<DOC> [110th Congress House Hearings] [From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access] [DOCID: f:45093.wais] ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND THE TOXICS RELEASE INVENTORY REPORTING PROGRAM: COMMUNITIES HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW ======================================================================= HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS OF THE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ON H.R. 1055 and H.R. 1103 __________ OCTOBER 4, 2007 __________ Serial No. 110-71 Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce energycommerce.house.gov U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 45-093 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2009 --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 ENERGY AND COMMERCE JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan, Chairman HENRY A. WAXMAN, California JOE BARTON, Texas EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts Ranking Member RICK BOUCHER, Virginia RALPH M. HALL, Texas EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey FRED UPTON, Michigan BART GORDON, Tennessee CLIFF STEARNS, Florida BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois NATHAN DEAL, Georgia ANNA G. ESHOO, California ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky BART STUPAK, Michigan BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico GENE GREEN, Texas JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING, Vice Chairman Mississippi LOIS CAPPS, California VITO FOSSELLA, New York MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania STEVE BUYER, Indiana JANE HARMAN, California GEORGE RADANOVICH, California TOM ALLEN, Maine JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois MARY BONO, California HILDA L. SOLIS, California GREG WALDEN, Oregon CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas LEE TERRY, Nebraska JAY INSLEE, Washington MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin MIKE ROGERS, Michigan MIKE ROSS, Arkansas SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania JIM MATHESON, Utah MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana JOHN BARROW, Georgia BARON P. HILL, Indiana ______ Professional Staff Dennis B. Fitzgibbons, Chief of Staff Gregg A. Rothschild, Chief Counsel Sharon E. Davis, Chief Clerk David L. Cavicke, Minority Staff Director (ii) Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland, Chairman FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois, BART STUPAK, Michigan Ranking Member LOIS CAPPS, California CLIFF STEARNS, Florida TOM ALLEN, Maine NATHAN DEAL, Georgia HILDA L. SOLIS, California HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico Vice Chairman JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin VITO FOSELLA, New York G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina GEORGE RADANOVICH, California JOHN BARROW, Georgia JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania BARON P. HILL, Indiana LEE TERRY, Nebraska DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado MIKE ROGERS, Michigan ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma HENRY A. WAXMAN, California TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania GENE GREEN, Texas JOE BARTON, Texas (ex officio) JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan (ex officio) ------ Professional Staff Richard Frandsen, Chief Counsel Ann Strickland, Brookings Fellow Caroline Ahearn, Counsel Rachel Bleshman, Clerk Gerald Couri, Minority Counsel C O N T E N T S ---------- Page Hon. Albert R. Wynn, a Representative in Congress from the State of Maryland, opening statement................................. 1 Hon. John Shimkus, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, opening statement................................. 3 Hon. Hilda L. Solis, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, opening statement............................... 5 Hon. John Barrow, a Representative in Congress from the State of Georgia, opening statement..................................... 6 Hon. Tim Murphy, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, opening statement................ 7 Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of New Jersey, opening statement......................... 8 Hon. Tammy Baldwin, a Representative in Congress from the State of Wisconsin, opening statement................................ 10 Hon. Gene Green, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, prepared statement...................................... 11 Witnesses Granta Y. Nakayama, Assistant Administrator, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.............................................. 12 Prepared statement........................................... 15 Answers to submitted questions............................... 219 Wade Najjum, Assistant Inspector General, Program Evaluation, Office of Inspector General, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency......................................................... 24 Prepared statement........................................... 25 Answers to submitted questions............................... 210 Molly O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, Office of Environmental Information, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.............. 28 Prepared statement........................................... 31 Answers to submitted questions............................... 232 Thomas M. Sullivan, Chief Counsel, Advocacy, Office of Advocacy, U.S. Small Business Administration............................. 38 Prepared statement........................................... 40 Answers to submitted questions............................... 264 John B. Stephenson, Director, Natural Resources and Environment, Government Accountability Office............................... 48 Prepared statement........................................... 50 Answers to submitted questions............................... 257 Hilary O. Shelton, Director, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Washington Bureau............... 93 Prepared statement........................................... 95 Robert D. Bullard, Ware professor, Department of Sociology; director, Environmental Justice Resource Center, Clark Atlanta University..................................................... 97 Prepared statement........................................... 99 Answers to submitted questions............................... 202 Jose Bravo, Communities for a Better Environment; executive director, Just Transition Alliance............................. 107 Prepared statement........................................... 108 Answers to submitted questions............................... 197 Andrew Bopp, director, public affairs, Society of Glass and Ceramic Decorators............................................. 110 Prepared statement........................................... 113 Answers to submitted questions............................... 193 Alan Finkelstein, assistant fire marshal, Strongsville Fire and Emergency Services............................................. 119 Prepared statement........................................... 121 Answers to submitted questions............................... 206 Nancy Wittenberg, assistant commissioner, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.................................... 131 Prepared statement........................................... 133 Answers to submitted questions............................... 215 Submitted Material H.R. 1055, to amend the Emergency Planning and Community Right- to-Know Act of 1986 to strike a provision relating to modification in reporting frequency............................ 148 H.R. 1103, to codify Executive Order 12898, relating to environmental justice, to require the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to fully implement the recommendations of the Inspector General of the Agency and the Comptroller General of the United States, and for other purposes....................................................... 151 Keith W. McCoy, executive director, Business Network for Environmental Justice, letter of October 4, 2007, submitted by Mr. Shimkus.................................................... 158 Letter of support from various organizations, September 28, 2007. 182 307 Community, Environment, Faith Investor, Labor, Legal, Public Health, Public Interest, Research and Scientists Organizations, letter of September 28, 2007................................... 184 Roxanne Brown, legislative representative, United Steelworkers, submitted statement............................................ 191 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND THE TOXICS RELEASE INVENTORY REPORTING PROGRAM: COMMUNITIES HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW ---------- THURSDAY, OCTOBER 4, 2007 House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Washington, DC. The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 a.m., in room 2322 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Albert R. Wynn (chairman) presiding. Members present: Representatives Solis, Capps, Baldwin, Barrow, Pallone, Pitts, Terry, Murphy, and Barton. Also present: Representative Shimkus. Staff present: Caroline Ahearn, Ann Strickland, Mary O'Lone, Dick Frandsen, Rachel Bleshman, Lauren Bloomberg, Jodi Seth, Jerry Couri, Garrett Golding, and Mo Zilly. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ALBERT R. WYNN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND Mr. Wynn. Good morning. I would like to call the hearing to order. Today we have a hearing on H.R. 1103, the Environmental Justice Act of 2007, introduced by the distinguished vice chair of the subcommittee, Ms. Hilda Solis, and a hearing on H.R. 1055, the Toxic Right-to-Know Protection Act, introduced by another distinguished member of this subcommittee, Representative Frank Pallone. For purposes of making opening statements the Chairs and ranking members of the subcommittee and the full committee will each be recognized for 5 minutes. All other members of the subcommittee will be recognized for 3 minutes, however, those members may waive the right to make an opening statement and when first recognized to question witnesses instead, add those 3 minutes to their time for questions. Without objection all members have 5 legislative days to submit opening statements for the record. The Chair would now recognize himself for an opening statement. As I indicated, we are here to hold a hearing on two very important bills, the Environmental Justice Act of 2007, and also the Toxic Release Inventory Right-to-Know Act sponsored by Mr. Pallone. That is H.R. 1055. It restores the requirements for reporting toxic emissions data from polluting facilities and assures that the information is reported annually to the EPA. With respect to environmental justice, many people believe that the movement began in Warren County, NC, a poor, predominantly African-American community where I lived as a child. In 1978, transformer oil contaminated with cancer- causing PCBs was illegally dumped over 210 miles of North Carolina roadsides. The roadsides were listed as an EPA Superfund site, and EPA approved a landfill to dispose of the contaminated soils. In 1982, dump trunks containing this waste rolled into Warren County and more than 6 weeks of marches and non-violent street demonstrations followed. In 1993, the community's greatest fear was realized, however. The landfill seal began to fail, threatening to contaminate drinking water. Decontamination of the landfill was not completed until 2003. The national attention given to Warren County resulted in a landmark study. In 1987, the United Church of Christ study, ``Toxic Waste and Race in the United States,'' found that race, more than income or home values, was the main predictor for the location of hazardous waste facilities. In fact, people of color were 47 percent more likely to live near hazardous waste facilities than white Americans. To focus the Federal Government's attention on environmental and human health conditions in minority and low- income communities, in 1994, President Clinton issued the Environmental Justice Executive order. Environmental justice strategies and policies were issued, and EPA created the Office of Environmental Justice. But more than a decade later, where are we? In a 2004 report, the EPA Inspector General determined that EPA needs to consistently implement the intent of the Executive order on environmental justice. In a 2006 report the EPA Inspector General concluded, EPA needs to conduct environmental justice reviews of its programs, policies, and activities, and finally in 2005, the Government Accountability Office determined that EPA should devote more attention to environmental justice when developing clean air rules. In the United States today minorities are exposed to higher levels of air pollution. These exposure levels negatively affect the health of infants, are associated with higher rates of infant mortality, and also result in higher prevalence of death rates from asthma. For example, Puerto Rican children have an asthma rate 140 percent higher than non-Hispanic white children and African- Americans, only 12 percent of the population, constitute 25 percent of all deaths from asthma. H.R. 1103 directs EPA to, one, conduct environmental justice reviews of its program and policies to determine whether they may have a disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental affect on minority or low-income populations. Second, it requires EPA to analyze new rules to identify potential environmental justice issues to see if such disproportion affects will be created. Third, it requires EPA to fully respond to public confidence that raise environmental justice issues, and fourth, requires the EPA to provide emergency planning procedures. And fifth, creates Congressional reporting requirements to provide for oversight of EPA's implementation of the Act. Interesting, to add insult to injury, in December of this past year EPA adopted a new rule that reduces the amount of information on toxic chemical management and releases that is provided to EPA and the public. Under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986, EPCRA, facilities that manufacture, process, or otherwise use more than the specified amounts of nearly 650 toxic chemicals are required to report their releases to water, air, and land. This information is compiled in the Nation's Toxic Release Inventory. However, under EPA's new rules, for the first time, facilities will not have to provide detailed information about persistent bio-accumulative and toxic PBT chemicals. PBTs are long-lasting toxics such as lead, mercury, and PCPs that can build up in the body. In addition, for non-PBT chemicals, the EPA has significantly raised the threshold before facilities are required to report detailed information on releases or waste management. The impact of these data reporting changes is significant to minority and low-income communities. According to GAO nearly 22,000 detailed TRI reports containing information on the amounts of chemicals released and managed in some 3,500 facilities will no longer be required. EPA received over 120,000 comments about these changes; 99 percent oppose the changes--including 23 States, 30 public health organizations, 40 labor organizations, and more than 200 environmental and public interest groups. Even the EPA's Science Advisory Board objected to the changes. The Toxic Right-to-Know Protection Act will maintain the annual reporting requirements and provide the community with information it needs to assess the potential affects of toxic emissions from polluting facilities. At this time I recognize my distinguished ranking member, who is waiting eagerly, for 5 minutes. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for recognizing me, and thanks for listening to me on the floor about one of the concerns about the hearing. These are really two distinct issues, and as the Senate had an opportunity to hold hearings, add comments and ask questions on environmental justice and the toxic release inventory, and I understand scheduling and committee rooms and all that stuff, but I don't think we do justice to both these issues by clomping them and putting them together. Having said that, here we are, and we will continue to move forward. We, but we owe it to our constituents and all Americans to be thorough, balanced, and thoughtful. First of all, on the H.R. 1055, the Toxic Right-to-Know Act, amends one sub-section of one section of the environmental law. It will have impact on thousands of small businesses across this country, many in my district, and several, I suspect, in every member of Congress's district. For example, today on the second panel we will hear testimony from Andy Bopp, who will be representing Baltimore Glass Decorators. Here is one of the products Baltimore Glass decorates, and I think there is some in their gift shop, too. This business does not have the financial or the manpower resources to comply with unnecessary regulations, and as you follow their testimony, we will see how stringent and just bureaucratic they are. I worry that small business benefits and employees rise or fall depending upon the layers of regulations they are subjected to, and it is our duty to insure that our Nation's small businesses are not being crippled for little to no public benefits. Highlighting this is the troublesome word of ``release.'' As part of this program it is extremely misleading and harmful, and I have got Webster's Dictionary to--and what happened in the passage of this law, we redefined the word, ``release,'' to not mean release. And I, the one thing I will do when we bring this bill to the floor is try to clarify what this bill actually does. And I would just refer, I don't have time to read the Webster's Dictionary, but most people when they hear, release, will think of stuff like emit or discharge. Well, according to TRI, release could mean manage, use, or recycle. A lot different than emitting or discharging. So that is problematic in the legislation just to begin with. Does filling out more paperwork improve the health of our constituents? I don't believe it does, but I am interested to learn more today about this proposal. I would also like to highlight the testimony of the first responder on the second panel, who a fire marshal, Mr. Finkelstein. Sir, first of all, I would like to thank you for your service, and many of us work with our local firefighters through the Fire Act Grant, but in his testimony I think there is going to be an attempt to connect TRI with emergency planning and responding, but since this data is 18 months old, any first responder who is using 18-month-old data to enter a facility has bigger concerns than just TRI. Because they use other sections, especially sections 311 and 312, for more appropriate use in managing emergency information and data as far as entry into facilities. The other bill on environmental justice, I think we just have a long way to go to understand, and the Clinton order says let us address this, and the real question is is the EPA moving in a way in which, that is part of the hearing process today, we will take the comments and hopefully be able to work with you as we are having good success in the elemental mercury debates. I hope that we can move both these pieces of legislation with like effort so that when we get to the floor, that we have got the big kumbayah movement, and we can move quicker rather than slower. And with that I yield back my time. Mr. Wynn. I thank the gentleman. I am also in favor of kumbayah. At this time I would like to recognize the vice chair of the committee, Representative Hilda Solis, who is also the sponsor of H.R. 1103, the Environmental Justice Act, and I would like to compliment her for her leadership on this issue over the years. Ms. Solis, the floor is yours. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HILDA L. SOLIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Ms. Solis. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the ranking member also. Believe it or not, this is a very historical moment. In the last several years that I have been serving on this committee, I can't recall ever having a hearing on this particular subject. So I applaud our chairman and thank goodness for the changes that occurred this last fall because otherwise we wouldn't be sitting here today. And I really want to thank the members that worked with us very closely on this and really salute our chairman for the work that he has done. This isn't just an idea that was hatched yesterday. We have been talking about environmental justice issues for many, many years, only we never had the ability to have a formal hearing on it. Today is that day. So I really want to say how pleased and thankful many, many communities, communities of color, that are disadvantaged, that are looking for our leadership here in the House of Representatives. And I have worked tirelessly throughout my career before I came here to the Congress, passing and codifying the Executive order that Clinton had introduced in 1994, back then, to talk about environmental justice. And I guess today what we are going to try to find out is how well the administration has been doing in implementing that Executive order and then focus on this piece of legislation, which I really believe will provide a better path to where we need to go to understand how we implement this Executive order that we hope to one day soon see codified. And this is the first beginning for that. And I want to just cite that there are many, many advocates that are supporting us on this mission today, and according to a recent report released by the United Church of Christ titled, ``Toxic Waste and Race at Twenty,'' people of color make up the majority of those living in neighborhoods within 2 miles of the Nation's commercial hazardous waste facilities. These communities have been under attack under the policies of the present administration, and since 2004, the administration has requested at least a 25 percent cut in the environmental justice budget. And in early 2005, the EPA released a draft strategic plan on environmental justice, which had disregarded race, of all things, race, as a consideration for determining environmental justice, in direct contradiction to the Executive order. Despite reaffirming its commitment to environmental justice in November 2005, in this memo, the administration finalized weakening changes to the toxic release inventory program in December 2006. A proposed rule on locomotive emissions released this April failed to mention environmental justice even one time, despite the promises to include environmental justice considerations in proposed and final rules. In 2004 the IG reported that EPA had not consistently implemented the Executive order, and in 2006 reported that the EPA did not know the impact, the impact of these policies and what they were having on environmental justice communities. In 2005, the GAO found that EPA failed to consider the impact of its air regulations on communities of color and underrepresented areas. And, during budget hearings in March, Acting Inspector General Roderick testified that the EPA had yet to establish a plan of action for implementation of recommendations on environmental justice. Absent a real commitment to environmental justice, the health and well being of our communities will continue to suffer. H.R. 1103 and H.R. 1055 will do better for the health of all of our communities, regardless of where you live. H.R. 1103 will significantly, in my opinion, advance environmental protections in communities of color and low-income communities by requiring the implementation of the Executive order and the implementations of recommendations that go along with that in the IG and the GAO report. More than 50 organizations and Congress are on record in support of that Executive order, and it is time that we give real protections to our communities by codifying this legislation. We must reinforce the community right to know by reinstating the Toxic Release Inventory Program, a successful program for more than 21 years. And I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. Wynn. I thank the gentlelady, and again, compliment and commend her for her passion and her leadership on this issue. I think she is right, we wouldn't be here without her efforts, and I am very pleased that we are here today. At this time I would be happy to recognize Mr. Barrow, the distinguished gentlemen from Georgia. