxicity of new
chemicals are ``not always accurate in predicting physical chemical
properties.'' GAO cited to a 2001 study by PPG Industries finding an
error for about 25 percent of the cases in which the models' results
were compared with actual test data. What steps is EPA taking to better
validate and improve the predictive capabilities of these models?
Response. There are two separate issues in this question. The first
issue deals with accuracy of EPA's physical-chemical properties
assessment model (EPISuite) for new chemicals and EPA's progress in
improving the models' predictability. The second issue deals with model
(ECOSAR) to predict toxicity of new chemicals, a study by PPG
Industries that compared actual test data with this model's estimation
and what EPA has done to resolve differences.
EPISuite
The EPISuite model is currently going through a scientific peer
review by EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB). The review panel, which
consists of subject experts from academia, nongovernmental
organizations, industry, and Government, is specifically charged to
provide advice on questions such as how accurate the model's various
modules are, what other measured data could be used in future EPISuite
upgrades, how convenient the software is to use and the accuracy of
EPISuite's estimation methods. EPA is also interested in the SAB's view
on uncertainty analysis and how the estimates can be conveyed to the
users. Based on the outcome of the SAB review, EPA will take the
necessary actions to address issues or concerns.
ECOSAR
EPA predicts the aquatic toxicity of all new chemicals notified
under TSCA Section 5 (e.g., PMN submissions), currently averaging about
1,500 per year. About five percent of these new chemicals are actually
tested for aquatic toxicity. These measured toxicity values are
evaluated for accuracy. If accurate, then measured effect
concentrations are compared with predicted effect concentrations. If
the measured and predicted effect concentrations are within 10 times of
one another, then the measured test data are added to the model used to
predict the effect concentration. If the predicted and measured
concentrations are significantly different (i.e., more than 10 times of
one another), then the chemical structural component responsible for
the difference in toxicity is identified and a new model is developed
for that structural component. This is a continuous process at EPA that
has been in place since the mid-1980s. EPA believes that the PPG study
was problematic. The test was not conducted according to Agency test
protocols and therefore the comparisons in the validation study are
inappropriate.
ENERGY BILL QUESTION
Question 19. EPA's supplemental material emphasizes $11 million
dollars that will be used to implement Title 15 of the Energy Policy
Act of 2005, the new energy law we passed last year. Title 15 is but
one of many direct requirements EPA has in this new law, and EPA has
other work to do in consultation with other federal agencies, such as
the Department of Energy. Will you provide for the Committee a list of
your EPACT requirements and the proposed FY 2007 funds that are
budgeted to meet those requirements?
Reponse. The following list displays Energy Policy Act (EPAct)
provisions that are expected to affect EPA in 2007. The President's
budget request highlights funding specifically directed for the highest
priority EPAct provisions expected require attention in FY 2007 as
follows: $11.8 million in contract dollar support for establishment of
a renewable fuels standard and reporting and assessment requirements;
$49.5 million for Diesel Emission Reduction grants authorized under
Title 7, Subtitle G of EPAct; $1.1 million for enforcement activities
by the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance; and an increase
of $25.8 million over 2006 levels for grants to States for additional
underground storage tank program requirements such as delivery
prohibitions, mandatory inspections, and owner operator training.
Additionally, EPA will engage in consultations on an on-going basis, as
required by the EPAct. Other activities will be addressed over time in
a cost-effective manner. Some EPAct requirements will be addressed in
FY 2006 and EPA is in the process of reviewing and prioritizing EPAct
requirements that could have impacts beyond FY 2007.
Renewable Fuel Standard and Credit Program: Title 15
Diesel Emission Reduction Grants: Title 7, Subtitle G
Other Studies, Reports, and Assessments: Titles 7 and 15
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance: Title 15
Underground Storage Tank Compliance Act: Title 15
NANOSCALE MATERIALS
Question 20. The National Science Foundation recently predicted
that the global market for products using nanotechnology could reach $1
trillion within a decade. An EPA advisory committee recommended that
the Agency initiate a comprehensive voluntary information-gathering
program on the full range of materials now being made and in the
pipeline, their potential applications, and available health and
exposure information. The advisory committee also recommended that EPA
prepare regulations in case the voluntary program fails to provide
adequate information. Does EPA intend to follow both of these
recommendations and, if so, in what time frame?
Response. The Agency is carefully considering these
recommendations, along with considerable stakeholder input, as it
proceeds with reviewing the need for a stewardship program. Should a
stewardship program be implemented, the Agency would evaluate it before
determining its regulatory implications.
CLEAN WATER ACT
Question 21. Second, in the FY 2004 budget, you first cut Clean
Water funding in half from about $1.35B to $850M. At that time, the
President's budget stated that you would need $850M per year to reach a
revolving level of $3.4 billion. You also pledged annual grants of 850M
from 2011 through 2018. The next year, you again requested $850M and
stated that you would need $850M per year to reach the revolving level
of $3.4 billion. Last year, in FY 2006, you requested only $730M, and
this year you've requested only 688M to reach the goal of $3.4 billion.
(a) What changed?
(b) How can you meet even your low target for revolving at $3.4
billion with an investment this year of only $688M?
Response. In the 2004 Budget, the President proposed funding the
Clean Water SRF at $850 million annually for 2004-2011, for $6.8
billion in total funding and a $3.4 billion target revolving level. Due
to significant additional funds appropriated in 2004-2006, the FY 2007
funding recommendation reduces annual funding for the Clean Water SRF
to $688 million for 2007-2011 and continues the Administration's long
term revolving level and total capitalization commitments.
PERFORMANCE TRACK-NONCOMPLIANCE
Question 22. How much did the EPA spend in FY 2005, per facility,
to enforce environmental requirements against facilities that are in
significant noncompliance?
Response. EPA currently does not track the resources associated
with returning a specific facility to compliance. The level of
resources expended to resolve particular violation depends upon a range
of factors, including (1) whether the violation warrants EPA's
initiation of an administrative enforcement action or a referral to the
Department of Justice for the commencement of a civil judicial case;
(2) the complexity of the violations and the nature and extent of
evidence needed to prove the violation; (3) the complexity of the
injunctive relief necessary to bring the violating entity into
compliance; (4) whether the enforcement action/case can be resolved via
settlement or must be litigated at the administrative and/or judicial
levels; and (5) the length of time needed to resolve the violation.
Because of the number of enforcement actions taken by EPA each year,
coupled with the range of factors influencing the amount of resources
that may be expended to resolve any particular violation, EPA does not
track the costs of individual enforcement actions.
PERFORMANCE TRACK-COMPLIANCE HISTORY
Question 23. What is the compliance history of current Performance
Track members?
Response. One standard for entry into Performance Track and
continuation is that a facility demonstrates a ``sustained record of
compliance'' with environmental requirements at all levels of
government. The compliance record of each facility is screened
carefully before a decision on acceptance or renewal is made. EPA uses
specific screening criteria that allow a facility to be admitted to the
program if it has not had more than 2 significant noncompliances in the
past 3 years, a criminal conviction in the past 5 years, and does not
otherwise indicate a pattern of non-compliance. These criteria were
jointly developed with EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance.
Thus, facilities can be and are admitted into the Performance Track
Program that have had some violations. This reflects the reality that
many Performance Track applicants are large, complex manufacturing
facilities. Some face literally thousands of compliance checkpoints on
a regular basis. Experience has shown that no matter how diligent the
facility, and how comprehensive its management systems, violations do
occur. The screening criteria apply a common-sense approach that takes
this reality into account. If a facility is found to have committed a
violation that is serious or demonstrates a pattern of non-compliance
and causes EPA or a State to doubt its ability to meet this compliance
standard, that facility may be removed from the program.
In response to the question, staff performed a quick search of the
ECHO (Environmental Compliance History Online) database, which is
accessible online at: www.epa.gov/echo. The data provided below must be
used carefully given the following caveats:
1. Some of these violations may have occurred at the facility prior
to their entry into the Performance Track program (and, as described
above, facilities are allowed to have some violations and still be
admitted to the program).
2. As is often the case with any large database, there are some
data quality issues associated with these numbers, due to time
constraints, a quality control check was not performed on this
response. For example, data entry problems could cause over-counting
and/or undercounting certain violations.
3. Again, it is important to note that Performance Track member
standards allow for a certain minimal number of violations at a
facility, given the reality of trying to maintain a perfect compliance
record at facilities facing many regulatory requirements.
4. Since the compliance status of any particular facility is a
constantly evolving situation, the figures below represent a
``snapshot'' of compliance at a particular moment in time.
Results of an ECHO database search performed on February 23, 2006:
<bullet> Clean Air Act: Facilities with at least one quarter in
violation within the last 3 years = 38 (9 percent of the 406 current
members)
<bullet> Clean Water Act: Facilities with any effluent violation
within the last 3 years = 40 (10 percent of the 406 current members)
<bullet> Resource Conservation and Recovery Act: Facilities with
any violation = 57 (14 percent of the 406 current members)
PERFORMANCE TRACK-PROGRAM CRITERIA
Question 24. What happens to Performance Track members that fail to
meet program criteria and/or violate environmental laws?
Response. They may be removed from the program, depending on the
severity of the issue. To date, Performance Track has removed a total
of 49 facilities from the program: 34 facilities during their
membership (22 for reasons related to deficient Environmental
Management Systems and 12 for failing to submit Annual Performance
Reports); an additional 15 facilities were not accepted during renewal
(8 for non-compliance, 4 for insufficient environmental commitments, 1
due to a deficient Environmental Management System, and 2 for other
reasons).
The standard for entry into Performance Track and continuation is
that a facility demonstrates a ``sustained record of compliance'' with
environmental requirements at all levels of government. This definition
is based on a standard that EPA's Office of Policy, Economics, and
Innovation and Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance developed
for EPA voluntary programs and were made more stringent for use in the
Performance Track program. It is possible for a facility to be the
subject of an enforcement action and still qualify for the program,
especially if the action is relatively minor and was corrected
responsibly.