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARROW, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA Mr. Barrow. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I, too, want to commend my colleague and my hero, Ms. Solis, for her authorship of the Environmental Justice Act for 2007, my friend and colleague, Mr. Pallone. He is not my hero yet, but he is working on it. I appreciate your authorship of the Toxic Right- to-Know Act. Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling this hearing. There is more than one way to repeal a law. There is more than one way to repeal an Executive order. There is the up and up way, out front and in the open where everybody can see it, and there is another way, by neglect. You can repeal a lot of things by neglect. I feel like there has been some neglect of Congress's responsibility in overseeing the implementation of the Executive order in question. There has been some neglect on the part of the executive branch of the Government in implementing the order, and this hearing is an opportunity for us to shine a light on that and try and get things going back in the right direction. I know a little something about this. Back in Augusta, GA, we have a community that is living smack dab on top of a brownfield. Hyde Park in Augusta is an area that is on the industrial edge of town, and there are people who are deeply tied to the land. They got their lifetime's investment in the homes in that area, and they don't know whether to stay, they don't know whether to leave, we haven't got the money to buy them out, a lot of folks don't want to be bought out. They are attached to the community and the sense of community they have and yet they are stuck with all of these issues. And I sort of feel like it is important for us to kind of add another element to this, try to build some support, but getting going on this, you realize this isn't just some vast environment conspiracy against poor folks. You know, economic development in general fuels environmental injustice. There is a penalty to pay for going first in economic development. In my part of the country, in Augusta, for example, it was an industrial crossroads. It was a commercial town. The railroad came. After the railroad, at the point where the river crosses the fall line, and there is a lot of business to be done, and a lot of folks did business in the old days without much regard to the environmental consequences. And as a result that area is pretty fouled up, and the economic development just naturally moves onto the next area. It moves onto the greenfield just beyond. And it leaves these brownfields back to fester and to swelter and indecision and indifference. The point I want to emphasize is not only is that wrong, not only is it unjust, it is expensive. It is wasteful. There are reasons that some places develop first. There are reasons why economic and transportation infrastructure grows there, and it is there. It is incredibly wasteful for us to leave areas basically undevelopable or unusable and to move onto the next greenfield. It is expensive, because it adds to the transportation costs for all concerned, it leaves these pockets of economic stagnation behind. All that adds to the cost of doing business for everybody. And so one thing I want to try and add to the mix as we talk about the injustice of this, is the stupidity of it. It is like the French diplomat said, it is worse than a sin. It is a mistake. And what I think we ought to recognize is cleaning up the mess that has been made and stopping the messing from going on any further is not only the right thing to do, it is the smart thing to do. And I hope we can focus on that and build support for this, because we got huge economic development potential right in these brownfield backyards of ours. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you again for your leadership on this issue, and I yield back. Mr. Wynn. I thank the gentleman from Georgia. At this time I would recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Murphy. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TIM MURPHY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Mr. Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was on the floor giving a speech, and I appreciate your indulgence in allowing me to be a few minutes late. The issue of environmental justice brings to light a community in my district, Jeannette, PA, once home to a thriving glass industry, where some years ago someone bought that plant, and it remains a rusted heap that is surrounded by an area that is becoming less and less desirable for people to live there. Low-income families face in their backyards an area that is soon to be high in a number of pollutants in this brownfield, and nothing is done about it. It is a place that I think breeds less economic development and poverty rather than being an economic engine for that embattled community. That is why legislation that looks at environmental justice is so important. We have to recognize a responsibility over time for those who are involved with development and manufacturing to make sure we are doing all we can to keep that environment clean, create jobs, and make sure that we understand the long-term legacy of responsibility to the communities that those are in. Today we are also going to be dealing with some issues involving the burden of paperwork, and I know that we are going to have people of divergent opinions on that, but it is important for the future of all business, small and large, that EPA is working with employers to making sure that we find ways that work towards keeping our communities and our air and our soil and our water clean but also working towards those, working with those industries so that we find ways of making sure we achieve that. The issue is to keep the air, the water, the land clean and not just to create more rules and not just to create mounds of paperwork and polluting our desks with paperwork. Let us find ways of solving these problems so we can really work towards the protection of our environment and our communities and work towards other jobs. And I yield back my time, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Wynn. I thank the gentleman. At this time it gives me great pleasure to recognize a gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Pallone, who is a leader on these issues and is the author of H.R. 1055, Toxic Right-to-Know Protection Act. Mr. Pallone. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I am trying to be good this morning but with the other side but I just want to commend you because the fact of the matter is that we couldn't have even had a hearing on these issues in the previous Congress, and I am not just saying that to be bad, because I often requested this and other hearings when I was the ranking member, and we weren't able to get them. In fact, it was very difficult, even impossible to get somebody from the EPA to come in and be questioned at all because for whatever reason the previous majority just didn't want them to be questioned. And I will leave it at that, but I do want to mention that, because I think it is important that under your leadership we are able to do this today. I wanted to focus on the Toxic Release Inventory issue and its relationship to environmental justice. Toxic Release Inventory or TRI was actually authored by my Senator, Frank Lautenberg, of New Jersey, and passed into law in 1986, as part of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act or EPCRA. After a tragic disaster at a Union Carbide facility in Bhopal, India, that killed thousands of people, Congress passed it to ensure that communities know how much the most dangerous industrial chemicals are being released into the air, water, and the ground, and for a decade it worked. However, in December 2006, the EPA announced final rules that loosen reporting requirements for the TRI. With these rules, the Bush administration has undermined this critical program in two ways. First, it eliminates detailed reports for more than 5,000 facilities that release up to 2,000 pounds of chemicals every year. And second, it eliminates detailed reports from nearly 2,000 facilities that manage up to 500 pounds of chemicals known to pose some of the worst threats to human health, including lead and mercury. Now, this new rule adversely affects communities around the Nation. Without accurate and detailed TRI data, communities have less power to hold companies accountable and make informed decisions about how toxic chemicals are to be managed. As the GAO said in a recent report, and I quote, ``EPA's recent changes to the toxic release inventory significantly reduce the amount of information available to the public about toxic chemicals in their communities.'' The changes mean that over 3,500 facilities nationwide, including more than 100 in my State, will not have to submit detailed information about their chemical use. In 75 counties around the country communities will no longer have access to detailed information about the status of toxic chemicals in their backyards. The bottom line, Mr. Chairman, is that EPA's TRI Burden Reduction Rule makes less information available that was previously available to the public. Now, this is all about right to know, which to me is so important. Communities have a right to know what kinds of chemicals are being released in their backyards. This information was also useful to workers who could be affected on the jobsite and first responders who need to plan for incidents at specific high-risk facilities. It is also an environmental justice issue. According to the GAO report many of the facilities that will no longer be reporting detailed toxic and chemical release info, are located in low-income and high-minority areas, and with that in mind I look forward to hearing from EPA today on how much analysis went into the agency's conclusion that the new rule would not, and I quote, ``disproportionately impact minority or low-income communities.'' I believe that today's testimony by GAO strongly rejects such a notion. And in response to this ill-advised and potentially harmful rule and process in which it was finalized, myself and Congresswoman Solis, because I know she is a co- sponsor, and she has had a lot to do with this, we introduced together the Toxic Right-to-Know Protection Act, and that Act codifies the stronger reporting requirements that were in place before the Bush administration weakened them late last year by codifying these requirements. Neither the current administration nor future administrations, because I don't trust anybody in the future either, could again change the guidelines without the approval of Congress. And I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about this issue. But thank you, again, Mr. Chairman, for even having this hearing. I do appreciate it. Mr. Wynn. Thank you, Mr. Pallone, and you were not being bad. I do want to, again, compliment you for your leadership on this particular issue. It is a critical and important thing. You have done a great job over the years. At this time I would recognize the gentleman, Mr. Terry, for an opening statement. Mr. Terry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wish to waive to reserve enough time for questions. Mr. Wynn. All right. Thank you. At this time I would like to recognize Ms. Baldwin. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TAMMY BALDWIN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN Ms. Baldwin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am very pleased that the committee is holding this hearing today on two very important measures, and I want to begin by commenting on H.R. 1055 and say that I am encouraged that today we will be examining the EPA's decision to weaken the community right-to- know rules. Congress, as we have just heard discussed, created the Toxic Release Inventory Program under the premise that communities should know what toxic chemicals are being dumped in their backyards. Over the years the program has also been effective in protecting public health and urging businesses to voluntarily reduce chemical releases, as no business wants to be on the top of an EPA polluter list. Given the successful nature of the program, it is really difficult for me to comprehend EPA's justification for altering the TRI rules. Yet, in changes that the EPA argues were necessary to ease paperwork, the agency has weakened reporting requirements. The result is a quadrupling of the amount of toxic pollutants that companies can release before they have to tell the public. In my home State of Wisconsin EPA's rule allows 113 facilities to no longer have to notify my constituents of their harmful releases. Clearly, at stake is our public health, but EPA's rule also jeopardizes our communities' access to critical information used by emergency responders, academics, public interest groups, State agencies, and labor groups among others. Emergency responders, for instance, use this data to protect the public against chemical spills or situations where toxic waste is released into the water supply. Similarly, public interest groups use the data to push for environmental policy changes, and labor groups use the data to evaluate hazards to workers. TRI data is so important that the EPA should be evaluating ways to refine the data and make it available faster, rather than coming up with ways to stifle the information and protect the polluters. At least 305 community, environmental, faith- based, investor, labor, public health, and science organizations have called upon Congress to restore toxic chemical reporting. And I am hopeful that today's hearing will highlight the importance of a strong TRI and demonstrate the need for passage of Congressman Pallone's Toxic Right-to-Know Protection Act so that the EPA can return to an agency that protects the public interest rather than the polluting businesses. I also want to commend Congresswoman Solis's efforts to bring environmental justice to those in minority and low-income populations who disproportionately bear the burden of our Nation's pollution. These pollutions face higher rates of low birth weight, greater risk of asthma, and increased occurrences of infant mortality. The good news is that together focused attention, increased research, and public access to information can all help improve the environment and human health conditions facing minority and low-income communities. In the end environmental justice is not just about cleaning up toxins, but rather it is about insuring a healthy and bright future for generations to come. So thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this very important and historic hearing, and I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. Wynn. Thank you very much, Ms. Baldwin. I appreciate your comments and your insightful remarks. At this time the Chair would recognize Mr. Pitts from Pennsylvania. Mr. Pitts. I will waive. Mr. Wynn. The gentleman has waived. Are there any further opening statements? If not, at this time the Chair would like to acknowledge a distinguished visitor from Maryland who has joined us for today's hearing. He is Division Chief Michael Love of the Montgomery County Fire and Rescue Service. Chief Love, we are delighted to have you here. In addition to service on Montgomery County's Fire and Rescue Service, Chief Love is also a member of the Local Emergency Planning Commission, which is the local government organization that receives TRI data and uses it in planning for chemical spills, accidents, and other emergencies. Thank you again for being with us. That concludes all opening statements. Other statements for the record will be accepted at this time. [The prepared statement of Mr. Green follows:] Prepared Statement of Hon. Gene Green, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing on the Environmental Justice Act of 2007 and the Toxic Right to Know Act. My district includes part of Houston, the fourth largest city in the United States, and over 65 percent of the population is Hispanic. The 29th district also includes the Port of Houston and is the home of many petrochemical companies. Both of this bills that we are discussing today are of importance to the 29th district. Houston has its fair share of environmental problems. We have higher than average levels of air toxics, which may be related to adverse health effects in the population. We also have our fair share of environmental waste sites. On September 29, an abandoned waste site on the San Jacinto River that is leaking toxic levels of dioxin into Galveston Bay was placed on the National Priority List short list. I have worked in conjunction with the EPA, the State of Texas, and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality to have the site placed on the National Priority List. I am hopeful that we will be able to work together and begin cleaning up this site soon. I support the industry in my district. They employ many of my constituents. However, letting communities know what chemicals are being released and disposed of in their backyard is a responsibility these companies must uphold. The current Toxic Release Inventory Program reporting requirements, in an effort to reduce paperwork, have the potential to endanger communities such as my own. Companies that work with chemicals should be required to report in detail their use and disposal of these chemicals. Also, the EPA has a responsibility to practice environmental justice. Just because my constituents live close to where they work does not mean they should suffer from health effects. Communities that are heavily minority populated and lower income areas should not be subjected pollution just because of their race and economics. I support both of these bills and I urge my colleagues to do the same. Thank you Mr. Chairman. ---------- Mr. Wynn. We are going to move into the testimony of our witnesses. I think we have an excellent panel. The first panel is a governmental panel, and I would like to introduce them at this time. First we have Mr. Granta Nakayama, Assistant Administrator, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. We also have Mr. Wade Najjum, Assistant Inspector General for Program Evaluation, Office of Inspector General, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. We have with us also Ms. Molly O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, Office of Environmental Information, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. And also we have with us Mr. Thomas, the Honorable Thomas Sullivan, Chief Counsel for Advocacy, Office of Advocacy, U.S. Small Business Administration. And Mr. John B. Stephenson, Director, Natural Resources and Environment, Government Accountability Office. Thank you all for coming. We are going to now have 5 minutes opening statements from the panel, and your prepared testimony in full will be, which you submitted in advance, will be made a part of the hearing record. Mr. Nakayama. STATEMENT OF GRANTA Y. NAKAYAMA, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, WASHINGTON, DC Mr. Nakayama. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Wynn, Ranking Member Shimkus and Vice-Chair Solis, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. I am Granta Nakayama, Assistant Administrator for the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance at the United States Environmental Protection Agency. My office is responsible for enforcing the Nation's environmental laws, as well as serving as EPA's National Program Manager for environmental justice. Thank you for inviting me to the hearing today on environmental justice legislation including the pending bills, H.R. 1055 and H.R. 1103, the Environmental Justice Act of 1007. I am pleased to discuss the environmental justice accomplishments of the agency, what we have learned from our efforts, and how we will continue to pursue the cause of environmental justice. Insuring environmental justice means not only protecting human health and the environment for everyone but also insuring that all people are treated fairly and given the opportunity to participate meaningfully in the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. EPA has learned that addressing environmental justice issues is everyone's shared responsibility. We also recognize that environmental justice issues are complex and multi- faceted. While no single tool or approach along may provide the solution, EPA continues to believe that using the range of our existing statutory, regulatory, and enforcement tools for protecting the environment and public health is a sound approach. These tools coupled with building the capacity of communities and other stakeholders to participate meaningfully in the environmental decisions that affect them is an effective way to protect the health and environment of all our Nation's people and communities. EPA is committed to comprehensively integrating environmental justice considerations into its programs, policies, and activities. EPA is the lead for implementing Executive order 12898, Federal actions to address environmental justice in minority populations and low-income populations. This Executive order directs Federal agencies to make achieving environmental justice part of its mission. EPA works to comply with this Executive order and has taken significant and meaningful steps to integrate environmental justice into its mission. In 2005, Administrator Johnson reaffirmed EPA's commitment to EJ. The Administrator also identified national EJ priorities such as reducing asthma and elevated blood lead levels. For 2008, the agency's national program guidance and strategic plans are being examined to identify activities, initiatives, and strategies for integrating environmental justice into planning and budgeting documents. EPA's Inspector General recently identified the need for EJ program reviews. The agency agreed, and we will begin conducting those reviews in March 2008. The EPA renewed the charter of the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council for 2 years so that EPA will continue to receive valuable advice and recommendations from its stakeholders. Since 1993, EPA has awarded more than $31 million in grants to more than 1,100 community organizations and others to take an active role in our Nation's environmental stewardship. These environmental justice grants promote community empowerment and capacity building essential to maximize meaningful participation in the regulatory process. Just yesterday EPA announced it has awarded $1 million in environmental justice small grants this year to 20 community- based organizations to raise awareness and build their capacity to solve local environmental and public health issues. EPA is making significant headway on the road to environmental justice. In moving forward we will complete the Environmental Justice Program reviews so that we can appropriately evaluate the effectiveness of EPA's actions for environmental justice. We will also finalize the Environmental Justice Strategic Enforcement Assessment Tool, or EJ SEAT, to enhance the EPA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance's ability to consistently identify potential environmental justice areas of concern and assist in making effective enforcement and compliance assurance resource deployment decisions. We will evaluate the tool, its strengths, and limitations. In conclusion, I believe we are on the right track and have the statutory authorities and needed flexibilities to identify problems and tailor solutions that result in improvements in health and environmental quality for all. I look forward to working with Congress to insure the continued progress towards this goal. I want to personally thank you, Chairman Wynn, for allowing me to appear before you on behalf of the EPA. Thank you for holding this hearing on this very important topic, environmental justice, and I would be happy to take any questions. [The prepared statement of Mr. Nakayama follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.005 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.006 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.007 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.008 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.009 Mr. Wynn. Thank you very much, Mr. Nakayama. Let us see. Mr. Najjum, I believe you are next. WADE NAJJUM, ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL, PROGRAM EVALUATION, OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Mr. Najjum. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. I am Wade Najjum, Assistant Inspector General for Program Evaluation with the EPA Office of Inspector General. I am pleased to be here today to discuss the OIG's work on how EPA has incorporated environmental justice within its programs and activities. Over the past 5 years, the OIG has been examining EPA's environmental justice activities as part of our strategic plan to review how EPA fulfills its responsibilities. We have issued two reports specifically dealing with EPA implementation of environmental justice reviews. In 2006, we completed our most recent evaluation of whether EPA program and regional offices had performed environmental justice reviews of their programs, policies, and activities. We sought to determine: if there had been clear direction from EPA's senior management to perform environmental justice reviews; if EPA had performed these reviews; and if EPA had adequate guidance to conduct these reviews or if there was a need for additional guidance or protocols. We concluded that EPA program and regional offices have not routinely performed environmental justice reviews. Therefore, EPA could not determine whether its programs have a disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effect on minority and low-income populations. We were given multiple reasons why the reviews were not performed, including: the absence of a specific directive from EPA management to conduct such reviews; a belief by some program offices that they are not subject to the order since their programs do not lend themselves to reviewing impacts on minority and low-income populations; and uncertainty about how to perform the reviews. We made four recommendations to EPA to address these issues: require program and regional offices to determine where environmental justice reviews are needed and establish a plan to complete them; ensure that these reviews include a determination if there is a disproportionate impact on minority and low-income populations; develop specific review guidance; and designate a responsible office to compile the results of these reviews and make recommendations to EPA senior leadership. EPA agreed with our recommendations and established milestones for completing those actions. In our 2004 review, we reported on how EPA was integrating environmental justice into its operations. Specifically, we sought to determine: how EPA had implemented the order and integrated its concepts into regional and program offices; and how were environmental justice areas defined at the regional levels and what was the impact. We concluded that EPA had not fully implemented the order and was not consistently integrating environmental justice into its day-to-day operations at that time. EPA had not identified minority and low-income communities, or defined the term ``disproportionately impacted.'' In the absence of environmental justice definitions, criteria, or standards from EPA, many regional and program offices individually took steps to implement environmental justice policies. The result was inconsistency in environmental justice actions across EPA regions and programs. Thus, how environmental justice action was implemented was dependent, in part, on where you lived. We made 12 recommendations to EPA to address the issues we raised. EPA disagreed with 11 of our 12 recommendations. EPA did agree to perform a study of program and regional office's funding and staffing for environmental justice to ensure that adequate resources were available to fully implement its environmental justice plans. EPA completed that study in May 2004. In the interest of objectivity I should also say that since the issuance of our reports, EPA has taken some positive steps to address environmental justice issues. However, we think EPA recognizes that more work needs to be done, particularly in its efforts to integrate environmental justice into its decision making, planning, and budgeting processes. Also, EPA still needs broader guidance on environmental justice program and policy reviews, which EPA acknowledges is not in place. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have. [The prepared statement of Mr. Najjum follows:] Statement of Wade T. Najjum Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. I am Wade Najjum, Assistant Inspector General for Program Evaluation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Inspector General (OIG). I am pleased to be here today to discuss the OIG's work on how EPA has incorporated environmental justice within its programs and activities. EPA has made some progress in these areas over the past five years. However, our reports show that more could be done. Environmental Justice at EPA EPA defines environmental justice as the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. Fair treatment means that no group of people should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, governmental, and commercial operations or policies. Meaningful involvement means that: 1) people have an opportunity to participate in decisions about activities that may affect their environment and/or health; 2) the public's contribution can influence the regulatory agency's decision; 3) their concerns will be considered in the decision making process; and 4) the decision makers seek out and facilitate the involvement of those potentially affected. In February 1994, the President signed Executive Order 12898 (Order) focusing Federal attention on the environmental and human health conditions of minority and low-income populations with the goal of achieving environmental protection for all communities. This Order directed Federal agencies to develop environmental justice strategies to help them address disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs on minority and low- income populations. The Order is also intended to promote nondiscrimination in Federal programs that affect human health and the environment. It aims to provide minority and low-income communities' access to public information and public participation in matters relating to human health and the environment. The Order established an Interagency Working Group on environmental justice chaired by the EPA Administrator and comprised of the heads of 11 departments or agencies and several White House offices. At EPA, the Office of Environmental Justice (OEJ) within the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) coordinates EPA's efforts to integrate environmental justice into all policies, programs, and activities. Within each regional office there is at least one environmental justice coordinator who serves as the focal point within their organizations and as the liaison to OEJ. Among the coordinator's duties are to provide policy advice and to develop and implement programs within their regions. There is no specific environmental justice statute to fund environmental justice activities at EPA. Consequently, OEJ performs activities using a general Environmental Program Management appropriation budget line item. OIG Environmental Justice Work For the past 5 years, the OIG has been examining EPA's environmental justice activities as part of our broader strategic plan to review how EPA fulfills its responsibilities to address environmental threats and their impact on ecosystems, communities, and susceptible populations. We have issued two reports focusing on EPA's implementation of Executive Order 12898 requirements. Evaluation of EPA's Implementation of Executive Order In a 2004 review, we reported on how EPA was integrating environmental justice into its operations. Specifically, we sought to answer the following questions: 1) how had EPA implemented the Order and integrated its concepts into its regional and program offices; and 2) how were environmental justice areas defined at the regional levels and what was the impact. We concluded that EPA had not fully implemented the Order and was not consistently integrating environmental justice into its day-to-day operations at that time. EPA had not identified minority and low-income communities, or defined the term ``disproportionately impacted.' Moreover, in 2001, EPA restated its commitment to environmental justice in a manner that did not emphasize minority and low-income populations which we believed was the intent of the Order. In the absence of environmental justice definitions, criteria, or standards from EPA, many regional and program offices individually took steps to implement environmental justice policies. The result was inconsistency in determining environmental justice communities across EPA regions and programs. For example, between the regions there was a wide array of approaches for identifying environmental justice communities. Thus, the implementation of environmental justice actions was dependent, in part, on where you lived. We made 12 recommendations to EPA to address the issues we raised, which are listed in Attachment A. Four key recommendations were: 1) reaffirm the Executive Order as a priority; 2) establish specific timeframes for developing definitions, goals, and measurements; 3) develop a comprehensive strategic plan; and 4) determine if adequate resources are being applied to implement environmental justice. EPA disagreed with 11 of the 12 recommendations. EPA did agree to perform a comprehensive study of program and regional offices' funding and staffing for environmental justice to ensure that adequate resources are available to fully implement its environmental justice plans. In May 2004, EPA issued its report entitled ``Environmental Justice Program Comprehensive Management Study'' conducted by Tetra Tech EM Inc. Evaluation of EPA Environmental Justice Reviews In 2006, we completed our evaluation of whether EPA program and regional offices have performed environmental justice reviews of their programs, policies, and activities as required by the Order. We specifically sought to determine if: 1) there had been clear direction from EPA senior management to perform environmental justice reviews of EPA programs, policies, and activities; 2) EPA had performed environmental justice reviews; and 3) EPA had adequate guidance to conduct these reviews or if there was a need for additional directions or protocols. To determine the direction, frequency, and guidance for environmental justice reviews, we met with OECA, OEJ, and Office of Air and Radiation representatives. We then conducted an EPA-wide survey of each of the Deputy Assistant Administrators in EPA's 13 program offices and each of the 10 Deputy Regional Administrators on their experience conducting environmental justice reviews of their programs, policies, and activities. We also asked them to describe their satisfaction with available guidance and instructions for conducting these reviews, and whether they needed additional directions or protocols. We did not design our survey to draw inferences or project results. Rather we sought to obtain descriptive information on implementing environmental justice at EPA. Our survey results showed that EPA program and regional offices have not routinely performed environmental justice reviews. Reasons for not performing these reviews included the absence of a specific directive from EPA management to conduct such reviews; a belief by some program offices that they are not subject to the Order since their programs do not lend themselves to reviewing impacts on minority and low-income populations; and confusion regarding how to perform the reviews. In addition, we found that program and regional offices lacked clear guidance to follow when conducting environmental justice reviews. Survey respondents stated that protocols, a framework, or additional directions would be useful for conducting environmental justice reviews. We concluded that EPA cannot determine whether its programs have a disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effect on minority and low-income populations without performing these types of reviews. We made four recommendations to EPA to address these issues. We recommended that EPA: 1) require program and regional offices to determine where environmental justice reviews are needed and establish a plan to complete them; 2) ensure that environmental justice reviews determine whether EPA programs, policies, and activities may have a disproportionately high and adverse health or environmental impact on minority and low-income populations; 3) develop specific environmental justice review guidance that includes protocols, a framework, or directions; and 4) designate a responsible office to compile the results of environmental justice reviews and make recommendations to EPA senior leadership. EPA agreed with our recommendations and established milestones for completing those actions. For example, in response to our third recommendation EPA convened an Agency- wide Environmental Justice workgroup in April 2007 to begin developing protocols to provide guidance for conducting reviews. Implementation of the protocols developed is scheduled for March 2008. Noteworthy EPA Achievements In the interest of objectivity I also should say that since the issuance of our reports, EPA has taken some steps to address environmental justice issues. In 2005, Administrator Stephen Johnson reaffirmed EPA's commitment to environmental justice by directing staff to establish measurable commitments that address environmental priorities such as: reducing asthma attacks, air toxics, and blood lead levels; ensuring that companies meet environmental laws; ensuring that fish and shellfish are safe to eat; and ensuring that water is safe to drink. EPA is also including language in the fiscal year 2008 National Program Guidance that each headquarters program office should use its environmental justice action plan and EPA's strategic plan to identify activities, initiatives, or strategies that address the integration of environmental justice. Finally, EPA is modifying its emergency management procedures in the wake of Hurricane Katrina to incorporate an environmental justice function and staffing support in the EPA's Incident Command Structure so that environmental justice issues are addressed in a timely manner. These are all positive steps but EPA recognizes that more work needs to be done, particularly in its efforts to making environmental justice part of its mission by integrating environmental justice into its decision making, planning, and budgeting processes. EPA needs to be able to determine if their programs, policies, and actions have a disproportionate health or environmental impact on minority or low-income populations. EPA also still needs broad guidance on environmental justice program and policy reviews, which EPA acknowledges is not in place. One of EPA's goals is to provide an environment where all people enjoy the same degree of protection from environmental and health hazards and equal access to the decision-making process to maintain a healthy environment in which to live and work. Our work has shown that EPA still needs to do more to integrate environmental justice into its programs and activities so that it may achieve this goal. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have. Attachment A Recommendations from 2004 OIG Report ``EPA Needs to Consistently Implement the Intent of the Executive Order on Environmental Justice'' 1) Issue a memorandum that reaffirms that Executive Order 12898 is the Agency's priority and that minority and low-income populations that are disproportionately impacted will receive the intended actions of this Executive Order. 2) Clearly define the mission of the Office of Environmental Justice and provide Agency staff with an understanding of the roles and responsibilities of the office. 3) Establish specific time frames for the development of definitions, goals and measurements that will ensure that the 1994 Executive Order is complied with in the most expeditious manner. 4) Develop and articulate a clear vision on the Agency's approach to environmental justice. The vision should focus on environmental justice integration and provide objectives that are clear, precise, and focused on environmental results. 5) Develop a comprehensive strategic plan for environmental justice. The plan should include a comprehensive mission statement that discusses, among other things, the Agency's major functions and operations, a set of outcome-related goals and objectives, and a description of how the Agency intends to achieve and monitor the goals and objectives. 6) Provide the regions and program offices a standard and consistent definition for a minority and low-income community, with instructions on how the Agency will implement and operationalize environmental justice into the Agency's daily activities. This could be done through issuing guidance or a policy statement from the Administrator. 7) Ensure that the comprehensive training program currently under development includes standard and consistent definitions of the key environmental justice concepts (i.e., low-income, minority, disproportionately impacted) and instructions for implementation. 8) Perform a comprehensive study of program and regional offices' funding and staffing for environmental justice to ensure that adequate resources are available to fully implement the Agency's environmental justice plan. 9) Develop a systematic approach to gathering accurate and complete information relating to environmental justice that is usable for assessing whether progress is being made by the program and regional offices. 10) Develop a standard strategy that limits variations relating to Geographical Information System (GIS) applications, including use of census information, determination of minority status, income threshold, and all other criteria necessary to provide regions with information for environmental justice decisions. 11) Require that the selected strategy for determining an environmental justice community is consistent for all EPA program and regional offices. 12) Develop a clear and comprehensive policy on actions that will benefit and protect identified minority and low- income communities and strive to include in States' Performance Partnership Agreements and Performance Partnership Grants. ---------- Mr. Wynn. Thank you very much for your testimony. Ms. O'Neill. STATEMENT OF MOLLY A. O'NEILL ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, WASHINGTON, DC Ms. O'Neill. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today about the progress EPA is making in providing important information to communities across the Nation regarding our work to publish the annual toxic release inventory or TRI. This testimony reflects my dual roles as the Chief Information Officer at the U.S. EPA and as the Assistant Administrator of Environmental Information where the toxic release inventory is one of the programs that I oversee. Let me begin by saying I believe environmental information is a strategic asset as we work to protect human health and the environment. I believe this is important because environmental information underlies all decisions made by EPA and our partners to achieve our goals. As you know, EPA's TRI Program provides information on releases and waste management activities for nearly 650 chemicals reported from industry. Environmental information has many uses, and one of the most effective is to encourage facilities to reduce emissions or releases. The December 2006 final TRI rule expanding eligibility for use of short-form reporting provided important incentives for pollution prevention. The rule would allow companies to use a shorter, simpler reporting form known as Form A to provide required information so long as they eliminate or minimize releases to the environment. No facilities were excused from reporting under the TRI rule, and no chemicals were removed from the required reporting list. The only change in requirements is that facilities are permitted to use the short form if they maintain releases and total waste is below limits established in the rule. The rule is an important part of EPA's strategy to minimize releases of toxic chemicals across the United States. It rewards facilities that completely eliminate releases of the worst environmental substances persistent by accumulative and toxic chemicals to PBTs. By allowing them to use a shorter reporting form, provided they do not exceed 500 pounds of recycling energy recovery and treatment for that chemical, EPA believes these stringent requirements for short-form reporting are appropriate for PBT chemicals because of the greater potential for environmental harm. For other toxics the rule allows for short-form reporting for those facilities that reduce or maintain releases below 2,000 pounds, provided their total waste management does not exceed 5,000 pounds. EPA believes that providing incentives to encourage pollution prevention and better waste management practices is good for the environment, good for facilities, and good for people who live around them. These limits encourage pollution prevention and should be given an opportunity to work. EPA does not support H.R. 1055, because it would eliminate the valuable incentives provided in the December 2006, rule before we have even had a chance to determine their effectiveness and could also have adverse resource implications to the TRI Program. We would not expect the effects of the December 2006, new incentives to be reflected in the reports for calendar year 2006, that we are not processing. Beginning with reports for 2007, which would be due July 1, 2008, EPA will begin to evaluate the effectiveness of these incentives in reducing releases and promoting pollution prevention. EPA does continue to demonstrate our commitment to public access to environmental information. This year we expanded TRI reporting of dioxin and dioxin-like chemicals, compounds, increasing public access to how facilities use, manage, and release the most toxic chemical group. In addition, EPA converted the entire TRI reporting system over to the modern industry standard classification practice to enhance information sharing and comparability across sectors. We continue to take steps to improve TRI to enhance its utility for local communities. We continue to get it out earlier and earlier to the public. In addition to TRI, my role as EPA's Chief Information Officer, I also want you to know that we are working on new and innovative tools and applications to deliver a new suite and a more comprehensive suite of environmental data to local communities, including the use of geo-special tools, which will provide easy access to detailed local information. Ultimately these efforts and other projects underway will provide a useful set of environmental information about local environments. On behalf of Administrator Johnson, thank you for inviting me to come here to speak today and to tell you our progress that EPA is making on providing important information to communities across the Nation, including TRI. And in particular I want to thank you for inviting me personally to describe my views and our views at EPA on H.R. 1055, the Toxic Right-to-Know Protection Act. I would be happy to address any questions. [The prepared statement of Ms. O'Neill follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.010 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.011 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.012 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.013 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.014 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.015 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.016 Mr. Wynn. Thank you very much, Ms. O'Neill. Mr. Sullivan. STATEMENT OF THOMAS M. SULLIVAN, CHIEF COUNSEL, ADVOCACY, OFFICE OF ADVOCACY, U.S. SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION, WASHINGTON, DC Mr. Sullivan. Chairman Wynn, Congressman Shimkus, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for giving me the opportunity to appear this morning. I am the Chief Counsel for Advocacy at the U.S. Small Business Administration. My office is an independent one within the SBA, and therefore, the comments expressed in my statement do not necessarily reflect the position of the administration or the SBA. Due to my office's independence, my statement was not submitted to OMB for approval. Small businesses have been asking for TRI paperwork burden relief since 1990. This hearing is actually the fifth hearing held by House committees on TRI reform in five consecutive Congresses. Five years after TRI was created, my office petitioned EPA to develop streamlined reporting for small volume chemical users. In 1994, EPA responded to the petition by adopting Form A, as Ms. O'Neill mentioned, the short form for TRI reporting. Adapted as a less burdensome alternative to the long form, Form R, the original Form A allowed companies to report their releases as a range instead of a specific number. Unfortunately, the Form A developed in 1994 was never utilized to its potential, owing to restrictive eligibility requirements subsequently imposed on the short form. Small business have consistently voiced their concerns to my office that the TRI Program imposes substantial paperwork burdens with little corresponding environmental benefit, especially for thousands of businesses that have zero discharges or emissions to the environment. These businesses must devote scarce time and resources to completing the lengthy, complex form R reports each year, despite the fact that they have zero discharges. Why is TRI paperwork burden reduction important to small business? Well, the reason for my office's involvement is simple. Small businesses are disproportionately impacted by Federal rules and regulations. The overall regulatory burden in the United States exceeds $1.1 trillion. I will repeat that. The burden in the United States exceeds $1.1 trillion. For firms employing fewer than 20 employees, the most recent estimate of their annual regulatory burden is $7,647 per employee. Looking specifically at compliance with Federal environmental rules, the difference between small and large firms is even more dramatic. Small firms have to spend four and a half times more per employee for environmental compliance than larger businesses do. Environmental requirements, including TRI paperwork, can comprise up to 72 percent of small manufacturers' total regulatory costs. EPA's reform to the TRI reporting rules allows more small businesses to use the short form instead of the longer Form R. This will save money, and it provides an incentive for companies to recycle chemicals instead of disposing them. The TRI Burden Reduction Rule will strengthen overall environmental compliance. I recently talked with a TRI expert who runs an environmental consulting firm in southeast Michigan. He works with small businesses on environmental management issues, and he was proud of the help he provided to a paper mill. He had worked with a paper mill to encourage them to recycle small amounts of mercury generated when switches and other process control circuits undergo maintenance in the mill's powerhouse. He explained to me that EPA's TRI reform will allow a number of industrial operations such as tool and die shops and metal stamping plants to file a Form A for the first time. It will also provide an incentive for other companies to recycle their TRI chemicals rather than disposing of them. The Office of Advocacy supports EPA's TRI Burden Reduction Rule. Although the rule reform does not go as far as some small businesses would prefer, my office supports EPA's December 2006 rule. The rule demonstrates that EPA is listening to the concerns of small business, and EPA's reform should be a model for other agencies to reform their existing rules and regulations to reduce costs while preserving or strengthening regulatory objectives. H.R. 1055 prevents EPA from moving forward with the reforms, so my office is opposed to the legislation. Thank you for allowing me to present these views, and I would be happy to answer questions. [The prepared statement of Mr. Sullivan follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.017 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.018 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.019 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.020 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.021 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.022 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.023 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.024 Mr. Wynn. Thank you, Mr. Sullivan. Mr. Stephenson. STATEMENT OF JOHN B. STEPHENSON, DIRECTOR, NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, WASHINGTON, DC Mr. Stephenson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Shimkus, members of the committee. I am here today to discuss two studies the GAO has undertaken that relate these two issues. Our first study examined the extent to which EPA was meeting its environmental justice commitment that environmental laws will not disproportionately impact minority and low-income communities. As Ms. Solis indicated, in July 2005 we issued a report to her that concluded that EPA in general devoted very little attention to environmental justice when developing new air rules. We made several recommendations for improvement that EPA has only partially responded to since we issued our report. For example, to its credit EPA now includes the Office of Environmental Justice as an ex officio member of its Regulatory Steering Committee, however, the Office is still not sufficiently involved in working groups for individuals rules. We believe that more specific guidance, training, and manageable benchmarks are needed to hold EPA officials accountable for achieving EJ goals. Our second study on the new toxic release inventory rule is almost complete and will result in a report later this month. TRI's an extremely important system as has been mentioned because it is EPA's mechanism for meeting the requirements of the Emergency Preparedness and Communities Right-to-Know Act for facilities to report and make public their use of toxic chemicals. There are currently over 23,000 facilities across the country that report valuable information annually on over 600 dangerous chemicals. In developing the TRI rule we found that EPA did not follow its internal rule-making guidelines. For example, the rule pretends to reduce industry's reporting burden by quadrupling the threshold from 500 to 2,000 pounds for facilities to use the shorter, less-informative Form A for reporting toxic chemical releases. However, EPA did not fully analyze the impact of the loss of chemical information on TRI users like States, communities, and first responders. EPA's internal stakeholders were in the process of analyzing several other burden reduction options when OMB late in the process suggested increasing the reporting threshold, an option that EPA had earlier rejected. Pressure to quickly implement the rule left EPA with insufficient time for a complete economic analysis. For example, electronic reporting, which has been mentioned today and which has shown to provide far more burden reduction in this rule, was missing from the analysis. Notwithstanding the lack of analysis, EPA published the proposed rule in the Federal Register and received over 120,000 comments, including a dozen attorney generals from California, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Vermont, and Wisconsin opposing the rule because of its impact on TRI information and environmental justice implications. Mr. Chairman, we are very concerned that to achieve burden reduction EPA is tinkering with what has historically been a highly-successful program to control the use of toxic chemicals. EPA contends that the rule will result in only a 1 percent loss of information, however, this is an aggregate estimate based on total pounds of chemicals nationwide and ignores the more important implications of the rule on individual communities. In fact, we estimate that the rule has the potential to reduce information on toxic chemical releases from over 6,600 facilities. Moreover, a disproportionately larger number of these facilities are near minority and low-income communities. Time permitting, Mr. Chairman, I would like to, I have a couple of graphics. I think each of you, if you can't see the monitors, has a package, and it should be in front of them. To illustrate the impact of the TRI rule on individual communities. This uses Google Earth, which is a free software available to everybody and overlays EPA information on it. And what you are seeing in this first slide is the, indeed, the 23,000 TRI reporting facilities, and I know you can't count 23,000. Could you switch the slide? There you go. You can see that there are 23,000 facilities, and you can see the focus of where those are. Now, this second slide shows you the 6,600 plus facilities that are subject to information reduction under this new rule. There is still quite a few facilities there. Now, you can use this. We are not using this interactively. These are stagnant, but you can actually use this to zoom in on any individual community, and we selected Los Angeles, but you could do this with any other area. So the next slide zooms in on which 6,600 of these facilities are located in and around the Los Angeles area, and you can see there is quite a few. And then finally we wanted to connect the dots between TRI and environmental justice by showing you the implications of these facilities in the Los Angeles area on low-income and minority communities. The cylinders represent low income households within a 1-mile radius of the facility. The higher the cylinder, the poorer the community, and the colors represent minority. Red colors represent 80 percent minority or greater. And, frankly, I think the graphic speaks for itself. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, let me say that failing to demonstrate any burden reduction, EPA now asserts that the TRI rule will provide an incentive for facilities to reduce their toxic chemical releases. It is difficult for us to understand how raising the threshold for reporting would achieve that objective. Mr. Chairman, that concludes a summary of my statement. I will be happy to answer questions. [The prepared statement of Mr. Stephenson follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.025 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.026 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.027 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.028 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.029 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.030 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.031 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.032 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.033 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.034 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.035 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.036 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.037 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.038 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.039 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.040 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.041 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.042 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.043 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.044 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.045 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.046 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.047 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.048 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.049 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.050 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.051 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.052 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.053 Mr. Wynn. Thank you very much for your testimony. I would like to thank all of the witnesses. At this time the Chair would like to raise a few questions. Mr. Nakayama, about how many rulemakings does EPA engage in? Mr. Nakayama. I don't have the exact number. I am sure it is hundreds. Mr. Wynn. What percentage would you say the Office of Environmental Justice substantially participated in? Mr. Nakayama. I would say a very small fraction. Mr. Wynn. OK. Thank you. Is it true that some programs of the EPA have not incorporated environmental justice in their core functions? Mr. Nakayama. I know we are working on getting all parts of EPA to integrate EJ into their functions, and this fiscal year 2008, strategic plan is moving forward. Mr. Wynn. So that is somewhat of a left-handed way of saying that, yes, in the last 13 years there are some that have not. Mr. Nakayama. I don't personally know one way or the other. Mr. Wynn. OK. That is fine. In the 13 years since the Executive order was issued, has EPA ever done a comprehensive review to determine whether this program or policies have a disproportionately high impact on minority communities, minority or low-income communities? Mr. Nakayama. We are engaged in that process now to conduct these EJ reviews as a result of both the IG report---- Mr. Wynn. I guess that is also another way of saying, no, you haven't in the past. Ms. O'Neill, now, you said your basic rationale is if they minimize the releases, you want to allow them to use the short form. Is that basically your position? Ms. O'Neill. There is incentive to use the short form if they minimize or eliminate releases. Mr. Wynn. OK. Now, it seems to me that the environmental community States and everyone else really would like to minimize releases as well, is it your position that you disagree with the 23 States and the 30 public health organizations and the 40 labor organizations and the 200 environmental organizations that have basically said they want this data notwithstanding the incentivizing that has taken place? Ms. O'Neill. I think that the States would agree that the first priority would be to eliminate or reduce waste as a priority. Mr. Wynn. But the States said that they didn't want this rule. Twenty-three States at least said they didn't want it. Ms. O'Neill. Some of the comments to the rule based on what I have seen are not entirely or the understanding of what we are doing. The reality of it is that each community is still getting information on the chemicals that are there. Mr. Wynn. Well, isn't it true that there would be 22,000, more than 22,000 less long-form reports with detailed information? Isn't that true? Ms. O'Neill. That is not true for this particular December 26 rule. As a result of that. Actually, there were 11,000 that were already eligible under the previous rule. So it is an additional 11,000. In total you are correct. Mr. Wynn. In total it is 22,000? Ms. O'Neill. Right. I just wanted to clarify that. Mr. Wynn. OK. Now, you are saying, well, they are not going to release these toxic materials, and so you think that is a justification for not providing the data. But isn't it true that even if they don't release the toxic material, that the material will still be in the facility? Ms. O'Neill. It depends on whether it is PBT or non-PBT, but some will. Absolutely. Up to 500 pounds of PBTs. Mr. Wynn. So it would impact the employees in the facility even if the material were not released. Isn't that true? Ms. O'Neill. The facility employees should know where the information is and where the chemicals are. Mr. Wynn. Well, they wouldn't be able to get the information because reports are not submitted. The detailed reports are not submitted. Now, what about first responders and others outside of the facility? Even if there is no release, again, the toxic material is still inside. Isn't that true? Ms. O'Neill. That is exactly right, and that is why EPCRA sets up different sections of the rule so that it can address emergency responses different than TRI. Mr. Wynn. But the responders still need to be aware of that information. Let me turn to Mr. Sullivan. You are talking about paperwork, but isn't it true that all these are electronically- filed reports? Mr. Sullivan. I don't know that the percentage that are filed electronically or the number that are filed in paper. I would ask---- Mr. Wynn. But they could be filed electronically. Mr. Sullivan. The actual program that receives the reports could respond. Mr. Wynn. Now, you cited at one point $1 trillion is the burden, but isn't it true that the burden on an individual small business would only be about $900 a year? Mr. Sullivan. You will hear from the next testimony that one example of a saving is 2 days worth of paperwork for this rule, and there are other estimates. Mr. Wynn. Well, but it comes to an average of $900. Mr. Sullivan. EPA's estimate is $900. That is correct. Mr. Wynn. OK. Well, we will work with that. One final question. Now, you talked about small businesses and the implications of these are very small, but isn't it true that the definition of small business includes businesses up to 500 employees? Mr. Sullivan. SBA's definition of small employers includes businesses up to 500. That is correct. Mr. Wynn. So these aren't exactly Ma and Pa operations that are filing these reports. Mr. Sullivan. Mr. Chairman, Mom and Pop operations from all over the country have appealed to my office for over 10 years to get this type of reform. Mr. Wynn. But employees, businesses under 10 employees aren't included. Mr. Sullivan. The 10 employee threshold in the law was done on a risk analysis, and if you extend that same risk analysis, it leads to the reforms finalized in December 2006. Mr. Wynn. But Ma and Pa really aren't included. My time is up. I recognize my distinguished ranking member for questions at this time. Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The frustrating thing with me in this is we keep using the word ``release'' and we don't define it, and I know the chairman tried to identify. It would help us, it would help the minority if in the movement of this bill that we just properly label. So we could say toxic use chemical reporting, use inside a facility, we could say chemical reporting inside a facility, we could say possible toxic release inventory, what is possible to be released. We could say, here is a good acronym, TUMRI, toxic use manage and release inventory. So it identifies as not-- every person on the panel kept using the word, release, and what it tells the public is that we are releasing all this stuff. All this stuff is in the atmosphere. All this stuff for environmental justice is killing the people in the minority communities when that is not true. This is a redefinition of the word, release, in 1986, by Senator Lautenberg. It is not Webster's definition of what a release is. I am a simple infantrymen, southern Illinoian, rural person, and I think just to help address this debate we need to just properly define it, and that is my appeal to the people who really want to address this, to say if we want industry to report every chemical process in a facility and maybe they just recycle it, where there is, it is just in a cycle of manufacturing, then let us let them do that. Let us don't scare the world to say that all these things that are on this list are toxic releases, because they are not. And so every testimony that is using the word, release, based upon the Lautenberg language is really deceptive in this testimony because 99.9 percent of all Americans would not agree with that definition, nor would Webster's definition. So I would hope that it is a simple change. It would be in compliance with moving forward, but it is very, very frustrating. Mr. Sullivan, how does this EPA reform, not hurt local communities? Mr. Sullivan. Congressman Shimkus, when we appealed to EPA to reform the rule, we wanted to make sure that the same type of risk analysis that led to EPA Administrator Carol Browner's adoption of the short form transcended into this new paperwork burden reduction reform announced in December 2006. And when EPA did the analysis of moving information from Form R to Form A, and this was mentioned by GAO, they maintained 99 percent of the information. That is the same percentage requirement that Carol Browner used to adopt the short form. So when you look at specific communities and you say, well, is it the same environmental protections from Carol Browner conveyed to this new rule, the answer is yes. Mr. Shimkus. And we all love our first responders, and we want to make sure that they are protected and knowledgeable. How do you respond to the criticisms that this TRI reform hurts emergency responders? Mr. Sullivan. Well, first of all, I commend the committee for having the hearing to clear up a terrible misconception, and that terrible misconception is that the Toxic Release Inventory provide first responder information when the alarm goes off, they are responding to a tragedy, and they are faced with a life-threatening situation of either breaking down a door or knowing that there is an explosive chemical behind that door, taking the appropriate procedures. That is not what TRI data is for. In fact, to supplement Congressman Shimkus's earlier statement, the TRI covers about 24,000 facilities. MSDS sheets, which are available for employees and local firefighters and first responders, along with chemical inventory data, covers over 550,000 facilities, and it is timely information, not information that is over a year old like TRI data is. So I think that this committee deserves credit for really exposing terrible misinformation that the TRI data is the most important for first responders. That is not what the facts bear out, Mr. Shimkus. Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I have 6 seconds left, and I will yield back. Mr. Wynn. Thank you. The Chair would recognize Ms. Solis for questions. Ms. Solis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My question is for Mr. Stephenson, and I wanted to ask just quite frankly, in your opinion, do you believe that the Executive order on environmental justice has been implemented adequately by EPA? Mr. Stephenson. In a nutshell, no. That is what we reported in 2005, and we think they are moving in the right direction. We think including them as an ex officio member of the steering committee is good, but we saw no evidence of its inclusion in individual rule marking. Ms. Solis. And you mentioned something about the current working groups that are coming about and that there is still a lack of representation of EJ representatives or stakeholders in those working groups. Is that correct? Mr. Stephenson. That is right. The only one that was held up oddly enough was looking at EJ implications of this very rule, the TRI rule. Ms. Solis. Which is amazing to me. I don't understand that. My question is the facilities that you showed up here in Los Angeles, what would happen in a community like East Los Angeles, for example, which is pointed out very clearly in your documentation as the hot spots here, if they didn't have to report? This is like the 1 percent that doesn't, that would not be, would not have the advantage of giving us information, and this is where a higher tendency of minority, low-income, and toxic levels are much higher. What would that mean to communities of color? Mr. Stephenson. Well, there is a misconception here. We never said that TRI was the first source of information for emergency responders. Nevertheless, they use it in overall planning. We have been told that by the States. This is a public right-to-know program, TRI, and we use that term ``release'' because that is the name of the program, Toxic Release Inventory. You are absolutely right that it is any facility that manages, handles, disposes of appropriately, nevertheless the program is called the Toxic Release Inventory. So the purpose of this program, the reason it has been highly successful is because the public has information about these chemicals. Individuals can go into the TRI database put in their ZIP Code and find out information about what is happening around them. We don't see burden reduction from raising the threshold from 500, 2,000 pounds. Ms. Solis. And you mentioned something, if I could just interrupt, that with the reporting requirements being now much more easily accessible through computer, that that definitely would possibly lower costs for businesses. Mr. Stephenson. Absolutely. Right now, and we think EPA is doing a good job integrating this information in more usable forms to the public, and we are disappointed that it takes 12 months to get the data out, but that is changing. Ms. Solis. Yes. Mr. Stephenson. Right now over 95 percent of the filers use electronic filing, and we expect that will go to 99 percent. Ms. Solis. Yes. Mr. Stephenson. So that is where the true burden reduction and usefulness of this program comes, not from a rule to change the threshold for reporting. It is not paperwork anymore. Ms. Solis. Well, I think that this information is very timely because in the area that I do represent, which is kind of somewhat outlined in your graph here, the Port of Long Beach and Los Angeles as we know are major targets for potential terrorism, and if you can see in the map there, and I know the area. Geographically there is a lot of refineries, oil refineries, a lot of chemical plants, and a major thoroughfare for our railroad system. God forbid if something were to happen, and we didn't know what was available there. And this is where that information would be lacking if we continue to not see enforcement of the original legislation. So I am very concerned about that, and I just want to thank you for giving us your information. And I want to go next, if I can, please, to Granta Nakayama, and wanted to ask him with the administration's request to cut back on environmental justice funding, which was about a 30 percent cut, you mentioned earlier in your statement that you were giving out grants now of $1 million to community groups. Is it not true that during the discussion debate on the budget that if this, if that went through, according to the Bush administration, that these grant programs wouldn't even be there, and it was partly because Congress put the money back in? Mr. Nakayama. First of all, I want to be very clear that the President's budget request for the Office of Environmental Justice has been fairly flat over the last 5 or 6 years. There hasn't been much change. Congress through its generosity has provided an add on so that we could pursue these environmental justice grants. Appreciate the support of that program. We made great use of that money. I think it is having a big impact. Ms. Solis. But it would have been cut. That is my question. Mr. Nakayama. Well, last year we didn't get the add on, because he had a continuing resolution. We did not get that add on, and yet we took out, the administration put $895,000, almost $1 million, out of other EPA activities, not out of my office, not out of the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, put that money in there so we could continue this program. Ms. Solis. My next question is, did the Office of Environmental Justice analyze the impact of the closure on the Region 10 Environmental Justice Office for budget reasons prior to its closure? Mr. Nakayama. The Region 10 Environmental Justice Office wasn't closed. What they did is they reorganized and pulled the environmental justice function out of the administration and resource management function and put it in a line operation. In other words, the real, they put it in the actual line organization that regulates the environmental activities in region 10. And what that did is I think it produced a much more active and much more effective environmental justice function in region 10. Ms. Solis. One of the other questions I have is for our witness, Mr. Sullivan. You mentioned that the cost to small business given reporting of these chemicals is about a 72 percent burden or something like that to that effect. How do you quantify that with TRI? How do you quantify that? Please explain that to me. Mr. Sullivan. Of course. Every 2 or 3 years my office hires an outside contractor to research regulatory burden with the attempt of trying to figure out whether there is a disproportionality of small versus large, because when we work with OSHA and EPA and IRS and Department of Transportation, the idea of our involvement and encouraging agency sensitivity to small firms is to level that playing field. Ms. Solis. But there were a lot of other regulatory mechanisms in place where the Government actually provides assistance for cleanup, the Underground Storage Tank Program as an example. That isn't a direct burden necessarily placed on small businesses. Mr. Wynn. The gentle lady's time has expired. Ms. Solis. We can submit. Thank you. Mr. Wynn. We are going to try to get one more line of questioning before recessing to vote. Mr. Murphy of Pennsylvania. Mr. Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A quick question for the EPA here. Would the OSHA worker safety requirements apply in any plant that has to report and more specifically, does the TRI impact the OSHA safety requirements for workers? Ms. O'Neill. Assuming that is for me. Mr. Murphy. Yes. Ms. O'Neill. No, it does not impact. Mr. Murphy. Not at all? Ms. O'Neill. No. Mr. Murphy. OSHA standards are separate here? Ms. O'Neill. Yes, they are. Mr. Murphy. OK. That is an important thing. I may have some other follow up I want to use on that later on. I am going to yield to the ranking member, Mr. Shimkus, the remainder of my time. Mr. Shimkus. I thank you. Chairman Barton, I mean, ranking member, Joe, do you want to ask a question because we are going to be---- Mr. Barton. No. Mr. Shimkus. All right. Let me go to Ms. O'Neill. Does TRI set pollution limits for permits? Ms. O'Neill. No. Mr. Shimkus. Does TRI set environmental health standards? Ms. O'Neill. No, it does not. Mr. Shimkus. Is it anything more than a reporting program? Ms. O'Neill. It is a reporting program. Yes. Mr. Shimkus. Is anyone newly exempted from TRI reporting that previously had to file a report? Ms. O'Neill. No, they are not. Mr. Shimkus. Were any chemicals that previously had to be reported removed from the list of reportable chemicals? Ms. O'Neill. No, they were not. Mr. Shimkus. How current is TRI data? Ms. O'Neill. By the time it is published, a year and a half old. Mr. Shimkus. Eighteen months. Ms. O'Neill. Eighteen months. We are working on that. Mr. Shimkus. All right. Is EPA prevented from getting additional data from reporting entities under TRI regulations? Ms. O'Neill. No. Mr. Shimkus. OK. And for my last opportunity, I am still going to be lobbying for a change in the title. I got corrected. It wasn't the 1986, Act. The 1986, Act actually defined release as release. it was the 1990, changes that added all this other stuff, so if you all want to submit to me additional terminology that would adequately define what this program is, I think the committee would be happy to receive it. I would, and we would, maybe if we move forward, properly define what we actually are trying to do here. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time. Mr. Wynn. Thank you. The subcommittee's going to stand in recess until the conclusion of this series of votes. We are going to reconvene 5 minutes after the conclusion of the last vote. Thank you. [Recess.] Mr. Wynn. The subcommittee will reconvene. At this point we are going to proceed directly with questions from Mr. Barrow of Georgia. Mr. Barrow. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I hear, and I can relate to Mr. Shimkus's point about how the toxic release inventory is sort of misleading nomenclature. I guess instead of TRI it might be best for us to rename it TMI, toxic management index, but TMI also means too much information. Some folks don't want us to have enough information. So I want to focus in on that concern of mine. I may agree with him that the use of the word, release, ain't Webster's definition of the word, release, but I will see him Webster's definition of release and raise him Webster's definition of small business, because I think the definition of small business that works for some purposes. It doesn't necessary apply in this context here. And you can think about something without thinking about the things which it relates. You have the quality of being either a good Congressional staffer or a good lawyer, but I want to talk about small business in a more practical sense, because I hear Mr. Sullivan's point. He is right. You know, little Mom and Pop outfits is one thing but 500 person, employees, especially when you are going to outsource so much of your stuff through contractors, who knows how that can be done. I am intrigued, though, and I want to pick up on his point about the so-called trillion dollar burden we are imposing on business in this country, and I can relate to that, but I wonder if we think about what the cost of the compliance regime in this country would be if it wasn't on the honor system, people investigating themselves, but if we had a shown-up police force that actually did the monitoring, came on the premises and monitored. Came on the premises and recorded, came on the premises and did the reporting. If we had third-party verification rather than the self-reporting regime we have, I would rather imagine that burden would be a great deal bigger. Which leads me to my question. How is range reporting going to lower that trillion dollar burden in a substantial way if you still have the burden of knowing and determining yourself through monitoring and assessment and recording and reporting to yourself, you still have the burden of determining exactly how much you are managing, how is it going to lower the cost if you just go ahead, to report it in broad ranges? I can tell you about range reporting. I have got an income that is a whole lot bigger than something I don't recognize. The range reporting regime we have got for Congressional income is something that I can't relate to at all, bears no relation to my real-life circumstances. And what I am getting at is if you got to know precisely how much you are managing and or releasing in order to be able to validly comply with the oath you got to take when you fill out the short form, just like you got to fill out that oath to fill out the long form, if you got to know down to the jot and tiddle how much you are managing, how much you are producing, how much you are handling in order to fill out a range report, why not go ahead and submit the precise report? Why not go ahead and say how much of that trillion dollar burden are we going to relieve by them, by forcing the small businesses and the medium sized and all to know precisely how much they are handled but not tell us, to keep that information secret. When you add to the fact that you are creating a tremendous incentive for folks to fudge a little bit. The honor system works better, I think, when you require people to be precise, but here you are actually inviting people to be vague and general in the reporting. Aren't you going to be inviting people to be vague and general in their ascertainment and their monitoring? I am concerned about that. Who can tell me how it is going to lower the cost and how much it is going to lower the cost if you still got to know and we are still imposing the burden of finding out and determining to your own satisfaction so you can take that oath, just exactly how much stuff you are generating. Mr. Sullivan, you want to try? Mr. Sullivan. I would love to try to respond to the Congressman. Mr. Barrow. Since I took most of my time leading up to this, I want you to be quick. Mr. Sullivan. First of all, we are in agreement about the honor system. I think that really the crux of EPA's reform is to incentivize the honor system. Mr. Barrow. Am I correct in understanding, though, that the rule still requires the managers to know and to monitor and determine exact, precisely, for them to know exactly how much it is, but we are still going to require them only to report it in general terms? And that is somehow going to incentivize them to produce less? Mr. Sullivan. If I may fully respond to the Congressman's question, I would like to try and point out that a small firm with 15 employees that wants to manufacture the brass for this distinguished hearing room is given a choice of making sure as a start up do we act responsibly, and there are a number of reasons why that person would want to act responsibly and manage the alloy responsibly so that the amount, the small amount of lead that is in there does not leave this facility, is not emitted or discharged. That is what is the incentive based in this EPA's reform. That is in sharp contrast to the old system that doesn't recognize this incredible innovator and entrepreneur who wants to start a domestic manufacturing of brass and says it doesn't matter if you send this outside of your facility or you have legally permitted emissions and discharges, because you are going to have to fill out the same long form anyway. So filling out the small form---- Mr. Barrow. It seems to me that if we are going to require them to know what is in the long form and to determine what is in the long form, it is not that much weight of a burden for them to tell us what they already know, what they are already forced to know. Mr. Sullivan. We respectfully disagree. Any burden reduction is important in small business. Mr. Barrow. Mr. Najjum, in the 2 seconds I have, I had remaining, I want to ask you, you heard me talk about the situation in Augusta. Would your folks be willing to come down there and help us look into the situation at places like Hyde Park? Because we have got a community that is literally trapped. They can't, do they stay, do they go, and we need to bring the resources to bear, to help them evaluate whether or not staying is a viable option and how to deal with the unrest and the anxiety and the uncertainty of the folks who want to stay but also want to make sure that their neighborhoods are clean. Can you do something about that? Can you come down and look at Hyde Park? Mr. Najjum. We can talk with your staff about it, and if that means going down to look and see if there is something the IG can do, certainly. Mr. Barrow. Thank you. Mr. Wynn. Thank you, Mr. Barrow. At this time the Chair would recognize Mr. Pallone, sponsor of the TRI bill. Mr. Pallone. Thank you. I am going to try to get in a question or two about TRI, and then I want to ask an environmental justice question. Ms. O'Neill, in the GAO report they specifically say at one point here that the EPA's TRI burden reduction rule will reduce the amount of information about toxic chemical releases previously available to the public, and then it says that taken by facility some 3,500 facilities no longer have to report any quantitative information about their chemical use and releases to the TRI. With regard to EPA's assertion the critical information would be, would not be lost. The agency estimates that less than 1 percent of the total pounds of chemical releases would on longer be reported, however, we found the impact on data available to many communities could be more significant than EPA's National totals indicate, particularly at the local level. Do you disagree with any of those things? Ms. O'Neill. I disagree that communities will not be getting information. They will be getting information, and they can assume, because it is range related. Mr. Pallone. But they are saying there is going to be less information and that a lot of facilities won't be providing any information. Do you agree with that? Ms. O'Neill. Ninety-nine percent of the data will still be available. There will be some cases where it will be less data, but the most important data is available to the community and which is what chemical is being managed there, and that is the most important thing. And there is a whole suite of other information available to local communities. I think it is really important that we say that TRI is one set of data. Mr. Pallone. OK. Ms. O'Neill. And we really need to get, put that in context with other environmental data out there that I think is equally as important to the communities. Mr. Pallone. See, my problem is, and I will be honest with you, and I am not trying to denigrate you in any way, the whole notion of right-to-know in my opinion, I am only speaking for myself, is based on the idea that we can't trust industry to do the right thing, we can't even trust agencies and the Government, whether it be the Federal or the State or even Congress to do the right thing. And the best thing is to have transparency, throw everything out there as much as possible because the public will be, will react and take on whoever has to be taken on because we can't trust the industry or the Government to do it. So when you say that by raising the threshold you provide this incentive, you create an incentive for pollution prevention, it kind of goes against the whole philosophy of the right to know because you are saying, well, we will incentivize the companies or the potential polluter, if you will, and provide theoretically less information to the public. Well, the whole premise of the right-to-know is that we need to incentivize the public, not the potential polluter because we can't trust the company or the Government to do the right thing. I know that Mr. Stephenson at one point, how does raising the threshold achieve the objective of less toxic releases, I don't see it. So let me just ask you one thing. In proposing the new rule did the EPA conduct any studies on reporting reductions, creating incentives for pollution prevention? Prior to the new rule did the EPA conduct any economic analysis demonstrating an incentive affect with reduced reporting? In other words, you state that the EPA is working to determine the effectiveness of these incentives, but shouldn't they have determined the effectiveness of those incentives before changing the rule rather than hoping that this incentive is going to work? I don't, it doesn't seem to me you have enough evidence that the incentive works. Ms. O'Neill. Well, first of all, EPA did do a lot of analysis. They did economic analysis, they looked at a number of chemicals that might be affected. We looked at by ZIP Code communities that might be affected. We looked at the number forms that might switch over. So there was a lot of analysis that was put in this. There was discussions, it is my understanding there was discussions in terms of do companies if they have this opportunity, would they have incentive? I don't know in terms of analysis---- Mr. Pallone. Do you really have any evidence? I have to ask, I want to go to one more question unrelated, but do you really have any evidence that the incentive will work? Ms. O'Neill. In terms of the incentive? Mr. Pallone. Yes. Ms. O'Neill. I will have to get back to you, quite frankly, to see what studies are there, but we can get back to you on that. Mr. Pallone. All right. I would appreciate that. I wanted to ask the Inspector General one question. I had a case of environmental, what I considered environmental racism. You may not be familiar with it. With the Ringwood Superfund Site in New Jersey, and this was a site where it was taken off the Superfund list, and myself and my two Senators made an issue of the fact that we didn't think there was proper cleanup, that we didn't think that the residents were properly informed about what was going on. We asked the IG to look into it from an environmental racism point of view because it was primarily a Native American community. The IG, thankfully, came back and said you have got to put this back on the Superfund list, you have got to do a more thorough cleanup, you didn't do enough to inform the residents about this, and all that happened. It is back on the list, a more thorough cleanup is being done. They are out there doing more public information hearings. But they said that there was no evidence that the reason this happened, all these bad things happened was because of social, cultural, or environmental ethnic reasons. And I guess my question is how do we prove that? This was a case of total negligence. They didn't do what they were supposed to do, and I believe it was because it was a Native American community. But it is hard to say, to pinpoint evidence, because they didn't do what they were supposed to do. They didn't have the public meetings, they didn't have, they didn't do the proper cleanup. I don't think anybody was stepping forward to say, we didn't do this because you were Native American. So I just question that evidentiary requirement. What do you require to show that the reason all these bad things happened and need to be corrected was related to the fact that these were Native Americans? How, what is the evidentiary basis? They said there is no evidence, but there is not much evidence of anything because they didn't do what they were supposed to do. Mr. Najjum. I understand the question and the concern, Congressman. I understand your frustration, but when we go as an IG looking for an audit or an evaluation, we have to have evidence and various ways to get it. We went through, in the case of Ringwood, yards of e-mails and documentation, anything that we could find that would show an indication or evidence that the actions or lack there of were based on the Native American population. Mr. Pallone. In other words, you have to have somebody actually saying that we didn't do this or we were negligent or we didn't report to these people because they are Native American in order for you to come to that conclusion? Nobody is going to say that. Mr. Najjum. Sometimes they do, sir. When you are going back looking through the records sometimes there are indications or there would be evidence that actions were taken or not taken in the official documents and also in the e-mails and other things that go along with that, that would show that people were making, or taking actions based on that. But short of that, yes, it is very difficult for an IG to look at something without comparing it to something else and say in nine out of 10 cases they did this, and in this one case they did that. But then we would still be ascribing a particular motive to that, which may or may not be it. That is the problem we face, so when we say there was no evidence, we are not coming to a conclusion that it happened or it didn't happen. What we are saying is we can't prove that without evidence. Mr. Pallone. Well, I am going to, I know my time is up, but I am going to follow up if I could, Mr. Chairman, with some questions on this, because I really believe that more needs to be done to look at the cause, whether this really was an environmental justice issue. But I am sorry. Thank you. Thank you for letting me go over a little bit. Mr. Wynn. At this time the Chair would recognize Mrs. Capps for questions. Mrs. Capps. Thank you. I have three people I would like to question in this very short time period. A brief question, Mr. Nakayama, during the hearing you stated that the EPA Office of Environmental Justice has participated in very few agency rulemaking efforts. Mr. Nakayama. That is true, because we depend on---- Mrs. Capps. Let me ask you the question. If EPA were about to develop a rule that on its face would apply primarily to minority, urban, low-income communities, wouldn't that be exactly the kind of rule that your Office of Environmental Justice should be actively involved in in order to insure that EJ impacts are addressed? Mr. Nakayama. We are trying to integrate environmental justice---- Mrs. Capps. You believe you should be involved in those kind of---- Mr. Nakayama. I believe the environmental justice activities impacts should be considered during the rulemaking. Now, we take the position that really we need to build the capability of the program office that is developing the rule so that they need to take the lead and conduct that EJ analysis, because they have special expertise, for example, on air rule, they may have expertise of the demographics, their air modeling. Mrs. Capps. So you don't believe you should be actively part of the rulemaking. Mr. Nakayama. We should be involved, but the primarily lead, we are trying to develop the capability to have the program office be the lead. Mrs. Capps. All right. Let me turn to Mrs. O'Neill, and this will take a little bit of a narrative because it is a company in my district that has been reporting its ammonia release data to TRI. As you know, this is a vegetable company in Santa Maria, CA, I happen to represent. I am very happy to. As you know, exposure to ammonia can irritate the skin, eyes, and respiratory system. Extreme exposure may cause death. The company's trend line on TRI starting in 1989, has been to reduce its ammonia releases year after year. In 1989, the company released 14,000 pounds of ammonia. It is now down to 5,400 in the last report. This shows, in my opinion, that TRI is working, because it is motivating a company like Pick Sweet to lower its releases. And it is successful and has something to brag about as it is doing that. What I am concerned about is companies like this dropping out of detailed reporting. Requiring public disclosure provides a powerful incentive for facilities to continue to decrease toxic releases, provides community residents and first responders with vital information in cases of accidental releases, in cases of anything happening on the site. The TRI rule as proposed would have allowed this company to stop providing detailed reports to local emergency planning commissions. If it weren't for the changes to the proposed rule, would this company have been required to file detailed reports and provide that information to the local first responders? They were only 400 pounds away from the 5,000-pound disclosure threshold, and if they had gotten below that and didn't have to report it all, the public health people would not have known that there was 4,500 pounds of release. I would like your reaction. Ms. O'Neill. Well, again, on the Emergency Right-to-Know Act, the TRI report for EPCRA is broken out into several different sections. So under this we are not affecting the section for emergency planners at all. Mrs. Capps. No matter what the level? Ms. O'Neill. No matter what the level. This is just for TRI reporting. So EPCRA has several sections in it. OK. So some emergency responders use the TRI reports as supplemental information, and in that case they will still understand, in this particular case they will still have an understanding of what the chemicals of concern are there. But they rely on the different EPCRA section for all the hazardous materials that are there and their locations. So I just want to point that out. Mrs. Capps. Right. And so we want, I am saying wouldn't, shouldn't that continue no matter what the release so that they---- Ms. O'Neill. It does continue for emergency response. What, you are talking about two different---- Mrs. Capps. For emergency response it does? Ms. O'Neill. Well, this, the final rule does not affect EPCRA associated with emergency response reporting. OK. So what you are talking about is the TRI reports where the, for the impact for the final rule. And so depending on the type of chemical, and I don't have a list in front of me, I am not sure if they would meet the threshold. I don't know what else they have in their waste management. So they might have had to go further down. They might not have been 400 pounds. Mrs. Capps. They wouldn't have to report after they got below a certain---- Ms. O'Neill. Well, it is a little bit more complicated than that because it is 5,000 for everything but there is a cap on the actual type of management and releases, which is 2,000 pounds. So it may, it actually may incentivize them to go down even further. It may incentivize them. Mrs. Capps. Well, is there a way to find that out? I would like to follow up with you because---- Ms. O'Neill. If you, yes, if you could submit the question so I know what the particular chemical is and the facility, it might be a lot easier to get back to you. Mrs. Capps. I will. I am thinking about first responders to an incident there to any kind of incident in the public where they need to have some way of knowing what they are walking into. Ms. O'Neill. Right, and again, what, the final rule is not for section 312 of EPCRA, which is the primary source of information for first responders. Mrs. Capps. Thank you. I just, I hope, may I have an extra few seconds to ask, I would like to get Mr. Stephenson to be able to comment on some of these incentives I have been talking about. The reporting and disclosure requirements in TRI I believe myself are very important incentives. Data is, for this company supports that conclusion. They worked hard to get their releases down. Other than the release of ammonia and accidents do happen, they are heading in the right direction. Releases were going down. What, I want your response if I could ask indulgence of the Chair, to---- Mr. Stephenson. That is our point exactly. If you increase the threshold for reporting from 500 to 2,000 you are de- incentivizing them to go much below 2,000. So, if there is no burden reduction, why not keep the rule the way it was at 500 pounds? We think that will provide the incentives necessary to keep---- Mrs. Capps. Bring it all the way down. Mr. Stephenson. Bring it all the way down. Mrs. Capps. Thank you. Mr. Wynn. I would like to thank all the witnesses on this panel first for your testimony but also for your patience. I know we had a pretty considerable break. We appreciate your presence here, and as I said, members may be submitting written questions. Thank you very much. At this time I would like to call forth our second panel. While they are coming up, I would like to ask unanimous consent that two documents be inserted in the record. The first is a March 6, 2007, letter to the Honorable John Dingell and the Honorable Joe Barton signed by 40 individuals and public interest organizations expressing support for the Environmental Justice Act of 2007, and the second is a September 28, 2007, Dear Representative letter from 307 organizations urging support for H.R. 1055, the Toxic Right-to-Know Protection Act. Mr. Shimkus. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Wynn. Yes. Mr. Shimkus. I think I am being drafted a unanimous consent as we speak. Mr. Wynn. Well, what I would like to do if there are no objections, the two letters that I have just referenced will be submitted to the record, and if at some point you would like to introduce or make a unanimous consent request, the Chair will certainly entertain that. Hearing no objections the two items that are mentioned will be entered into the record. Mr. Wynn. I would like to welcome our second panel and introduce them to you. First we have Mr. Hilary O. Shelton, director, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Washington Bureau. Second we have Dr. Robert Bullard, Ware professor, Department of Sociology, director, Environmental Justice Resource Center, Clark Atlanta University. Third we have Mr. Jose Bravo, executive director, Just Transition Alliance on behalf of the Communities for a Better Environment. Fourth, Mr. Andrew Bopp, director of public affairs, Society of Glass and Ceramic Decorators. Fifth, Mr. Alan Finkelstein, assistant fire marshal, Strongsville Fire and Emergency Services. And last but certainly not least Ms. Nancy Wittenberg, assistant commissioner, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. Again, I would like to welcome you, offer you 5 minutes each for your statements. Your full prepared testimony will, of course, be entered into the record. Mr. Shelton. STATEMENT OF HILARY O. SHELTON, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, WASHINGTON BUREAU, WASHINGTON, DC Mr. Shelton. Good morning, Chairman Wynn and members of the subcommittee. I thank you for the opportunity this morning to testify before you. As you mentioned, my name is Hilary Shelton, and I am the director of the Washington Bureau of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. I have been invited here today to discuss environmental justice and communities' rights to know. Sadly, more than 40 years after the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Fair Housing Act of 1968, we are still a much too segregated society. Centuries of legal segregation and Jim Crow and continuing America in which the amount of education received and the salary you earn is determined in a large part, unfortunately, by the color of your skin. And as a result, Americans still living in communities marked by concentrations of people who look alike. Even sadder, it is communities of color, neighborhoods with large concentrations of racial and ethnic minority Americans which bear a disproportionate share of the Nation's air, water, and toxic waste pollution problems. And since the places where people live and work have an enormous impact on their health, this disproportionate exposure to pollution leads to a more racial and ethnic minority Americans suffering from ill health. And perhaps the saddest part of all this is that the Federal Government has a proven track record of being less responsive to the needs of communities if color when pollution is a problem. As a seminal study in the National Law Journal in 1992, stated, there is a, ``racial divide in the way the United States Government cleans up toxic waste sites and punishes polluters. White communities see faster action, better results, and stiffer penalties than communities where blacks, Hispanics, and other racial minorities live.'' There have been several conclusive studies that demonstrate, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that communities of color are disproportionately targeted by polluters. As the United Church of Christ, ``Toxic Wastes and Race in Twenty, 1987-2007,'' concluded, race is the most significant independent predictor of commercial hazardous waste facilities locations. In fact, a December 2, 2005, report by the Associated Press reported that 79 percent of African-Americans live in polluted neighborhoods. So what is the impact and cost of these disparities to communities of color? Perhaps most importantly it has been effectively argued that disparities in pollution are a leading cause of health disparities among America's populations. Many of the principle causes of death in the United States today, that is cancer, chronic lung disease, and diabetes, have significant environmental causes. Furthermore, the environmental causes of non-lethal conditions, including birth defects, asthma, learning disabilities, and nervous system disorders, are also well documented. The NAACP recognizes that one of the major hurdles facing this committee, as well as the Federal Government, is the fact that many of the zoning laws and regulations which determine who is exposed to hazardous pollution are made at the local level. This, however, does not and should not absolve the Federal Government from taking action to try to mitigate environmental injustices and help communities help themselves. The NAACP strongly supports the two bills that are the subject of today's hearings; H.R. 1103, the Environmental Justice Act of 2007, and H.R. 1055, the Toxic Right-to-Know Protection Act. If enacted, these bills will provide communities with powerful tools in their struggle against pollutants. By providing communities with details about the quantities and quality of the pollution in their air, water, and soil, they can make informed decisions and demands on their elected officials. An informed community is an empowered community. In my written testimony I elaborate on why the NAACP feels this legislation is necessary and important. For the record, I have also included in my testimony an excerpt from this month's Crisis Magazine, the magazine of the NAACP. The cover story of the July-August edition is on environmental justice, and within this article are several good examples of individuals and communities who have fought against polluters and pollution. I would again like to thank Chairman Wynn and Congresswoman Solis, Congressman Pallone and the other members of this committee for all of your efforts on this important issue. I would also like to thank Leslie Fields of the Sierra Club, Environmental Justice Department, for her assistance in preparing this statement, as well as the input of the group called Advocates for the Environmental Human Rights. With that I welcome your questions. [The prepared statement of Mr. Shelton follows:] Statement of Hilary Shelton Good morning Chairman Wynn and members of the subcommittee. I thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. My name is Hilary Shelton, and I am the Director of the Washington Bureau of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the NAACP. The Washington Bureau is the public policy advocacy branch of our Nation's oldest, largest and most widely recognized grassroots civil rights organization. I have been invited here today to discuss environmental justice and communities' right to know. It is sad but true that today, more than forty years after Dr. King spoke to us in his ``I Have a Dream'' speech of one nation in which we all lived together under God, and despite the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Fair Housing Act of 1967 we are still a much too segregated society. Centuries of legal segregation and Jim Crow and a continuing America in which the amount of education you receive and the salary you make is determined in large part by the color of your skin have resulted in many Americans still living in communities marked by a concentration of people who look alike. Even sadder, it is communities of color, neighborhoods with large concentrations of racial and ethnic minority Americans, which bear a disproportionate share of the Nation's air, water and toxic waste pollution problems. And since the places where people live and work have an enormous impact on their health, this disproportionate exposure to pollution leads to more racial and ethnic minority Americans suffering from ill health--both physical and mental. And perhaps the saddest part of this all is that the Government, our American Government, has a proven track record of being less responsive to the needs of communities of color when pollution is a problem. As a seminal study on the National Law Journal in 1992 stated, there is a ``...racial divide in the way the United States Government cleans up toxic waste sites and punishes polluters. White communities see faster action, better results and stiffer penalties than communities where Blacks, Hispanics and other minorities live.'' There have been several conclusive studies that demonstrate, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that communities of color are disproportionately targeted by polluters. Perhaps the most famous of these studies, by the United Church of Christ, is the 1987 study Toxic Wastes and Race in the United States, and the more recent follow-up, Toxic Wastes and Race at Twenty 1987-2007. Both the 1987 and the 2007 UCC reports found race to be the most significant independent predictor of commercial hazardous waste facility locations when socio-economic and other non-racial factors are taken into account. In fact, as I am sure we will hear from more than one source today, in the 2000 study the UCC study found that neighborhoods within 3 kilometers of commercial hazardous waste facilities are 56 percent people of color whereas non-host areas are 30 percent people of color. So what is the impact and cost on communities of color of these disparities? Perhaps most importantly, it has been effectively argued that disparities in pollution are a leading cause of the health disparities among America's populations. Many of the principal causes of death in the United States today (cancer, chronic lung disease and diabetes) have significant environmental causes. Furthermore, the environmental effects of non-lethal conditions (including birth defects, asthma, learning disabilities and nervous system disorders) are also well documented. The NAACP recognizes that one of the major hurdles facing this committee, as well as the Federal Government, is the fact that many of the zoning laws and regulations which determine who is exposed to hazardous pollution are made at the local level. This however does not, and should not, absolve the Federal Government from taking action to try to mitigate environmental injustices and help communities help themselves. The NAACP strongly supports the two bills that are the subject of today's hearing, H.R. 1103, the Environmental Justice Act of 2007 and H.R. 1055, the Toxic Right to Know Protection Act. If enacted, these bills will provide communities with powerful tools in their struggle against pollutants. By providing communities with details about the quantity and quality of pollutants in their air, water or soil, they can make informed decisions and demands of their elected officials. An informed community is an empowered community, and bills like H.R. 1103 and H.R. 1055 will provide individuals and neighborhoods with much-needed tools in their struggles to safeguard themselves and their families. H.R. 1055 corrects a January 2007 regulation by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) which would allow up to ten times more pollution to be released by a facility before that facility is required to submit to EPA a detailed report of its emissions. EPA collects such reports in a publicly accessible database known as the Toxic Release Inventory or ``TRI.'' TRI has proven to be an effective tool for raising public awareness of the amounts and kinds of toxic pollution released by a variety of facilities, and providing support for public advocacy that has reduced toxic pollution levels. Without H.R. 1055, communities that are disproportionately burdened with toxic pollution will not have the vitally important information needed to protect their health and environment. For example, African Americans living in Mossville, Louisiana have been documented by EPA and a Federal Government health agency as having elevated levels of dioxin, an extremely toxic chemical that can cause cancer and harm the normal development of the unborn and children. Using TRI reports that were collected by EPA prior to its January 2007 rule change, the residents of Mossville were able to identify the industrial facilities operating near their community that release the same unique dioxin compounds that have been detected in their blood and environment. Without TRI reports, the people of Mossville would not have the ability to find the sources of their dioxin exposures, and call on EPA to take action that protects their health and the health of future generations. By requiring TRI reports to provide more complete information about toxic pollution, House Bill 1055 supports the right of communities to access reliable information regarding the pollution that affects their health and environment. H.R. 1103 also takes tremendous strides towards ensuring environmental justice. By codifying executive order 12898, H.R. 1103 will strengthen compliance and enforcement of environmental justice goals at the Federal level. This Executive Order reinforced the promise of the Civil Rights Act of 1965, which prohibits discrimination in programs receiving Federal funds. In the years since Executive Order 12898 was issued, the EPA and other Federal agencies have adopted commitments to environmental justice. Yet numerous studies have concluded that significant action is still needed for EPA to integrate equity concerns into their operations in a way that will end this form of injustice for minority and low-income groups. H.R. 1103 would ensure that Executive Order 12898 is carried out faithfully and without delay. I would like to close my statement with a few examples of why H.R. 1103 and H.R. 1055 are necessary and the good they can do. For the record, I would like to include in my written testimony an excerpt from this month's Crisis Magazine, the Magazine of the NAACP. The cover story of the July / August edition is on Environmental Justice, and within the articles are several good examples of individuals and communities who have fought against polluters and pollution. Included in these articles is the story of Peggy Shepard, the co-founder of WE ACT, a community group focusing on cleaning up communities of color in New York City. Despite a strong organizational structure which was able to harness public outrage into demonstrations and effective legal strategies, Ms. Shepard reports that ``science, technology and research are also indispensable tools for a community in its struggle to create a safe and sustainable environment. Its lack is a void that contributes to communities of color being excluded from decision-making positions.'' I would also like to thank Congressman Wynn, Congresswoman Solis, Congressman Pallone and the other members of this subcommittee for all of your efforts on this important issue. I would also like to thank Leslie fields of the Sierra Club's Environmental Justice Department for her assistance in preparing this statement, as well as the input of the group Advocates for Environmental Human Rights. I will happily take your questions. ---------- Mr. Wynn. Thank you very much for your testimony. Dr. Bullard. STATEMENT OF ROBERT D. BULLARD, WARE PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY; DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE RESOURCE CENTER, CLARK ATLANTA UNIVERSITY, ATLANTA, GA Mr. Bullard. Good afternoon. My name is Robert Bullard, and I direct the Environmental Justice Resource Center at Clark Atlanta University. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I want to thank you for holding this hearing. This year marks the 25th anniversary of Warren County, NC, PCB Landfill protests in 1982, that made headlines and ignited the environmental, the national environmental justice movement. This year also represents the 20th anniversary of the landmark, ``Toxic Wastes and Race at Twenty, Toxic Wastes and Race in the United States Report,'' published by the United Church of Christ. To commemorate this milestone, the UCC asked me to assemble a team of researchers to update that report. We did, and that report is titled, ``Toxic Wastes and Race at Twenty, 1987- 2007.'' We released that report in March in Washington, DC. The findings, people of color make up the majority, 56 percent of those living in neighborhoods with a 2-mile radius of the Nation's commercial hazardous waste sites, nearly double the percentage in areas 2 miles, more than 2 miles. People of color make up more than two-thirds, 69 percent, of the residents in neighborhoods with clustered facilities. It is easier to get two facilities if you have one. It is easier to get five if you have four. Nine out of 10 EPA regions have racial disparities in the location of hazardous waste facilities. I wrote a book in 1990, called, ``Dumping in Dixie.'' This is not a Southern phenomena. It is national. Forty of 44 States, 90 percent of the hazardous waste facilities have disproportionately high percentages of people of color in host neighborhoods. Conclusions: People of color are concentrated in neighborhoods and communities with the greatest number of facilities and people of color in 2007, are more concentrated in areas with commercial hazardous waste facilities than they were in 1987. Clearly, low-income and communities of color continue to be disproportionately and adversely impacted by environmental toxins. It has now been more than 13 years since President Clinton signed Executive order 12898, however, environmental justice still eludes many communities across this Nation. Numerous studies have documented that people of color in the United States are disproportionately impacted by environmental hazards in their homes, schools, neighborhoods, and workplace. Schools are not safe in some communities. A 2001, report indicated that over 600,000 school children in Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Michigan, and California were, live within, these schools were located within a half a mile of a Federal Superfund site. When we look at the reports from GAO, from the EPA's Inspector General, it is clear that environmental justice from the Executive order is not being implemented. Numerous studies, the most recent study done by the Associated Press shows that 79 percent of African-Americans live in the most dangerous facilities where, related to TRI. If you look at the whole question of the weakening of TRI, it is important to note that when you overlay the toxic release inventory database facilities with the commercial hazardous waste facilities and the other facilities that is located in communities of color and low-income communities, you have saturated communities. You have sacrifice zones. You have communities that not only bear a disproportionate burden but in many cases are fence-lined with facilities. And so when you tinker and tamper with a database that has been used for many years for longitudinal data and for comparative studies, it is important to understand that it is not just one facility that you are talking about or one database. You are talking about communities that are suffering. There are more than 36 recommendations from the report. There are 10 that were highlighted and lifted out and more than 100 organizations around the country endorsed them. It is important to note that two of those 10 recommendations that were top priorities included passing a National Environmental Justice Act codifying the Executive order and protecting and enhancing community right-to-know, worker right-to-know, community and worker right-to-know so that H.R. 1103, Environmental Justice Act of 2007, and H.R. 1055, Toxic Right- to-Know Protection Act, fall hand in hand with the findings and the conclusions of the report. Getting Government to respond to environmental and health concerns of low income and people of color communities has been an uphill struggle. The time to act is now. Our communities cannot wait another 20 years. Achieving the environmental justice for all makes us a much healthier, stronger, and more secure Nation as a whole. I will be pleased to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you very much. [The prepared statement of Mr. Bullard follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.054 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.055 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.056 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.057 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.058 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.059 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.060 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.061 Mr. Wynn. Thank you very much for your testimony. Mr. Bravo. STATEMENT OF JOSE BRAVO, COMMUNITIES FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, JUST TRANSITION ALLIANCE, CHULA VISTA, CA Mr. Bravo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, members of the subcommittee for inviting us here to give testimony today. On behalf of Communities for a Better Environment and the Just Transition Alliance, I would like to thank you for inviting me to speak on the important issues of right-to-know and environmental justice. The bulk of my testimony is based on the courageous work of Communities for a Better Environment, where I serve as a board member. But my comments here today are also endorsed by the Just Transition Alliance, which I am the executive director of. Communities for a Better Environment is a California community- based environmental organization working for environmental justice in highly-industrialized areas of California, especially in communities of color and low-income communities that have been shown to bear the higher, a higher burden in concentration of toxic sources. We believe that with the weakening of the toxic release inventory California loses more ZIP Codes reporting to TRI than any other State in the Nation. The weakening of TRI by setting higher reporting thresholds causes California data, lost data from all reporting facilities for 64 of 502 ZIP Codes, and other California ZIP Codes also lose important data. This is tragic, because TRI has been so useful in identifying and prioritizing pollution sources, because reporting is so easy to do and because the act of reporting itself makes companies much more aware of their toxics use. Consequently, weakening, the weakening of the, of TRI must be rolled back. CBE has used the toxic release inventory since its inception as a fundamental right-to-know tool. For example, one of the earliest analyses documenting environmental racism was the 1989, CBE ``Richmond at Risk'' report. This analysis of TRI, Superfund, and demographic data demonstrated that much higher concentrations of topic sources and emissions are sited in areas with the highest populations of people of color. Reports like these were crucial to community-based campaigns that led to the development of new environmental justice policies by public agencies and the phase-out of unnecessary chemical use. CBE and many other community-based groups have continued to use the toxic release inventory in concert with demographic data to map cumulative exposure from large numbers of smaller toxic sources, which individually may have posed lower health risks, but because of geographic concentration presented formidable risks. CBE continued to use the data to document increased risks in our 1998, ``Building a Regional Voice for Environmental Justice'' report. And in hundreds of individual research efforts throughout the years. Frequently, community members have used TRI data themselves to push for local improvements. Our 2004, report found in southern California that African- Americans are a third more likely and Latinos nearly twice as likely to live in a census tract containing a facility emitting high-priority TRI pollutants. The racial differences in exposure persisted even when data was controlled for income, land use, and manufacturing presence. The racial chasm is also larger than emissions are, also larger when emissions are carcinogenic, the more dangerous the facility, the higher the likelihood that minorities are concentrated nearby. The continued undisrupted concentration of large numbers of industrial polluters in communities of color with highest incidents of health problems, including asthma, is a major reason why TRI reporting thresholds need to be restored to the lower thresholds for reporting. Reporting thresholds back down to 500 pounds instead of the new relaxed 2,000 pound threshold is crucial. Not only do concentrations of large numbers of smaller emitters cause toxic hotspots, but individual companies' emissions can fluctuate or grow. Failure to report at the lower significant level can cause companies to miss reporting when their emissions increase because they are accustomed to reporting. This can lead to many years of delay in identification of the problem emissions. In one case of a steel company located in a residential neighborhood in the Bay Area, the company's toxic emissions were causing frequent odor problems, and emissions were about 500 pounds, but lower than 2,000 pounds, but growing. If TRI thresholds had been weakened at that time, the trend in documented emissions increases would have been identified. Neighbors pushed for cleanup, resulting in the company agreeing to install a carbon control plant. Some of the worst carcinogens such as methylene chloride and perchloroethylene previously widely used in California manufacturing are now more rarely used, thanks to community campaigns using TRI. These have been a widespread phase out by scores of California manufacturers of many carcinogens and early phase out in the past of ozone-depleting chemicals due to community publications of TRI data on individual companies and on regional concentration facilities, of facilities. Good and comprehensive TRI reporting was not only responsible for public health improvements in the past, but will also provide crucial safeguards for overuse of other toxic chemicals and toxic hotspot concentrations, which is still, unfortunately, widespread. [The prepared statement of Mr. Bravo follows:] Testimony of Jose Bravo Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: On behalf of Communities for a Better Environment (CBE) and the Just Transition Alliance (JTA) I would like to thank you for inviting me to speak on the important issues of public right-to-know and environmental justice. The bulk of my testimony is based on the courageous work of CBE, where I serve as a board member. But my comments here today are also endorsed by the Just Transition Alliance for which I am executive director. Communities for a Better Environment is a California community-based environmental organization working for Environmental Justice in highly- industrialized areas of California especially in communities of color and low income communities that have been shown to bear a higher burden of concentration of toxic sources. <bullet> With the weakening of the Toxic Release Inventory, California loses more zip codes reporting to the TRI than any other state in the nation. The weakening of the TRI by setting higher reporting thresholds causes California to lose data from all reporting facilities for 64 out of 502 zip codes, and the other California zip codes also lose important data. This is tragic, because TRI has been so useful in identifying and prioritizing pollution sources, because reporting is so easy to do, and because the act of reporting itself makes companies much more aware of their toxics use. Consequently the weakening of the TRI must be rolled back. <bullet> CBE has used the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) since its inception, as a fundamental Community Right-to-Know tool. For example, one of the earliest analyses documenting environmental racism was the1989 CBE ``Richmond at Risk: report. This analysis of TRI, Superfund, and demographic data demonstrated that much higher concentrations of toxics sources and emissions are sited in areas with the highest populations of people of color. Reports like these were crucial to community-based campaigns that led to the development of new Environmental Justice policies by public agencies, and to phaseout of unnecessary chemical use. <bullet> CBE and many other community-based groups have continued to use the TRI in concert with demographic data to map cumulative exposure from large numbers of smaller toxic sources, which individually may have posed lower health risks, but because of geographic concentration presented formidable risks. CBE continued to use the data to document increased risks in our 1998 ``Holding Our Breath'' report, in our 2004 ``Building a Regional Voice for Environmental Justice'' report, and in hundreds of individual research efforts throughout the years. Frequently community members have used the TRI data themselves to push for local improvements. <bullet> Our 2004 report found in southern California that African-Americans are a third more likely and Latinos nearly twice as likely to live in a census tract containing a facility emitting high-priority TRI pollutants. The racial differences in exposure persisted even when data was controlled for income, land use, and manufacturing presence. The racial chasm is also larger when emissions are carcinogenic ``the more dangerous the facility, the higher the likelihood that minorities are concentrated nearby. Mobile sources of pollution just made this problem worse. <bullet> The continued undisputed concentration of large numbers of industrial polluters in communities of color with the highest incidences of health problems (including asthma) is a major reason why the TRI reporting thresholds need to be restored to the lower thresholds for reporting. <bullet> Putting the TRI reporting thresholds back down to 500 lbs instead of the new relaxed 2,000 lb. threshold is crucial. Not only do concentrations of large numbers of smaller emitters cause toxic hotspots, but individual companies' emissions can fluctuate or grow. Failure to report at the lower significance level can cause companies to miss reporting when their emissions increase because they are not accustomed to reporting. This can lead to many years of delay in identification of problem emissions. In one case of a steel company located in a residential neighborhood in the Bay Area, the company's toxic emissions were causing frequent odor problems and emissions were above 500 lbs., but lower than 2,000 lbs, but growing. If the TRI threshold had been weakened at the time, the trend in documented emissions increases would not have been identified. Neighbors pushed for cleanup, resulting in the company agreeing to install a carbon control system at the plant. <bullet> CBE reports based on TRI data led directly to phase out of toxic chemicals at many industrial facilities, which operated even better without these chemicals. For example, after public campaigns based on TRI data, many companies using toxic solvents as degreasing agents found that they could eliminate the production steps introducing grease in certain metals processing, so that degreasing with toxic solvents became completely unnecessary. Other companies found that toxic cleaning solvents could be replaced with soap and water! Of course this did not cause the phaseout of all toxic chemicals, but it resulted in phaseout of many of the most unnecessary uses of toxics for many chemicals. It also pushed many companies to voluntarily minimize usage until alternatives could be phased in. <bullet> Some of the worst carcinogens such as methylene chloride and perchloroethylene previously widely used in California manufacturing are now more rarely used, thanks to community campaigns using TRI data. There has been a widespread phaseout by scores of California manufacturers of to community publications of TRI data on individual companies and on regional concentrations of facilities. Good and comprehensive TRI reporting was not only responsible for public health improvements in the past, it will also provide crucial safeguards for future overuse of other toxic chemicals and toxic hotspot concentrations which still are unfortunately widespread. <bullet> In the past, CBE identified many companies that failed to report to the TRI, skewing the data. To do this, CBE had to find data through painstaking research of individual local permit information (which is very inaccessible to the public, frequently taking months to receive). CBE succeeded in getting the non-reporting companies to submit their data to the publicly accessible TRI. Even more importantly, CBE won many dozens of EPA-approved settlements with these companies in which we convinced the companies to completely phase out use of the toxic chemicals in lieu of paying penalties for past failure to report. We helped the companies identify pollution prevention options and consultants, who often found that companies would MAKE money from chemical phaseout. As a result, millions of pounds of toxic, cancer-causing, and ozone- depleting chemicals were completely phased out by dozens of California companies. <bullet> While community organizations like CBE have used the TRI data successfully for decades, we still have a long way to go and cannot afford to lose the full use of this important tool. Data shows persistent disparity in statewide patterns of toxic use, with continued higher exposure for African Americans and Latinos as compared to Anglos. <bullet> We urge you to reinstate the strong TRI reporting requirements at the lowest thresholds. ---------- Mr. Wynn. Thank you, Mr. Bravo. Mr. Bopp. STATEMENT OF ANDREW BOPP, DIRECTOR, PUBLIC AFFAIRS, SOCIETY OF GLASS AND CERAMIC DECORATORS, ALEXANDRIA, VA Mr. Bopp. Thank you, Chairman, and thank the committee for allowing me to testify today on EPA's efforts to reduce the paperwork burden of TRI reporting on small business. My name is Andrew Bopp. I am the public affairs director of Society of Glass and Ceramic Decorators. This group is made up primarily of companies that custom-print mugs and glassware including very small family businesses. And I noted that earlier people were referring to companies up to 500. I am talking of companies around 15 to 20 employees and then, well, I will get into this. I have worked with SGCD members for 10 years now, including business owners like Nancy Klinefelter, who is president of Baltimore Glassware Decorators. I have tried to help her as she grapples with the regulatory issues related to operating a business where lead is a necessary part of the process. Nancy testified on the TRI burden reduction before the Senate EPW Committee back in January, and she was eager to be here today. Unfortunately, the nature of a small business, she is at a trade show in Maryland. No one else from her company could do it, so she couldn't be here, so I am basically speaking for her and others like her. As with most regulations as has been pointed out before, the TRI reporting burden creates far more problems for small business than for large business. Companies like Nancy's especially, and again, we are talking 15, 20 employees, not the 500 threshold people referred to earlier. To give you an idea of the type of company I am talking about, Baltimore Glass was started by Nancy's brother back in 1977, with the help of her father, who had worked in the glass industry for more than 50 years. They employ 15 employees, like I said before, including Nancy's mother, who works in the office, her father, who acts as general manager, and her brothers who work in sales