Many Performance Track members are large, complex manufacturing
facilities. Some face literally thousands of compliance checkpoints on
a regular basis. Experience has shown that no matter how diligent the
facility, and how comprehensive its management systems, violations do
occur. The screening criteria apply a common-sense approach that takes
this reality into account.
The compliance record of each facility is screened carefully before
a decision on acceptance or renewal is made. EPA consults its own
databases, then with enforcement staff in the regions and in each
State, as well as the Department of Justice.
Only when these parties all agree is the facility accepted or
renewed. EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance and the
State Agency have concurred in all decisions regarding the acceptance
and renewal of members.
Should a facility violate an environmental regulation, we examine
the exact nature of the violation. If a facility is found to have
committed a violation that is serious and causes EPA or a State to
doubt its ability to meet our compliance standard, that facility is
removed from the program.
Members of this program have made significant commitments and shown
results on a wide range of environmental indicators that go well beyond
meeting their compliance obligations. They are demonstrating the
potential for achieving measurable results in reducing air and water
releases, conserving energy and water, reducing materials use,
protecting habitat, and designing more environmentally beneficial
products, among others. These are significant accomplishments and
should be recognized and encouraged, as should the overall very strong
compliance records of Performance Track members.
More specific information on significant non-compliance can be
found at: http://www.epa.gov/performancetrack/program/sustain.htm.
SRF QUESTION
Question 25. The President's 2007 budget proposal cuts the funding
for clean water infrastructure by $199 million. This is in spite of the
fact that EPA's own reports show at least $300 billion gap in water
infrastructure needs.
(a) Given the proposed cuts and the need, how does the Agency
justify a long-term capitalization target of only $6.8 billion for the
Clean Water SRF?
(b) In addition, who came up with the $3.4 billion revolving level
target and on what basis was that decision based?
Response. In FY 2004, the President's Budget presented a long-term
plan to address national water infrastructure needs, which included an
extension of Federal funding of the CWSRF until 2011.
The President's funding plan for the CWSRF assumes that a mix of
continued Federal funding, 3 percent real revenue growth for systems,
and implementation of system efficiencies that reduce the demand for
wastewater infrastructure will help close the gap between current
capital funding levels and future infrastructure needs. The CWSRF is
one tool to address infrastructure financing. In addition to funding
infrastructure projects, closing the gap and achieving sustainable
systems requires Federal, State, and local actions and innovations to
reduce the demand for infrastructure. Through a Sustainable
Infrastructure Strategy, the Agency is working in collaboration with
many different stakeholders to ensure that the federal investment
results in sustainable wastewater systems. This Strategy aims to
identify and promote new and better ways of doing business by focusing
our efforts on:
<bullet> Promoting adoption of sustainable management practices by
utilities to achieve long-term environmental/health, economic, and
social outcomes;
<bullet> Producing water efficient products and creating a National
ethic of water efficiency;
<bullet> Promoting full cost pricing of water and wastewater
services; and
<bullet> Using watershed approaches to help utilities and others
make cost effective infrastructure decisions that help meet overall
watershed goals.
In the FY 2004 Budget, the President proposed $6.8 billion in total
capitalization funding from 2004-2011 for the Clean Water SRF. This
capitalization level, along with expectations about future CWSRF
performance and improved operating efficiencies, would allow the fund
to reach a long term revolving level of $3.4 billion annually. The FY
2007 CWSRF funding recommendation was based on the Administration's
continued commitment to capitalize the program such that it reaches a
$3.4 billion target revolving level. The $3.4 billion target revolving
level is consistent with expected continued high-performance levels for
the CWSRF. The CWSRF has been one of the most successful and cost-
effective infrastructure financing programs in the federal government's
history. The Agency has provided more than $23 billion through FY 2005
to capitalize the CWSRF, nearly triple the original CWA authorized
level of $8.4 billion. This Federal investment, when combined with
State contributions and other funding sources, has allowed the CWSRF to
support nearly $53 billion in important water quality projects.
HIGH PRODUCTION VOLUME (HPV) PROGRAM RESOURCES
Question 26. The Center for Disease Control has detected over a
hundred industrial chemicals in our bodies, many of which lack basic
health and safety data. The chemical industry has voluntarily stepped
up to this challenge and spent millions of dollars to generate this
essential information for High Production Volume chemicals produced
over one million pounds per year. Last year, EPA committed to use this
data to complete an in-depth review of the chemicals of greatest
concern within two years.
Now, the President proposes a $2.2 million dollar cut in funding of
this program, which raises two questions:
(a) First, if the President's budget is enacted, will EPA have
adequate resources to meet its commitment?
(b) Second, given the limitations of our toxics law, what steps
does EPA envision taking after reviewing the data to address potential
health risks posed by the chemicals of greatest concern?
Response. Yes, the enactment of the President's budget for FY 2007
will provide EPA with adequate resources for the HPV Challenge Program.
The FY 2007 HPV budget request has been reduced by $2.2 million for FY
2007 because Congress appropriated an additional $2 million to the HPV
program in the FY 2006 Enacted Budget beyond what had been requested in
the FY 2006 President's Budget request. The $2.2 million decrease will
return the HPV program to its previously planned pace for reviewing and
making basic screening level hazard data obtained through the HPV
Challenge Program available to the public. The pace for those two
activities was accelerated in FY 2006 in response to the increased
appropriation. If EPA determines that there are concerns associated
with any of these chemicals it will take appropriate actions to
mitigate the risk.
PERFLUOROOCTANOIC ACID (PFOA)
Question 27. Last month, EPA challenged chemical manufacturers to
essentially eliminate releases of PFOA, a chemical used during the
production of Teflon. PFOA was just classified as a ``likely
carcinogen'' in a draft report by EPA's Science Advisory Report and has
been linked to liver cancer, reduced birth weight, and developmental
problems in laboratory animals. Researchers at Johns Hopkins Hospital
revealed last week that 99 percent of babies were born with trace
levels of this industrial chemical.
(a) Since PFOA has been widely used in commerce since TSCA was
enacted, why has it taken EPA thirty years to evaluate it?
(b) Are the statutory limitations of TSCA one reason why EPA issued
a voluntary challenge for industry to phase out PFOA instead of
initiating a mandatory phase-out by rulemaking?
Response. The data on PFOA that EPA have today were not available
thirty years ago. The science and technology necessary to detect,
analyze, and study PFOA reliably and accurately have advanced
significantly in recent years. This led to the development of new data
that indicated the widespread presence of PFOA in humans and the
environment, as well as an unanticipated potential for bioaccumulation
and demonstrated toxicity in animal studies. These new data, taken
together, formed the basis for the Agency's current concern. The
questions raised about this class of chemicals by the Agency beginning
in 2000 triggered additional research, which continues to inform the
ongoing hazard, exposure, and risk assessment process. Included in this
are EPA-requested efforts by the National Toxicology Program to conduct
a class study and by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to
develop human biomonitoring data.
Although information on human health risks is not yet complete,
PFOA is known to be extremely persistent in the environment and is also
bioaccumulative, with a half-life in the human body that is measured in
years. Studies have found PFOA in the blood of the general United
States population, as well as in wildlife in even the most remote
regions of the planet. The persistence and bioaccumulative potential of
PFOA, when combined with its toxicity in animal studies and its already
pervasive presence in humans and the environment, warrants concern, as
evidenced by the Agency's multi-year effort to assess risks and improve
the understanding of sources and pathways of exposure. Specifically,
with regard to the PFOA Stewardship Program, this is an effort to
substantially reduce PFOA emissions at the same time that additional
data collection efforts are underway to further define the human health
risks. Limiting exposures at least to current levels by asking
companies voluntarily to reduce future emissions and releases is a
reasonable step to take under these circumstances.
The provisions of TSCA provide sufficient regulatory authorities to
address these chemicals. However, rulemaking under TSCA would be
premature at this time because the Agency's risk assessment process is
still ongoing, and scientific conclusions are an essential element in
the regulatory process. The degree of risk to human health that may be
presented by current exposures to PFOA has not yet been determined. The
sources of PFOA in the environment and the pathways leading to human
and environmental exposures are not yet understood, making it difficult
to identify appropriate specific measures to reduce risk. Studies are
underway to help answer these questions, but those studies will take
time to complete. However, the Agency is not waiting until all the
questions are answered.
In January, EPA invited the companies that manufacture and use PFOA
to commit to acting to decrease any potential risk without waiting for
final resolution of these complex issues by issuing a broad stewardship
invitation to reduce PFOA emission sources and exposure routes on a
voluntary basis. As this stewardship initiative takes effect, EPA will
continue its efforts to understand the hazards, sources, pathways of
exposure, and risks of PFOA. If this investigation demonstrates that
further actions are warranted, including rulemaking under TSCA, EPA
will take those actions.
TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL ACT (TSCA) CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS
INFORMATION (CBI) ISSUES
Question 28. According to a GAO report on chemicals issued last
year, EPA's ability to share data collected is limited. What steps does
EPA intend to test to address these concerns?
Response. EPA's ability to share data is limited by the provisions
of TSCA, which bars EPA from releasing information treated as CBI not
only to the public but also to other governmental chemical regulators,
including foreign Governments, States and local Governments and Tribes,
even if these Governments can demonstrate an ability to keep the
material secure and confidential.
Please note that CBI claims are in many instances, though not
always, confined to new chemical submissions, meaning those submissions
on chemicals not yet in commerce. CBI claims are much more limited for
those submissions already in commerce (existing chemicals) and EPA has
developed a number of methods to ensure the timely release of non-
confidential materials to the public. These methods include making the
materials available on websites, databases and data products and also
maintaining a public file room where submissions can be viewed and
copied.
To address the remaining problem, EPA will initiate a pilot process
this calendar year, using existing authorities, to review selected
older submissions containing CBI claims. The focus of this effort will
be on querying submitters to determine whether CBI claims made at the
time of submission remain valid. The pilot results will be used to
determine the benefits, burdens and utility of a broader CBI claim
review/reassertion program. Based on this review and in light of other
regulatory priorities, the Agency will consider whether action is
appropriate.
Further, there is a wide perception that some of the information
collected through the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) over the last
25 years that was claimed as confidential business information (CBI),
by the information submitter at the time of submission, may no longer
need to be treated as CBI. In other words, some believe the original
information submitters, in many instances, no longer believe that these
older materials submitted as CBI are currently business secrets.
As noted in the previous response, CBI claims are much more likely
in new chemicals' submissions, meaning submissions on chemicals not yet
in commerce at the time the documents were provided to EPA, than in
documents relating to substances already in commerce (existing
chemicals). Similarly once a substance is in commerce, the company's
need for CBI status of the submitted material typically diminishes. One
widely recognized point is that while most chemical identities are
claimed as CBI at time of section 5 submission, many of these CBI
claims for chemical identity are voluntarily dropped by the submitter
once the chemical enters commerce and is placed on the TSCA Inventory.
To date, EPA has not considered this point and the possible value
of a more systematic periodic review of older CBI claims in new
chemical and other TSCA submissions on substances now on the TSCA
Inventory. Without a systematic review, EPA may be unnecessarily
limiting the amount of information available to share with other
government entities and with the public. In addition, EPA may be
expending more resources than is necessary for physical and electronic
security to track and protect this information. In the pilot, EPA
envisions looking at a group of these types of submissions, contacting
the information submitters and determining whether information
originally claimed as CBI may now be released to the public.
______
Responses by Stephen L. Johnson to Additional Questions from
Senator Obama
EPA'S DRAFT LEAD RENOVATION REGULATIONS: ENFORCEMENT OF FINAL
REGULATION
Question 1. I believe that by not promulgating these regulations
for 13 years, the EPA sent a message to renovation contractors that
this issue is not significant to the Agency. What steps are you
planning to take to enforce these regulations once they are final?
Response. It is the Agency's experience that local authorities are
better able to develop policy and allocate enforcement resources to
address their particular circumstances. EPA is proposing to allow
interested States, territories, and Tribes the opportunity to apply for
and receive authorization to administer and enforce all of the elements
of the new renovation provisions, as it has for most of its existing
provisions. EPA would be responsible for enforcing the program in
States, territories, and Tribal areas that are not authorized. EPA's
own enforcement program will likely initially focus on compliance
assistance activities intended to educate contractors and consumers on
various elements of the program including its importance and the need
to employ lead-safe work practices. The Agency plans to use allocated
resources to enforce these requirements in Federally-administered
jurisdictions.
WATER SENTINEL PILOT PROGRAM
Question 2. Last year I asked how Chicago could become one of the
pilot communities under the Water Sentinel program. I would like to
reiterate my interest in this program. Where does Chicago stand in the
competition to become a pilot city?
Response. Due to the sensitive nature of the Water Sentinel
program, we cannot openly discuss the pilot selection process. We
would, however, be able to brief you on the selection process and the
potential consideration of Chicago.
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
Question 3. I am concerned about the lack of funding for the
environmental justice program, which appears to signal a lack of
interest in helping low-income and minority families. What is the
rationale for this lack of funding?
Response. We are requesting sufficient funding in FY 2007 to
maintain a vigorous Environmental Justice program. The FY 2007 request
for Environmental Justice or for many other programs does not include
the FY 06 Congressional earmarks. Therefore, the FY 2007 request does
not include the $1.9 million Congress earmarked for the program in FY
2006.
During the past year, EPA has taken several actions reaffirming the
Agency's commitment to environmental justice for all people, regardless
of race, color, national origin or income.
Some of these actions include:
<bullet> On November 4, 2005, EPA's Administrator issued a
memorandum reaffirming EPA's commitment to environmental justice ``not
only protecting human health and the environment for everyone, but also
ensuring that all people are treated fairly and are given the
opportunity to participate meaningfully in the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies.'' The memorandum directs EPA staff to incorporate
environmental justice considerations into its programs, policies, and
activities, and into its planning and budget processes.
<bullet> On August 16, 2005, the Administrator approved the renewal
of the charter for the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
(NEJAC), which provides the EPA Administrator with advice and
recommendations with respect to integrating environmental justice into
EPA's programs, policies, and day-to-day activities.
<bullet> On February 1-2, 2006, EPA convened a NEJAC workgroup to
provide advice and recommendations about the environmental justice issues
related to the cleanup and rebuilding of areas affected by Hurricanes
Katrina and Rita.
epa's draft lead renovation regulations: exclusion of women
in proposed rule
Question 4. One of the triggers for the draft rules is the presence
of children aged six or younger in owner-occupied homes. As it is
written now, a house with a child one day old is covered, but not a
house with a woman 9 months pregnant. Why didn't EPA include houses
with pregnant women in the proposed rules?
Response. The proposal specifically requests comment on the
appropriateness of applying the provisions of the rule to owner-
occupied target housing where an expectant mother resides, in addition
to owner-occupied housing where a child under age six resides. See rule
language below:
[(Unit IV.B.1.e.) Owner-occupied target housing where a pregnant
woman resides. EPA also requests comment on the appropriateness of
applying the provisions of this rule to owner-occupied target housing
where an expectant mother resides, in addition to owner-occupied
housing where a child under age 6 resides. If this option were included
in the rule, and no children under age 6 resided in the housing to be
renovated, the renovation firm would not be required to use the work
practices in this proposal unless the renovation firm collected a
statement from the owner-occupant indicating that a woman residing in
the housing was pregnant or thought she might be pregnant. Fetuses
exposed to lead in the womb may be born prematurely and have lower
birth weights. In addition, the transplacental transfer of lead in
humans is well documented, and infants are generally born with a lead
body burden reflecting that of the mother (Ref. 4). Therefore, covering
the residences of pregnant women under this regulation would provide
additional protection for vulnerable populations. However, owner-
occupants, including expectant mothers, will be receiving a lead hazard
information pamphlet under the Pre-Renovation Education Rule that will
enable them to make educated choices about renovation activities in
their residences.]
The comment period on the proposed rule ends on April 10, 2006. The
Agency is seeking broad comment on the proposed rule and will hold five
public meetings across the country to ensure that all affected
stakeholders have an opportunity to voice their views. The final rule
will reflect careful consideration of those comments.
epa's draft lead renovation regulations: mobility of american families
Question 5. The draft rules assume that families in owner-occupied
housing do not move. Thus, a house occupied by a family without young
children would not be required to follow lead safe practices during a
renovation, even though that family could move soon after the
renovation and a family with young children could move in. Can you
explain how the proposed rules account for the mobility of American
families?
Response. The proposal specifically requests comment on applying
the requirements of this proposal to target housing, regardless of
whether children under age 6 reside in the home. See rule language
below:
[Mobility (Unit IV.B.2): Finally, EPA considered covering all
renovations in target housing without providing an exclusion for target
housing where children under age 6 do not reside. A child under age 6
may spend a significant amount of time in housing that is not his or
her primary residence, for example, in the home of a babysitter. In
addition, a child that moved into housing shortly after a renovation
performed without lead-safe work practices took place would be exposed
to lead dust from the renovation. This is not the preferred option at
this time because the proposed option provides a more focused targeting
of resources on the population most at risk. EPA specifically requests
comment on applying the requirements of this proposal without the
exclusion for target housing where children under age 6 do not reside.]
The comment period on the proposed rule ends on April 10, 2006. The
Agency is seeking broad comment on the proposed rule and will hold five
public meetings across the country to ensure that all affected
stakeholders have an opportunity to voice their views. The final rule
will reflect careful consideration of those comments.
______
Response by Stephen L. Johnson to Additional Questions
from Senator Thune
LEAKING UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK PROGRAM
Question 1. With respect to the Underground Storage Tank Program I
am pleased to see the Administration is seeking increased funding for
this important program. For my colleagues who might not be familiar,
the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Program--commonly referred to as
the LUST Program--focuses on the prevention of releases from
underground storage tanks.
This program relies on a trust fund that is paid for by a portion
of the Federal fuel tax (1/10th of a cent per gallon). Currently, the
LUST Trust Fund has a balance of roughly $2.5 billion. During FY 2005,
the fund collected $190 million from fuel taxes and an additional $70
million in interest on the balance. However, the Administration and
Congress only appropriate roughly $72 million annually.
Last year was a significant year for the LUST program because the
House included numerous new LUST provisions in the Energy bill. As a
result, new requirements were placed on each of our States who are
responsible for storage tank compliance. While it is wonderful to see
an overall increase in LUST funding, why isn't the Administration using
the significant LUST Trust Fund balance as opposed to using STAG
funding to assist States?
Response. Most of the underground storage tank provisions of the
new Energy Policy Act of 2005 help to strengthen the underground
storage tank (UST) prevention programs (e.g., mandatory inspections,
requiring training for UST operators, and prohibiting delivery of fuel
to ineligible facilities). EPA has historically provided STAG (State
and Tribal Assistance Grant) funding to States for these prevention and
enforcement purposes.
A provision in the tax code, enacted after passage of the Energy
Policy Act of 2005, would result in no new Leaking Underground Storage
Tank (LUST) tax revenue going into the LUST Trust Fund if EPA uses LUST
funding to implement the new prevention and enforcement provisions of
the Energy Policy Act (or other purposes not originally authorized when
the trust fund was established in 1986). In light of this tax
provision, the Administration determined that STAG funding is the best
source of funding to implement the UST provisions in the Energy Policy
Act.
LEAKING UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK PROGRAM: FUNDING FOR
ENERGY BILL'S UST REFORMS
Question 2. Before you answer this question Administrator Johnson,
I recognize the constraints that you operate under in light of the
prohibition on LUST Trust Fund money being spent on the new
requirements that were included in the Energy Bill, such as mandatory
and regular inspections, operator training, and delivery prohibitions.
In light of these costly mandates, do you believe that EPA and our
States will have the financial resources for FY 2007 to implement the
Energy bill's underground storage tank reforms if Congress simply
adopts your budget request of flat funding from the LUST fund and a
modest increase in the grant program?
Response. Implementing the Energy Policy Act and especially the
underground storage tank provisions is a priority for the
Administration, and our budget request reflects this. Given the current
budget constraints that exist in Federal funding and the competing
priorities, we believe that this level of funding is appropriate.
The President's request of $38 million in STAG funding triples what
States have been receiving to support their prevention and enforcement
activities. EPA believes that this level of funding will put the States
in a position to meet the 3-year inspection cycle as well as
implementing the other provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
LEAKING UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK PROGRAM: STAG VERSUS LUST FUNDING
Question 3. Before you answer this question Administrator Johnson,
I recognize the constraints that you operate under in light of the
prohibition on LUST Trust Fund money being spent on the new
requirements that were included in the Energy Bill, such as mandatory
and regular inspections, operator training, and delivery prohibitions.
What would EPA's position be if the transportation bill's
prohibitions were cleared up, would STAG funding still be utilized or
would LUST Trust Fund dollars be used?
Response. The 2007 Budget was developed considering all relevant
statutory authorizations. We developed our proposal based on our
careful review. If the statute was amended, we would do what is
required by the law.
LEAKING UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK PROGRAM: TRUST FUND AUTHORIZATION
Question 4. I ask this question because Congress authorized an
annual appropriation of $555 million from the Trust Fund. The
Administration is asking for approximately 15 percent of that
authorization. Was Congress wrong in estimating the resources that are
needed to address this problem or is EPA ``lowballing'' its request
because of its tight budgetary constraints?
Response. In requesting an increase of $26 million to assist EPA
and States in implementing the underground storage tank provisions of
the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the Agency was balancing the budget
needs of the other high priority programs within the Agency. This
proposed increase is significant since it would triple the amount
usually appropriated to States for their underground storage tank
prevention and enforcement programs.
STAG FUNDING TO ASSIST STATES
Question 5. Last but not least, the Administration's proposed
increase in STAG funding to assist States as they seek to comply with
the new underground storage tank requirements, how will the STAG
funding be distributed to States and tribes-would the EPA allocate it
equally to all States and tribes?
Response. Historically, EPA has given approximately the same amount
($187,000) of STAG funds to every State to support its prevention and
enforcement programs. With the additional $26 million, we are
considering (in consultation with the States) other factors (e.g.,
performance, need) in allocating the funds.
GOVERNMENT PAPERWORK ELIMINATION ACT (GPEA)
Question 6. Administrator Johnson, the tracking of hazardous waste
from cradle to grave is the largest continuous paperwork burden EPA has
placed on industry. The Government Paperwork Elimination Act's (GPEA's)
mandates the Federal Agencies to provide electronic options for paper-
based transactions by October, 2003. It is over two years after the
statutory deadline.
An electronic manifest system could save millions of dollars a year
while leaving the risk to develop such a system to the private sector
not to mention the benefits that EPA, the States and Congress would
realize from such a system. Regulatory changes, and possibly statutory
changes are required before an electronic manifest can become a
reality. We understand from the Semi-Annual Regulatory Agenda that the
regulations authorizing such a system are expected in Spring of 2007
instead of 2006.
Why is this delay occurring? Secondly, what statutory changes are
needed to authorize an electronic manifest system that would put the
risk of developing such a system on private enterprise?
Response. EPA is moving to develop and promulgate a final rule
authorizing an electronic manifest system. In the near future, EPA
plans to issue a Supplemental Notice providing additional information
and seeking further public comment.
To utilize private sector funding resources, Congress would need to
authorize EPA to enter into contracts (or other arrangements) similar
to the ``share-in-savings'' contractual arrangements contained in the
E-Government Act of 2002.
______
Response by Stephen L. Johnson to Additional Questions
from Senator Vitter
HUMAN HEALTH-SEAFOOD
Question 1. EPA water quality test results came back with little or
no threat to human health. So based upon EPA's testing, is there any
reason why California should ban Louisiana's oysters; is there any
reason why Americans should be concerned about consuming seafood from
Louisiana?
Response.
<bullet> Prior to Katrina, California had placed a ban on certain
Gulf of Mexico shellfish harvested between April and October due to the
occurrence of the naturally occurring bacteria Vibrio vulnificus in
molluscan shellfish harvested from southern waters during the warm
season.
<bullet> This ban was not related to Katrina impacts, but rather to
illnesses and deaths that occurred in California from 2000 to 2003.
<bullet> As a result of Katrina, extensive testing for chemical
contaminants and limited pathogens in seafood by Federal and State
agencies has been conducted in Katrina-affected waters in Louisiana,
Mississippi, and Alabama.
<bullet> Preliminary test results do not indicate increased
chemical contamination of seafood harvested from Gulf Waters affected
by Katrina.
<bullet> Testing showed some initial sewage contamination in
shellfish beds, and the State of Louisiana checked these beds.
Subsequent testing showed that the sewage contamination has stopped.
<bullet> Testing will continue within the Katrina-affected areas to
assess potential longer term effects from the hurricane.
HURRICANE KATRINA DEBRIS AT OLD GENTILLY LANDFILL
Question 2. Last week, two newspapers in Louisiana reported that a
study performed for FEMA identified significant environmental concerns
about the Old Gentilly Landfill. Does EPA feel certain that the open
dump is in full compliance with all applicable rules and regulation
regarding environmental protection and future liability?
Response. EPA has received a number of inquiries regarding the
Gentilly Landfill over the past several months. In response, the EPA
Regional Office is investigating and considering each inquiry and is
consulting with the other State and Federal Agencies operating within
the unified command structure for hurricane response. These agencies
include the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ), the
Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Coast Guard, the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, and others.
The Federal and State agencies have undertaken a number of
activities in response to the issues raised and information received
including:
<bullet> EPA, FEMA and LDEQ experts are reviewing the February 8,
2006, draft report by the National Infrastructure Support Technical
Consultants for FEMA and its underlying documentation regarding
landfill design, groundwater monitoring and potential air emissions.
<bullet> State and Federal Government experts are also reviewing
the questions raised in this report regarding possible impacts on
levees.
<bullet> EPA and LDEQ officials are making regular visits to
Gentilly and other landfills receiving Hurricane Katrina debris to
observe operations.
EPA is confident that these reviews will allow the Agency to
determine whether additional Federal action is warranted.
______
Responses by Stephen L. Johnson to Additional Questions
from Senator Voinovich
GREAT LAKES: GREAT LAKES RESTORATION
Question 1. What is EPA doing to ensure that we are efficiently
using the money that we do we spend on the Great Lakes to make
restoration of the Great Lakes a reality? What decisions did you make
in putting together the FY 2007 budget to improve coordination and
implementation of existing programs which benefit the restoration
effort?
Response. The Great Lakes Executive Order promotes a collaborative
approach in restoring the Great Lakes that will provide efficiency in
reaching our goals. The Order established a Great Lakes Interagency
Task Force (IATF, or the Task Force) and a Regional Working Group
(RWG). The EPA Administrator chairs the Task Force. The IATF meets
regularly to carry out the directives of the Order, and the RWG has
been meeting weekly via conference call to coordinate Great Lakes
programs and projects, to share information pursuant to the Great
Lakes, and to carry out other functions as required by this Order.
The Task Force spent a great deal of time and effort in
establishing the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration and coordinating
Federal participation in the Collaboration. The first year of the Task
Force was also spent working on high priority issues needing
interagency cooperation such as the Interagency Snakehead Response, the
Illinois Sanitary and Ship Canal Dispersal Barrier, implementing the
Legacy Act to clean up Areas of Concern, focusing on Lake Erie research
priorities, continuing to coordinate with Canadian counterpart
agencies, and identifying future areas where interagency coordination
would improve the delivery of programs and decisionmaking in the Great
Lakes Basin.
Several of these urgent and pressing issues that are being
addressed by the Task Force--including the Dispersal Barrier and Legacy
Act--were highlighted in the U.S. Ocean Action Plan. These projects,
along with more than 130 other interagency initiatives, have been
documented in an Interagency Project Matrix that is being updated and
used as a tool to promote improved management of Great Lakes programs.
GREAT LAKES: REGIONAL COLLABORATION
Question 2. In December, the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration
released its final report which serves as a blueprint for Great Lakes
restoration. Beyond the funding for the Legacy Act, how does the
President's FY 2007 budget reflect the funding goals established in the
Collaboration report?
Response. The Administration proposed approximately $70 million for
EPA's Great Lakes activities, an approximately $20 million increase
over 2006 enacted. This request funds sediment cleanup at its
authorized level. The Federal Great Lakes Interagency Task Force, led
by EPA, coordinates Great Lakes programs and projects, shares
information pursuant to the Great Lakes, and carries out other
functions as required by the Executive Order. The task force recently
identified a number of substantive actions the Administration will take
in support of Great Lakes restoration. All parties recognize existing
economic realities impose limits on what can be accomplished
immediately; consequently, the Administration's response to the
strategy is focused on what can be accomplished within current budget
constraints. Through effective targeting of base programs, and through
48 near-term commitments, EPA and its partners will continue to
demonstrate advances in Great Lakes environmental protection.
Based on an Interagency Task Force report to the President, we
estimate that each year the Federal Government spends approximately
half a billion dollars in the Great Lakes Region on programs that
directly benefits water quality.\1\ When the President signed the Great
Lakes Executive Order in May 2004, it was with the hope that all levels
of government would come together to better coordinate Great Lakes
activities, policies, and projects in order to address nationally
significant environmental and natural resource issues involving the
Lakes. The Administration is working with all of our partners to
continue to protect the Great Lakes in the coming years, using the
Collaboration's strategy as a guide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\http://www.epa.gov/grtlakes/collaboration/final rttp
10282005.pdf (page 47 of the report)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This budget for EPA includes essentially full funding of the
authorized levels in the Great Lakes Legacy Act for cleanup of the
Areas of Concern, approximately $50M. EPA commitments in response to
the Strategy include:
<bullet> joining with the States and other Federal Government
partners in an equally shared effort to develop plans that will
restore, enhance, and protect 200,000 acres of wetlands in the Great
Lakes
<bullet> working with State and local partners to develop a
standard to help identify sources of contamination at beaches
<bullet> committing $25M to clean up contaminated sediments in
Ohio's Ashtabula River
<bullet> issuing improved policy guidance on managing peak flows at
sewage treatment plants to restrict dumping, reduce overflows, and
increase pollution prevention efforts.
The Great Lakes effort is larger than just EPA and the Great Lakes
States, it also includes:
<bullet> through USDA, conducting rapid watershed assessments on
critical watershed areas to collect natural resource data, and applying
critical conservation on the ground.
<bullet> supporting establishment in Chicago of a national Alliance
for Water Efficiency, a national clearinghouse and advocate for water
efficiency research, evaluation, and education.
<bullet> supporting authorization to make permanent the
demonstration barrier on the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal.
<bullet> through the Army Corps of Engineers and EPA, improving and
streamlining the general permitting process for wetlands restoration
projects in the Great Lakes to advance water quality, habitat
protection, and other values.
<bullet> a portion of an increase in funding of $1.5M for NOAA's
Aquatic Invasive Species Program. (These funds will be spread
nationwide, and a portion of this increase is envisioned to support
more of the research and activities needed to address the growing issue
of invasive species in the Great Lakes.)
<bullet> continuing construction of the McCook Reservoir flood
damage reduction project by the Army Corps of Engineers that will
virtually eliminate the backflows of raw sewage to Lake Michigan,
reducing beach closings, and enhancing coastal health
<bullet> continued construction by the Army Corps of Engineers of a
facility for the safe and effective management of more than 4 million
cubic yards of contaminated sediments from the Indiana Harbor
navigation channel and adjacent areas
<bullet> a portion of an increase for the North American Wetlands
Conservation Fund, which will help wetland restoration in the Great
Lakes.
DIESEL EMISSIONS REDUCTION ACT
Question 3. The budget provides $50 million for the Diesel
Emissions Reduction Act. Please provide a detailed schedule on how EPA
intends to implement this program and its associated regulations and
guidelines over the next few months. Additionally, how is EPA working
to inform States (and other stakeholders) about this program and what
they must do to be eligible for funding?
Response. EPA's implementation of the Diesel Emissions Reduction
Act (DERA) in 2007 will build upon and be consistent with the 2006
program. The strategy for the grant program will be defined once funds
have been appropriated for 2007. EPA will publish a Request for
Proposals (RFP) for the grant funding that will reflect Energy Policy
Act provisions. EPA will publish this Request for Proposals (RFP) and
notify Congress, States, and other interested or eligible entities, of
both this funding competition and of the direct State allocations
through their respective association's announcements, on EPA's website,
announcements on EPA's 10 regional websites, press advisories, and
other means.
STATE AND LOCAL AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Question 4. The budget proposes to reduce funding for the State and
Local Air Quality Management Program (established under Sections 103
and 105 of the Clean Air Act) by $35 million, which is a 16 percent
reduction from the FY2006 enacted level. What is the State and Local
Air Quality Management Program?
Response. The reduction comprises three separate elements. First,
$17 million is through shifting funding for fine particulate monitoring
from 100 percent Federal to grants that require a State match. This
shift puts PM monitoring in the same status as all other national
ambient air quality standard monitoring. Second, since the majority of
the nation has attained carbon monoxide and lead National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS), most areas are focused on maintaining these
standards. This, along with Federal implementation of the Clean Air
Interstate rule allows for a $15.5 million reduction. Finally, $2.5
million is reduced to reflect the completion of analyses by Regional
Planning Organizations.
The State and Local Air Quality Management Program provides Federal
financial assistance in the form of grants to the 50 States, 4
Territories (Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Guam and American Somoa) and
approximately 60 local agencies to operate their air pollution control
programs. Most of the grant funding is used to help support State and
local air quality management programs. These State and local programs
are responsible for implementing the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS), which are set to protect public health from the
effects of six common pollutants (ozone, particulate matter, carbon
monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and lead). These funds help
support the programs' efforts to reduce public exposure to air toxics
through implementation of technology-based standards and development of
community-based programs. This funding is also used for technical
analyses and certain types of applied research projects to support the
NAAQS and air toxics programs.
STATE AND LOCAL AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM: FUNDING USED BY STATES
AND LOCALITIES
Question 5. The budget proposes to reduce funding for the State and
Local Air Quality Management Program (established under Sections 103
and 105 of the Clean Air Act) by $35 million, which is a 16 percent
reduction from the FY 2006 enacted level. How is the funding under this
Program used by States and localities?
Response. Federal funding provided to the State and local air
pollution control agencies are used primarily in two broad categories:
planning, developing and implementing State air quality management
plans, referred to as Stats Implementation Plans (SIPs); and operating
and maintaining ambient air monitoring networks for the six criteria
pollutants (ozone, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide,
nitrogen dioxide and lead). Additionally Federal funds are provided to
support regional haze planning activities, acid rain activities, and
for projects related to air quality research and development.
__________
Seven Million Dollar Request to Identify and Repair Leaks
in Water Systems
The water and wastewater infrastructure is extensive and represents
a huge national investment. It includes: 16,000 publicly owned
treatment works; 59,000 community water supplies; 600,000 miles of
sewer; 1 million miles of drinking water distribution. A large fraction
is buried in the ground and is, or will be, in a deteriorated
condition. In September 2002, the Agency published The Clean Water and
Drinking Water Infrastructure Gap Analysis (EPA-816-R-02-020), also
known as the ``Gap Analysis'' report which identified several issues
that raised concern as to the ability of our nation to keep up with the
water infrastructure needs in the future.
Deteriorated potable water and wastewater infrastructure makes it
difficult to meet Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act
requirements. In addition, it increases the potential for waterborne
disease outbreaks, fish kills, loss of biodiversity and habitat, sewer
backups and overflows, and flooded basements and loss of service.
The Agency has put forward a $7 million research proposal for FY
2007 that will seek to identify new and innovative approaches for
managing the nation's water infrastructure, especially for upgrading
and improving the performance of deteriorating wastewater collection
systems and drinking water distribution systems.
Wastewater collection systems research will focus on new approaches
for inspection and condition assessment; new technologies for repair,
rehabilitation and replacement; and innovative techniques for enhancing
performance and service life of existing systems.
Drinking water distribution systems research will initially focus
on developing new approaches to detect, locate, characterize and repair
leaks in distribution systems; and identifying more effective
techniques for inspecting and assessing high risk water mains.
EPA will be in partnership with internal and external stakeholders,
including; the Office of Water; EPA's National Homeland Security
center; water and wastewater utilities; professional organizations,
and; the research community.
This new research will seek to reduce the need for new
infrastructure construction by developing and evaluating innovative
designs and technologies' to optimize system capacity and extend the
service life of existing systems; to reduce infrastructure failures and
their adverse human health, safety, environmental and economic effects
by improving the capability to inspect, assess, and conduct proactive
repair and rehabilitation of water and wastewater systems; and to
improve the effectiveness and durability of systems.
__________
CMAQ Information for the Metropolitan Planning Organizations
EPA issued a draft version of State Implementation Plan (SIP) and
conformity retrofit guidance for stakeholder comment in December 2005
that offered two options for using nonroad retrofit reductions to meet
transportation conformity requirements. Since then, we have been
working with representatives from stakeholder organizations (AASHTO,
AMPO, State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators, and
environmental organizations) to resolve issues they have raised. As a
result, we are currently redrafting the guidance to better meet their
needs. This draft will include a model rule that states could directly
incorporate as a SIP revision to allow trading of CMAQ-funded nonroad
retrofit reductions for use in conformity determinations. We are also
adding detailed information on the steps needed to implement the
options in the guidance. We plan to have this guidance available,
following stakeholder review, in late spring of 2006.
__________
Mercury in Fish
EPA has looked at the UNC report and the conclusions presented by
the study authors. EPA has decided to request from the author's
additional information and data to conduct a more in-depth review of
the data and their analyses.
Based on that in-depth review and a consideration of other studies
that are currently underway (including an EPA/FDA survey of the
effectiveness of the 2004 advisory and an NAS Institute of Medicine
report on balancing seafood risks and nutritional benefits), EPA will
work with FDA to evaluate if there is a need for a change in the
advisory, or a change in the outreach and communication strategy.
EPA is continually reviewing the latest science and public health
policy to determine whether or not changes need to be made to the
national mercury advisory or the associated public outreach campaign.
______
Rat Poisoning-Court Order
In 2001, EPA decided that it would not require bittering agents and
indicator dyes across the board in all rodenticide products. EPA's
decision was based, in part, on the recommendations of a broad
stakeholder workgroup convened to evaluate potential actions to reduce
rodenticide risks to children, which included representatives from EPA,
the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA), State officials, the medical community, public
interest groups, the pesticide industry, and members of the general
public. The decision reflected the public health risks posed by rodents
and significant concerns expressed by the public health community and
the CDC that requiring all products to contain bittering agents and
indicator dyes could hinder the effectiveness of rodenticides to
control rodent populations in certain circumstances. In August 2005,
the district court issued an order affirming EPA's decision with
respect to indicator dyes, but reversing the Agency's decision with
respect to bittering agents and remanding that decision to EPA ``for
further consideration.'' Following the court's order, and in connection
with the Agency's ongoing work on rodenticides, EPA has been pursuing
several mitigation strategies to make rodenticide products safer for
use around children.
EPA is evaluating the advantages and disadvantages of the possible
mitigation approaches, and will consult with its federal partners,
including the CDC, before issuing its decision. The Agency anticipates
publishing its mitigation decision, along with an assessment of the
benefits and impacts of the new safety requirements, for public comment
during the fall of 2006. EPA's decision will ensure that rodenticide
products are both effective for controlling rodents and safe for use in
homes with children. In the interim, EPA is encouraging rodenticide
manufacturers to voluntarily implement additional safety precautions to
reduce the potential for a child to be exposed. For example, the Agency
is encouraging registrants to voluntarily incorporate bittering agents
into certain formulations where decreasing the risk of exposure is
important. To date, over half of the rodenticide products currently on
the market contain a bittering agent.
__________
Job Announcement-Energy Policy Act of 2005
In January 2006, EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality
issued a brief informal job description to direct potential candidates
to find more information on EPA's website about an Economist position
(HQ-OAR-DE-2006-0005). EPA is seeking a qualified economist in order to
conduct cost-benefit analysis of voluntary greenhouse gas emission
reduction strategies under the authority of the Clean Air Act, Section
103(g). The official job qualifications as announced on EPA's website
specify that the incumbent would: (1) collect, analyze, interpret, and
publish economic information needed to analyze strategies for reducing
greenhouse gas emissions and improving air quality from the
transportation sector; (2) use knowledge of economic principles and
techniques, applied to conduct economic analysis of transportation
policy options, using various economic modeling tools to assess the
costs, benefits, sensitivities, and externalities; (3) analyze and
interpret the movements of goods, services, labor, and capital
(particularly the diffusion of greenhouse gas reduction technologies)
across national borders, using economic modeling tools to represent the
economic response to greenhouse gas emission reduction policies.
While the formal announcement for this position did not include a
requirement for the candidate to be knowledgeable about emissions
trading, an informal announcement did contain a reference to emissions
trading. This reference was included in the informal announcement
because an ideal candidate for this position would be expected to help
the Office of Transportation and Air Quality as it designs and analyzes
the trading program for renewable fuels that Congress approved in the
Energy Policy Act of 2005. Knowledge of emissions trading, particularly
the acid rain program, has become essential for any air program
economist due to that program's success. That knowledge will be
extremely valuable for work on the Renewable Fuel Standard.
__________
A History of EPA's ``Politicized Science'' During the Clinton/Browner
ERA
The following statements made in the press during the Clinton
Presidency:
1. ``EPA has had to reverse previous policies found to be
scientifically flawed and to amend statistical `errors' it used to
argue for new policies. And it has a habit of punishing those who dare
point out its flaws: Two years ago, six EPA scientists lost their jobs
after writing a letter to a newspaper saying that EPA regulations
'stand to harm rather than protect public health and the
environment.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Editorial, ``EPA-Clean it up,'' The Cincinnati Inquirer, 12/26/
2000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. ``Major scientific uncertainties and the political and legal
constraints of a regulatory agency combine to weaken the scientific
basis of decisions made by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA). . .''\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ ``Research Gaps, Legalistic Focus Hinder EPA's Use of
Science,'' Resources for the Future, 8/18/1999
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. ``EPA also should reinstitute and strengthen its internal
scientific review processes to ensure transparency, account for
scientific uncertainty, and improve the analytical bases for its policy
decisions.''\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. ``Many of EPA's regulatory programs are unscientific and
illogical and afford little or no protection to human health or the
environment. . . They breed well-deserved cynicism about government's
motives.''\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Henry I. Miller, ``Environmental Protection, In Name Only,''
The Scientist, 9/18/2000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. ``. . .EPA has become too politicized in its actions, too eager
to pursue narrow political goals, and too willing to ignore
Congressional intent in making regulatory decisions. Political motives
rather than workable policies based on sound science and reliable data
seem to be the driving force behind this EPA.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Allen James, ``Politics Play a Plum Part in FQPA,'' Pest
Control, 9/1/2000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. ``EPA's abuse and misuse of science is no surprise and well
known to those who follow the agency closely. . . . Its record on
electric utility NOx emissions, long-range transport, and ozone
pollution can only be described as shameful.''\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ ``Commentary. Political Science at the EPA,'' The Electricity
Daily, 6/19/2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. ``The National Research Council--the working arm of the National
Academy of Sciences--last week published its fourth and final
assessment of the way EPA uses and abuses science. The conclusion was a
reaffirmation of what a repeated analysis of the agency has found.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. ``At least a dozen former EPA officials who played roles in
setting pesticide policy now work as industry consultants. The EPA has
become a farm team for the pesticide lobby,' says Mike Casey of the
Environmental Working Group, which released a report on the issue.''\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Peter Eisler, ``Toughest decisions still to come in pesticide
review Congress wanted the rules updated, but politics slowing
process,'' USA Today, 8/30/1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. ``In a scathing opinion, the court stated, `EPA publicly
committed to a conclusion before research had begun, adjusted
scientific procedure and scientific norms to validate the agency's
public conclusion, and aggressively utilized authority to disseminate
findings to. . . influence public opinion.''\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ J.R. Clark, ``EPA Corrupting Science For Political Purposes,''
Chattanooga Free Press,
10/11/1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. ``Science is as politicized in America as it was in the Soviet
Union and Nazi Germany. This EPA is a prime example.''\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Charley Reese, ``It's A Shame That Americans Can't Trust Their
Own Government,'' Orlando Sentinel, 6/30/1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. For years, the Federal Government has known that power plants
produce mercury. It knows how technology could be used to reduce that
pollution. The Environmental Protection Agency's efforts to regulate
the toxic metal have been slowed by industry lobbyists and their allies
in Congress. . . .\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ ``Coal-Fired Power Plants Spew Mercury But Avoid Crackdown,''
Portland Press Herald,
9/29/1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. `` `This is by far the most politicized EPA I've seen in my
three decades of working in State Governments. . . . It is an agency
driven more by sound bites than by sound science.' ''\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Pranay Gupte and Bonner R. Cohen, ``Carol Browner, master of
mission creep,'' Forbes,
10/20/1997.
The fact is that Carol Browner, who chaired Environment 2004's
efforts to oppose President Bush, is alleged to have used, abused and
politically manipulated science during her tenure as EPA Administrator
under the Clinton-Gore Administration.
13. ``In an effort to elevate EPA's scientific profile, in 1989 the
agency had brought on board former National Institutes of Health deputy
director William Raub as the senior science advisor. Raub was known to
be a smart, savvy, and collegial) scientific administrator.
Nonetheless, the EPA staff proceeded to make his life miserable. From
the beginning, they ignored him when they could. When they couldn't,
they sent him drafts of important documents too late for a meaningful
review-often just days before a court-ordered deadline for an agency
action. Instead of disciplining those responsible. EPA administrator
Browner excluded Raub from her inner circle and finally replaced him in
1995 with a less-threatening lower-level EPA staffer.''\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Henry I. Miller, ``Environmental Protection, In Name Only,''
The Scientist, 9/18/2000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. ``Under mounting pressure from environmental groups to ignore
the recommendation of the agency's own scientists. Browner last
December scrapped a science-based standard for chloroform in drinking
water. In 1998, EPA had proposed raising the Maximum Contaminant Level
Goal for chloroform in drinking water from zero to 300 parts per
billion. This recommendation had resulted from a thorough review by EPA
scientists of toxicological data on human exposure to chloroform going
back 20 years, and took into account the principle contained in the
Agency's draft cancer guidelines that there are thresholds below which
toxins are essentially harmless. The recommendation was to become the
victim of political sabotage, and the agency instead retained a `zero
tolerance' rule. In April of this year, however, a Federal court
rejected EPA's proposed standard, saving that the proposal was
contradicted by the agency's own review of the ``best available
science.''\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. NPR's Bob Edwards: ``A Federal court earlier this year
overturned an Environmental Protection Agency rule regarding a chemical
in drinking water. The decision was made after ERA administrator Carol
Browner declined to follow the findings of the agency's own scientists'
as to what was safe. She sought a more stringent standard.''\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ ``Morning Edition,'' National Public Radio, 6/27/2000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. ``Here's what the NAS said in its latest review of EPA science,
in the context of a 1995 report highly critical of EPA's manipulation
of science in the pursuit of politically correct policy: Throughout
EPA's history, no official below the level of the administrator has had
overall responsibility or authority for the scientific and technical
foundations of agency decisions, and administrators of EPA have
typically been trained in law, not science.' What the scientists are
saving here is that the administrator and her top aides have typically
been political hacks.''\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ ``Commentary: Political Science at the EPA,'' The Electricity
Daily, 6/19/2000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. ``Apparently, even before its research was completed, the EPA
had already written its `Workplace Policy Guide' on secondhand smoke.
But none of the original 11 U.S. studies used in the agency's analysis
reported a statistically significant increased risk of lung cancer
using accepted scientific levels of confidence. For convenience, the
agency not only deviated from standard scientific practice but also
from its own risk assessment guidelines in carrying out its
analysis.''\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ J.R. Clark, ``EPA Corrupting Science For Political Purposes,''
Chattanooga Free Press,
10/11/1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. ``EPA Administrator Carol Browner--with the enthusiastic
backing of her patron, Vice President Al Gore--has molded the EPA into
an instrument of environmental zealotry that knows no legal or ethical
bounds. Miss Browner's EPA works to silence internal dissent, defy
Congress, trample on states and localities, and cover up its own
wrongdoing. The EPA stands out as the most lawless-and ruthless-agency
in an Administration that specializes in bureaucratic
aggrandizement.''\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Bonner R. Cohen, ``Polluted Agency,'' National Review, 8/3/
1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
__________
Office of International Affairs: Grants to Foreign Recipients
EPA policy gives OIA a review and concurrence role on assistance
awards for work conducted abroad, whether awarded to domestic or
foreign recipients, prior to forwarding these to the Department of
State for their review and concurrence. OIA collaborates with Program
Offices as they implement their media-specific international programs;
and strongly supports the Agency's efforts, chaired by the Grants
Administration Division (GAD), to implement grant policies. Those
Offices also consult with GAD to ensure that all Agency policies are
followed.
__________
Clean Air Act Provisions-Particulate Matter Standard
For the final rule on the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
for Particulate Matter, which will be issued by September 27, 2006, EPA
will be preparing a final Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA). As part
of this RIA, EPA plans to estimate nationwide costs and benefits of
illustrative implementation strategies to demonstrate how the Nation
might attain-the proposed standards in 2020, along with costs and
benefits of partial attainment strategies in 2015. Our benefits
assessment will include an analysis of the incremental health benefits,
including mortality avoided, in each of these years across the entire
Nation.
__________
Copyright 1997 Forbes Inc.
Forbes
October 20, 1997
SECTION: THE COVER; Pg. 170
LENGTH: 3532 words
HEADLINE: Carol Browner, master of mission creep
BYLINE: By Pranay Gupte and Bonner R. Cohen
HIGHLIGHT
In the Environmental Protection Agency Congress created a monster
it can no longer control. With a shrewd politician like Carol Browner
running it, the agency just thumbs its nose at the legislators.
BODY
AS THE CENTER OF that enormous rent-seeking organization known as
the federal government, Washington, D.C. has evolved its own
vocabulary. There is, in bureaucratese, an innocent-sounding but
insidious phrase: mission creep. Mark it well: Mission creep explains a
lot about how big government grows and grows and grows.
Mission creep is to a taxpayer-supported organization what new
markets are to a business organization. It involves a gradual,
sometimes authorized, sometimes not, broadening of a bureaucracy's
original mission. It is a way to accrete money and power beyond what
Congress originally approved when it funded an agency.
Playing mission creep is an old game in Washington. But no one has
ever played the game with more skill than Carol M. Browner, Bill
Clinton's choice to head the Environmental Protection Agency.
From a modest beginning a quarter-century ago, the agency has grown
to employ nearly 20,000 people and control an annual budget of $ 7
billion. But these numbers are a poor measure of the agency's power:
Because its regulations have the force of law, the agency can jail
people, close factories and override the judgments of local
authorities.
In its quest for power and money, the agency has imposed many
unnecessary costs on American industry, and ultimately on the American
people--costs that do more to satisfy bureaucratic zeal than to clean
the air or the water.
The EPA was established in 1970 by an executive order issued by
President Richard M. Nixon. Rachel Carson, a patron saint of the
environmental movement, had made a huge impact with her emotional
tract, Silent Spring, a few years earlier.
The public was right to be alarmed. Industrialization has imposed
hidden costs in the form of polluted air, despoiled streams, unsightly
dumps and a general degradation of the landscape. Concerns about
pollution could, of course, have been dealt with by existing agencies,
but that is not the nature of American politics. Politicians must be
seen to be doing something dramatic. Creating new agencies makes
favorable waves in the media.
Nixon created a new agency. Pulled together from a hodgepodge of
existing federal programs, the EPA never had a congressional charter
that would have defined its regulatory activities. It was simply given
the task of carrying out the provisions of what, over time, became 13
environmental statutes, each with its own peculiarities and
constituencies.
Without perhaps fully comprehending the issues, Nixon made the new
EPA the instrument for a tremendous power grab by the federal
government. Most environmental problems--chemical spills, groundwater
contamination, abandoned dump sites--are purely local in nature. But
suddenly they were federal matters. In the name of a greener, cleaner
Earth, Washington mightily increased its power to intervene in the
daily lives of its citizens. It was a goal so worthy that few people
saw the dangers inherent in it. Mission creep had begun.
In 1978 then-EPA administrator Douglas Costle cleverly shifted the
focus of the agency. Henceforth the EPA would protect not just the
environment but your health. ``Costle became determined to convince the
public that [the] EPA was first and foremost a public health agency,
not a guardian of bugs and bunnies,'' wrote Mark K. Landry, Marc J.
Roberts and Stephen R. Thomas in their book, The Environmental
Protection Agency: Asking the Wrong Questions from Nixon to Clinton.
People do care about forests and wildlife, but they care much more
about themselves and their families. There is a strong strain of
hypochondria in the American people, and nothing grabs our attention
faster than an alleged threat to our health. If the alleged threat
involves cancer, it is almost guaranteed to make the six o'clock news.
Costle shrewdly exploited cancer phobia to expand his agency's reach
and to wring money from Congress. He launched the EPA on a cancer hunt,
looking for carcinogens in foods and air and water, even in the showers
we take.
Carcinogens, of course, abound in nature, ordinary sunlight being
one of the most prevalent. So it is with many man-made substances. The
exposure to background levels of these carcinogens is so minimal in
most cases as to pose no serious threat in the overwhelming majority of
cases. Never mind: EPA scientists, following the agency's cancer-risk
guidelines, were soon ignoring the age-old admonition that the ``dose
makes the poison.'' If it was man-made and carried carcinogens, the EPA
would root it out. As one EPA scientist explained it to FORBES: ``At
EPA, we're not paid not to find risks.''
Under the mantra of ``one fiber can kill,'' the EPA in the 1980s
mounted a costly and probably self-defeating nationwide effort to rip
asbestos out of schools. Simply sealing the substance would have kept
the fibers away from kids at a fraction of the cost. But it would not
have yielded the same harvest in headlines.
Even more than her predecessors--and possessing much greater
resources--Carol Browner presents herself as the great family
physician. ``There isn't a decision I make on any given day that's not
related to the health of the American people,'' she tells FORBES.
Browner, it's worth noting, is a lawyer with no medical training.
After all, she reminds us, she's the mom of a young boy. Attendees
of Capitol Hill hearings snicker at her constant references to her son,
Zachary, when she testifies on environmental issues. But she never
misses a chance to repeat the message. ``If we can focus on protecting
the children. . . we will be protecting the population at large, which
is obviously our job,'' she tells FORBES
Who said that was her job? Nobody, but that's what mission creep is
all about.
Last September Browner announced the release of a new EPA report
setting forth a broad national agenda to protect children from
environmental risks. She followed up the report with the creation
earlier this year of the Office of Children's Health Protection at EPA.
There was no congressional mandate, but Congress meekly went along
by failing to challenge the agency's justification of the program. Who
would want to face reelection accused of being callous toward children?
Especially when the EPA's kept researchers stand by ready to produce
scare studies on EPA money (see box, p. 172).
Where most agency chiefs tremble at criticism from Congress,
Browner has a platform from which she can counterattack. An EPA-funded
newsletter was recently distributed by the National Parents Teachers
Association. At the time an internal EPA memo noted: ``The PTA could
become a major ally for the Agency in preventing Congress from slashing
our budget.'' Thus does Browner's EPA use taxpayer money to fight
efforts to trim the Federal budget.
On Mar. 15, 1995 David Lewis, an EPA scientist attached to the
agency's laboratory in Athens, GA., was told by his supervisor that EPA
employees with connections to members of Congress should use their
influence to sway lawmakers against a bill proposed by Representative
Clifford Stearns (R-Fla.)--if it could be done ``without getting into
trouble.'' Stearns' bill would have reduced funding for EPA. The
scientist later said in a deposition: ``We were being asked to do this
during government business hours, and the purpose was to protect EPA
funding levels.'' This request on the part of high-level EPA officials
to lobby Congress on government time is under investigation by the
House Government Reform and Oversight Committee.
Had this been a Republican administration and had the department
involved been other than the EPA, one can imagine the outcry in the
media.
Asked about the growing criticism of her tactics, Browner blatantly
ducks the question with: ``This isn't about me. It never has been about
me. It's about the air being cleaner. Is the water going to be safer?
It's about business going to be able to find a better solution to our
environmental problems.''
It's really about politics. When supportive lawmakers ask to borrow
EPA experts for their staffs, the EPA hastens to comply. Requests from
liberal Democrats almost always are filled, those from Republicans
rarely. A request by Representative Richard Pombo (R-Calif.) for an EPA
detailee was rejected on Jan. 2, 1997 on the grounds that ``new
procedures'' were being written. Less than four weeks later (Jan. 28),
a similar request from liberal Democrat Representative Charles Rangel
of New York was approved, without reference to any ``new procedures.''
Since 1995 her office has approved all requests for employee
details to four Democratic lawmakers--Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-
N.J.), Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.), Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan
(D-N.Y.) and Rangel. Of the four GOP requests, three were rejected.
Browner was at her politically impressive best in this summer's
debate over the EPA's tougher clean air standards. Because air quality
levels have improved markedly since passage of the Clean Air Act
amendments of 1990, it was widely hoped--especially in areas that badly
need new jobs--that the standards would not be further tightened. The
EPA's own data showed that levels of the particulates have dropped
dramatically over the past decade. Many local governments, anxious for
jobs and economic development, were looking forward to being removed
from the list of so-called nonattainment areas for ozone and
particulate matter, or PM.
In July the EPA finalized new tighter standards for ozone and PM.
For communities that had made expensive efforts to comply with the
current law, the higher standards were like a baseball player, having
rounded third base and heading toward home, being told he had to circle
the bases again to score.
A good many congress people were outraged. Browner's insistence on
imposing the new standards in the face of nothing more than scanty
scientific evidence unleashed howls of protest from elected officials
in the affected communities.
Legally, Browner was probably in the right. In its haste to seem to
be attending to the environment, Congress failed to exert control over
EPA standards and regulations.
There was nonetheless quite a donnybrook, with veteran Democrat
John Dingell of Michigan leading the charge against Browner. A lot of
jobs were at stake in Michigan, still headquarters of the U.S. auto
industry. Congress, he insisted, should be consulted. Dingell was not
alone.
With lots of support from Vice President Al Gore's office, Browner
went to work putting down the congressional revolt. Her testimony
before Congress was, by general agreement, brilliant, though her facts
were often shaky.
Until then, Bill Clinton had remained on the sidelines. But Browner
maneuvered the President into a corner, where he faced the politically
embarrassing choice of supporting her controversial initiatives or
disavowing his outspoken EPA administrator. Clinton then got to the
head of the parade by declaring his support for Browner. The game was
over. Browner 1, Congress 0.
If EPA's new standards survive congressional and legal challenges,
state and local governments will have to devise elaborate State
Implementation Plans, or SIPs, detailing their strategies for complying
with the agency's latest regulatory diktat. And in accordance with the
Clean Air Act, it will be up to the EPA to approve or disapprove the
SIPs. The estimated cost of compliance with the new standards for the
Chicago area alone is projected to be between $3 billion and $7
billion.
``I wish we never had that fight with Congress,'' she tells FORBES.
``I wish it could have been avoided. I think it came at great expense
to the country. I think it was very unfortunate.'' Note the
implication: The way it could have been avoided was for Congress to
avoid challenging her.
You can admire Browner's skill and still be appalled by what she is
doing. ``This is by far the most politicized EPA I've seen in my three
decades of working in state governments,'' says Russell J. Harding,
director of Michigan's Department of Environmental Quality. ``It is an
agency driven more by sound bites than by sound science.''
Says Barry McBee, chairman of the Texas Natural Resource
Conservation Commission: ``EPA continues to embody an outdated attitude
that Washington knows best, that only Washington has the capability to
protect our environment. States are closer to the people they protect
and closer to the resources and can do a better job today.''
As a weapon to humble the state regulatory bodies, Carol Browner's
EPA has embraced the politically correct concept of ``environmental
justice.'' This broadens EPA's mandates even beyond protection of
everyone's health.
In early 1993 Browner set up the Office of Environmental Justice
within EPA which, among other things, passes out taxpayer-funded grants
for studying the effects of industrial pollutants on poorer, mostly
black, communities. In 1994 the White House supported this initiative
by ordering Federal Agencies to consider the health and environmental
effects of their decisions on minority and low-income communities.
That's the rhetoric. The reality is that the Federal Agencies have
a new weapon for overruling state agencies. Browner's EPA recently
delayed the approval of a $700 million polyvinyl chloride plant to be
built by Japanese-owned Shintech in the predominantly black southern
Louisiana town of Convent. Louisiana's Department of Environmental
Quality had already given the go-ahead; the plant would have created
good-paying jobs and opportunities in an area suffering from 60 percent
unemployment and low incomes. But the EPA argued that blacks would
suffer disproportionately from potentially cancer-causing emissions of
the plant in an area already lined with chemical factories of all
descriptions.
Louisiana Economic Development Director Kevin Reilly was enraged.
``It is demeaning and despicable for these people to play the race
card,'' he says, pointing out that poor people and blacks would have
gained economically and were at little health risk. The scientific
evidence bears Reilly out: A recent article in the Journal of the
Louisiana Medical Society found that cancer incidence in the area is in
most cases no higher than nationally.
But never mind the facts: This kind of decision has less to do with
science than with power politics. It delivers the message: Don't mess
with the EPA. ``Carol Browner is the best hardball player in the
Clinton Administration,'' says Steven J. Milloy, executive director of
The Advancement of Sound Science Coaliation in Washington, a longtime
critic of EPA who acknowledges receiving funding from industry. ``She
has the 105th Congress completely intimidated by her debating skills
and her sheer grasp of facts, however questionable. She eats their
lunch.''
Like many Clintonites, Browner takes her own good time about
responding to congressional requests for EPA documents. When word got
out that EPA was developing a series of proposals for reducing U.S.
emissions of man-made greenhouse gases, the House Commerce Committee
asked for a copy. The EPA ignored the request for two years.
When the proposals were leaked to the committee late last year, it
was immediately clear why EPA had stiffed Congress. The document was
loaded with proposals for raising taxes to pay for new EPA initiatives.
Produced in the agency's Office of Policy, Planning & Evaluation and
dated May 31, 1994, EPA's ``Climate Change Action'' recommends a new
50-cent-per-gallon gasoline tax, with an estimated cost to motorists of
$47 billion in the year 2000 alone. Seven other tax increases were
recommended: a ``greenhouse gas tax,'' a ``carbon tax,'' a ``BTU tax,''
an ``at-the-source ad-valorem tax'' on the value of the fuel at the
source of extraction, an ``end-use ad valorem tax'' on the value of the
fuel at the point of sale, a ``motor fuels tax'' on the retail price of
gasoline and diesel, an ``oil import fee.'' Also recommended: A new
federal fee on vehicle emissions tests of $40 per person to ``shift the
cost of vehicle inspection from the state to the vehicle owner.''
How could they hope to get so many new taxes through a tax-shy
Congress? The ``Climate Change Action Plan'' contains repeated
references to how each of the above taxes and fees can be imposed under
existing laws. Talk about taxation without representation.
It's not entirely surprising that Browner and her crew think in
terms of government-by-edict. Browner's extraordinary power is in many
ways a consequence of Congress' delegation of its lawmaking power to
the EPA. It has let the agency micromanage environmental activities
throughout the nation with little regard for either local wishes or the
cost. This negligence has permitted the agency to ignore scientific
data that conflict with agency orthodoxy. The EPA is in many ways
becoming a state within the state.
``This is Washington at its worst--out-of-touch bureaucrats
churning out red tape with reckless abandon. The EPA hasn't taken into
account an ounce of reality,'' says Representative Fred Upton (R-
Mich.), a frequent critic, referring to the new clean air rules.
If science isn't Browner's strong point, political tactics are. Her
enemies can only envy the way the EPA uses the courts. An organization
such as the Natural Resources Defense Council will go into federal
court and sue to force the EPA to do something. The EPA will wink and,
after the courts expand its mandate, see to it that big legal fees go
to the NRDC.
Mission creep, in short, takes many forms and its practitioners
have many ways to plunder the public purse.
For her part. Browner often dismisses as simple male chauvinism any
criticism of her hardball tactics. ``I think sometimes that it's an
issue of men and women,'' she says, coyly.
Such cute demagoguery aside, there is no doubting Browner's
sincerity. She is an environmentalist zealot. She was clearly behind
the decision to tighten the clean air standards to what many people
regard as unreasonable levels. If not a tree-hugger she is
philosophically close to Al Gore and his quasi-religious
environmentalism.
After graduating from University of Florida law school, Browner
(both of whose parents were college teachers) went to work for a Ralph
Nader-affiliated consumer advocate group. There she met her husband,
Michael Podhorzer, who still works there.
She learned politics working on Gore's Senate staff, where she rose
to be his legislative director before heading back to Florida to head
the state environmental commission.
After the EPA, what's next for this tough and aggressive
politician? If Al Gore's presidential hopes aren't dashed by the fund-
raising scandals, there's a vice presidential slot on the Democratic
ticket up for grabs in 2000. A female environmentalist and mother of a
young boy would do a lot to bolster Gore's otherwise soggy appeal.
In a statement to FORBES, Gore went so far as to try to claim for
Browner some of the credit for the current economic prosperity. ``She
has helped prove,'' he declares, ``that a healthy environment and a
strong economy are inextricably linked.''
If not a vice presidential run, what? Could Browner be nominated by
the Clinton Administration to be the next head of the United Nations'
environment program? Or would the Administration nominate her as the
new U.N. Deputy Secretary General? Either position would give Browner
instant international visibility, which couldn't hurt her political
prospects in Washington.
One way or another, you are going to be hearing a lot more about
Carol M. Browner; whenever you do, it's unlikely to be good news for
business--and it may not even be good news for the environment.
DEEP ROOTS, DEEPER POCKETS
The Environmental Protection Agency often subsidizes scientists and
environmental groups that back the agency's policies.
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY
George Thurston, professor of environmental medicine, gets three-
year, $383,000 grant from EPA to study ``acidic particulate matter.''
Tells New York Times ``tens of thousands of hospital visits and
premature deaths could be prevented by more stringent air quality
standards.'' Says grants do not influence his research.
HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
Joel Schwartz, epidemiologist, in the Wall Street Journal, attacks
the National Association of Manufacturers. Fails to reveal he got
three-year, $196,000 EPA grant to study effects of pollution on
children or that the School of Public Health received $3 million in EPA
grants in 1996.
THE NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL
It received more than $1 million from the EPA in 1995. In a curious
move, the EPA paid $150,000 in NRDC legal bills for lawsuits that the
NRDC brought against the EPA. The suits result in the EPA's mandate on
clean air issues and regulatory authority being expanded.
AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION
Cited by the EPA as independent source during agency efforts to
toughen pollution standards, the ALA received more than $4 million in
grants between 1990 and 1994; in 1995 EPA granted nearly $1 million
more. The ALA once sued EPA to issue new rules on pollution; later, EPA
financed ALA air-pollution studies
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2270.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2270.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2270.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2270.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2270.005
<all>