and production. This is truly your family-type business that we are talking about. They employ no engineers on staff, certainly no environmental engineers, so the TRI burden, it falls entirely on Nancy. Baltimore Glassware is not a unique company. It represents the typical wholesale glass and ceramic decorator in this country. They print small quantities of glass and ceramic ware, such as mugs as Mr. Shimkus showed, for ad specialty, restaurants, souvenir-type uses. When custom printing these mugs or glasses, companies may use lead-bearing enamels on the outside surfaces to achieve the color and mainly durability demanded by customers. As a rule, unleaded enamels do not have the durability, gloss, or color ranges the customers require. It is not a case of, oh, we are just going to choose to pick this. It is a case of you either get the order or you don't, which means something in business. These lead-free colors do not hold up well for abrasion of deterioration in dishwashers. It is very important to understand that the leaded colors become a part of the glass after they are fired. Also, due to the cost of these colors, Baltimore Glass and all the companies like them use what is needed and the rest goes back on the shelf. These are not companies that are emitting as I will get to. I am testifying today really in support of EPA's recent burden reduction rule that allows companies such as Baltimore Glass to use the TRI Form A instead of the more complicated Form R. To do so, and this is the important thing, they must meet very strict eligibility requirements. It is really similar to using the 1040EZ instead of the 1040, if you qualify. You are still reporting everything, but you get to do it in a simpler way. To qualify, that decorator, Nancy's company or a company like them, must use less than 500 pounds of lead in a year, and again, that is use, not release, and the key is they must report zero release of lead onsite and offsite. They have to report nothing. So this is not a case of losing information. This is a case of nothing. She is able to do it on a simpler form. Essentially all of the information that the neighbors need is what lead is released, like Congressman Shimkus referred to earlier, the release. That is what counts. Baltimore Glass does exceed the threshold of 100 pounds used in a year to enter into the program, and they exceed the employee threshold of 10 employees to get into the program, but barely, so there they are. They are in the program with major companies using the Form R. I have spoken with Nancy every year as she has attempted to complete the Form R properly, but every year she receives notices from EPA that paperwork corrections are needed. These changes do no reflect the failure to report color use or release. They just reflect paperwork errors. For example, last year she received a 13-page notice from EPA that informed her she had not identified lead compounds by their correct CAS number. This is a small businesswoman who is expected to look through these different forms that engineers process to fill out a report. Using Form A streamlined the process for Nancy since it was used for the 2006 report, and she has to date not received any questions from EPA on her last report. Remember, again, small business. Time spent on completing paperwork is time that Nancy and others like her cannot spend on doing things like supervising employees, working with customers, and more importantly, looking for new business. Glass and ceramic decorators face brutal competition like many manufacturers from Chinese decorators. The reality is that paperwork burdens add to the cost of doing business by absorbing staff time. EPA estimated in the final rule that companies would save 15\1/2\ a year of staff time if they qualified to use the Form R. That was brought up earlier, and that is 2 days worth of work for someone. That may not mean much to a large company, but it means a lot, a real lot to a small company. Nancy said this, she said this before the EPW Committee. SGCD and responsible small business owners like Nancy do believe that it is important to keep track of any releases that might impact their neighborhoods where they live. She lives there. Or the environment. That has not changed as a result of EPA's new burden reduction rule. If a decorator like Nancy has a release, no matter how miniscule or even if it is managed offsite, they will be required to use Form R as in the past. One and you are back on Form R. If a company manages, like Nancy's, its burden production process during the year to avoid any release, then you can use the Form A. That acts as an incentive to eliminate release, and it definitely does. I talk to her every year she is doing the paperwork, and it is confusing every year. SGCD does commend EPA for listening to our concerns and making an effort to reduce the TRI paperwork burden without impacting the information that decorators provide to the public through the TRI Program. I urge this committee to support such paperwork burden reduction efforts which are critical to maintaining the competitiveness of business in this country, especially small business. Thank you, again, for the opportunity to testify. [The prepared statement of Mr. Bopp follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.062 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.063 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.064 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.065 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.066 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.067 Mr. Wynn. Thank you, Mr. Bopp. Mr. Finkelstein. STATEMENT OF ALAN FINKELSTEIN, ASSISTANT FIRE MARSHAL, STRONGSVILLE FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES, TRENTON, NJ Mr. Finkelstein. Good afternoon. My name is Alan Finkelstein, and I would like to thank Chairman Wynn and Mr. Shimkus and the subcommittee members for permitting me to come in and give testimony for this hearing. I would like to also thank Mr. Shimkus for acknowledging my existence before. I appreciate the acknowledgement. I am here today because I wanted to speak in support of the Toxic Right-to-Know Protection Act, H.R. 1055. I want to make some clarifications. I am not here on behalf of my fire department. I am not here on behalf of the Cuyahoga County Local Emergency Planning Committee or any other organization I am associated with. I also need to make some clarifications. Mr. Shimkus made a statement before regarding the fact that first responders don't make use or wouldn't make use of the TRI in their response, and that is correct. I take credit for making that comment on a conference call that was last, made last winter, to which there were several replies. It was not my intent for anybody to think that first responders would make use of 313 rather than 311 and 312, which are the extremely hazardous substances, and those are required to be reported. I have been in the fire service for 25 years, and for the last 15 years I have been involved with hazardous materials response in planning as well our hazard emergency planning that goes on within my city and Cuyahoga County. I have done extensive work with the Local Emergency Planning Committee and with the U.S. EPA Region 5 as far as getting chemical reporting in and working with facilities to help make them safer. The toxic release inventory provides us with information that we wouldn't ordinarily have. There are some chemicals at facilities or materials at facilities that aren't covered under any other section of EPCRA. A facility in my jurisdiction has copper and manganese in inventory. They are not covered under any other section of EPCRA. They don't provide a hazard probably as far as release because generally they are not in particulate form, however, for the workers they are a hazard and for responders they are a hazard if they go into that building. We need to make sure that they have the proper respiratory protection for themselves. As the fire prevention officer for my city, I am responsible for the facilities, protecting their workers and for staff in general. There are a couple of things that I learned when I was in my original fire school way back in the dinosaur age, and there are two things that stood out for me were that life safety is always the first priority for firefighters, and for the citizens at large. The second thing is that pre-planning is important before an incident happens. Toxic release inventory gives us information about facilities that may not be available in other sections. It also helps us address things with the facility. If they have issues, we can help, also help them out as far as their planning goes. There are sections of the Clean Air Act, section 112(r), which is the risk management plan, and also the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act which were created to help jurisdictions get the information they need for planning and response. It was also created to help the citizens get information for the facilities in their jurisdictions and which they live around. Because of concerns about homeland security, a lot of the things, a lot of the information that was available is no longer available to citizens except on a case- by-case basis. It makes things difficult for them. By increasing the reporting threshold from 500 to 5,000 pounds for most facilities and enabling facilities to use the Form A, which doesn't provide any quantitative information about what is present at the facilities, it basically just tells us that a facility is there. It doesn't give us any information. There have been some companies that complained that the TRI reporting was overly burdensome and that it was expensive. My contention is that the cost of not reporting it and having people get injured or killed is a lot more expensive. Basically as far as the reporting goes, it is the responsibility of business to make sure that they are safe. It may benefit the facility because they have transparent operations. It lets the citizens know that they are being open and correcting in what they have out there, and our facilities tend to be thinking along those lines. One of the side benefits resulting from toxic release inventory and the risk management plan being out there is that facilities decrease their inventories and change their processes so that they can minimize the amounts of chemicals they have on site at any one time. We have facilities that are required to report 10,000 pounds of ammonia if they have it in inventory. They have decreased the size of their tanks down to 7,000 pounds. So they save money by not having to file the reports in certain areas of EPCRA and RMP, and they also save on product because they don't need to keep so much on hand. The safety is also benefited by having those reductions made in the amount that is present and also there are inherently safer processes being used. For the small business people or the Small Business Administration, I would also like to add that if facilities need environmental contractors to come in and help them do their paperwork, they are able to do so, and it helps the small businesses out. The last point I would like to make, I cut it a lot shorter. You have the written ones. I wanted to keep it a little bit shorter, is that the facilities are generally located in areas where there are low-income people who have the most risk of health problems because they don't have healthcare available to them, and they also have the least political voice. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Finkelstein follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.068 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.069 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.070 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.071 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.072 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.073 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.074 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.075 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.076 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.077 Mr. Wynn. Thank you very much, Mr. Finkelstein. We are going to have to be a little tight, because as you can tell, there is a vote. I want to get Ms. Wittenberg's testimony in before we go to the vote. Ms. Wittenberg. STATEMENT OF NANCY WITTENBERG, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, TRENTON, NJ Ms. Wittenberg. Thank you. I will keep it short. I optimistically wrote good morning. Good afternoon now. I will learn my lesson. My name is Nancy Wittenberg. I am the assistant commissioner of environmental regulation for the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. New Jersey has got a unique perspective on the TRI issue. We have combined implementation of several laws in New Jersey, including our own Worker and Community Right-to-Know Law, our own Pollution Prevention Act, and the Federal Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act. The burden reduction didn't impact New Jersey. We combined our forms into one form, so regardless of what EPA did, facilities in New Jersey that would be required to submit any form, be it A or R, to DEP have to submit to us a different form, which is called a Release and Pollution Prevention Report. It is much like the Form R, but maybe it is a little easier to do because we have never had any complaints from small business. I checked. I went online, I worked through the form myself. We have pretty much simplified it down as best we could. What we did sort of to make the point today was we looked back over the data we have gotten over the years compared to what we wouldn't have gotten if we had been subject to the burden reduction in the State and just to throw out some of the numbers quickly that we came up with is that we do a trends report, which is perhaps one of the best things we get out of our TRI data. And in my submitted testimony is the link to get that. We would have missed out on knowing about over a million pounds of cancer-causing compounds used in the State of New Jersey. That includes 21,000 pounds of waste arsenic. All of our arsenic data would be lost to us if that reporting level changed. One hundred, twenty-two thousand, four hundred and sixty-five pounds of styrene, 175,000 pounds of chromium, 44 different carcinogen data would have been lost to us completely. Six-thousand, seven hundred and seventy-three pounds of production-related waste for PBTs over just the last 4 years, 30 municipalities in New Jersey wouldn't have had any of their facilities report at all. So we would have lost a significant amount of data. In terms of EJ, we looked at two urban areas in New Jersey: Linden and Camden. Just over the past 2 years if we had been subject to burden reduction, in Camden four facilities would not have to report at all, and every facility in Camden is right next door to where a lot of people live. In Linden six facilities would not have had to report at all, and each of these facilities use PBTs including lead as well as carcinogens. So that would be a significant loss to those communities to know about the use of those substances. Clearly, New Jersey has seen the benefits of having this data, and we went back and looked at what we wouldn't have had should this change impacted us. So we are very supportive. My testimony has much more information. I am keeping it short. Thanks. [The prepared statement of Ms. Wittenberg follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.078 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.079 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.080 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.081 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.082 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.083 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.084 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.085 Mr. Wynn. Thank you very much. Short but effective. I want to thank all the witnesses. Unfortunately, we do have a vote on. We have two votes, a 15-minute and a 5-minute, so I think it is safe to say that we probably wouldn't be back before, about 25 minutes if you want to take a break, get a sandwich, or something like that. We will be back, we will have questions following that. Thank you. The subcommittee stands in recess. [Recess.] Mr. Wynn. They will probably be drifting in. If someone sees them, just let them know. In the meantime, I think what I would like to do is go ahead and start. I know Mr. Bopp has another engagement. I just have a couple of quick questions that I will start with. The Chair recognizes himself for questions. Mr. Bopp, I am sympathetic to small businesses, but I want to cover a couple things. One, we are talking about electronic filing for the most part I think. Second, you mentioned lead a number of times. Does your client deal with other chemicals in her processes, or is she primarily concerned about reporting on lead? Mr. Bopp. It is really just lead. Mr. Wynn. OK. So basically we have a situation of electronic filing with one chemical, and isn't it true to phrase this other question, isn't it true that basically once you, after the first year, your basic data, name, address, location, type of chemical, all is pretty much set. You just touch the button. Mr. Bopp. Right. Mr. Wynn. So is it reasonable to say that it is less burdensome in subsequent years than it is in the first year? Mr. Bopp. It would seem so. For her, though, and I wish she were here because she could answer this a heck of a lot better than me, but she still files the paper forms. So, again, this is someone who actually complains frequently about being forced into the electronic forms. So she still does the paper forms. A lot of the time that is spent is in tracking the lead use and the colors because every color has a different percentage of lead. So, and, again, from her experience, like I have said, every single year she has gotten something back from EPA saying that something she has done is not correct. Again, there are no releases there, but this is, again, a very small company. Obviously they are computerized, who isn't, but she is not very comfortable with working on the web, and again, I wish she were here, because she would say exactly that, and she often really gets wound up over things like that. Mr. Wynn. Are there any other witnesses, do any other witnesses want to make a comment on the small business problem? I think Ms. Wittenberg---- Ms. Wittenberg. The only thing I would say is that from New Jersey's perspective and we have been doing this a long time, and it is a State program, so we provide as much assistance as we can, we have never had a complaint from small business about burden, about cost. I checked every office we had to make sure that, over the years, we have a small business assistance office. As I said, our forms are on-line, it is mandatory electronic. The form is set up to be pretty user friendly, but it has not been an issue for the small businesses in our State anyway to date to do the reporting. Mr. Wynn. Thank you. Mr. Shelton, I appreciate your testimony, and I know you said there are instances, and I am aware of instances in which the environmental justice issue has really caused hardship. I was wondering if you could help us put a human face on this if you might relate one of the situations that the NAACP has encountered. Mr. Shelton. Thank you very much. We visited the small town of Gainesville, GA, very close to a rather large production facility. If you walked into this local community, what you see is some very pristine, working class homes on a street that slopes down to a very, very nice public playground at the bottom of this very nice and pristine community. Just past the playground you see a drainage ditch and just on the other side of that you see a rather large facility. That large facility has a number of smokestacks that pour out toxins and so forth into the air. Interestingly enough, it was the facility that actually paid for that very, very nice playground and the great part and the great area that we had a chance to visit. We walked through the community and actually stopped by each door on a one-block, both sides of the street, and stopped at each house in which a member of the community actually had some form of cancer. What we found as we moved through the streets and put a black ribbon on the steps, on the railing of each of the houses that actually got through stopping by many to visit to find out in many cases that more than one member of the family actually has some kind of cancer. We stopped and visited one young man, 30 years of age, living with his mother, his sister, and all three had some type of cancer. Mother had a form of throat cancer, he had a form of a lung cancer, his sister had a form of ovarian cancer, but this seemed to go on on both sides of the street and throughout this entire city block. As we got to the block after laying these black ribbons, we turned around and looked back, and quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, we were stunned and shocked to see that nearly every house on this street, 20 houses on each side of the street, almost every house had a black ribbon in front of it. It was shocking to see how pollutants like this actually destabilized the entire families and for that matter entire communities. Mr. Wynn. Thank you very much. That has been the observation that many of us have been able to make in conversations in different parts of the country, and I appreciate you sharing that with us. At this time I am going to relinquish the balance of my time to my ranking member, Mr. Shimkus. Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr.---- Mr. Wynn. Excuse me. I would like to relinquish my time and recognize for a full 5 minutes. You didn't see that coming. A full 5 minutes for questioning to Mr. Shimkus. Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A lot of the statements that are made in the second panel talks about the community not knowing, having information, the right-to-know. I don't disagree with any of that. If we could change the definition so that release really, so that TRI isn't toxic release, because we know as you heard in the, you all sat in the first panel, that it really is toxic use, management, and release inventory, no one here would have a problem with that, would they? Why don't you just, Mr. Shelton? Mr. Shelton. It doesn't matter to us what you call it. Mr. Shimkus. Right. Mr. Shelton. The importance that---- Mr. Shimkus. Yes. I think there is a problem with what you call it, because you by definition tell business and this form says you are releasing toxics, where many times they are not. They may be good stewards, so if we could just change the terminology and still get the same information, you wouldn't have a problem with that. Mr. Shelton. As long as all the data is collected at the same levels quite frankly. As a matter of fact, we would then begin to push you further to collect even more data. Nonetheless, as long as the data is collected don't care a whole lot about what you call it as long as you continue to collect that data. Mr. Shimkus. OK. Mr. Bopp. Mr. Bopp. No. I think that is a very good idea, because, again, people look at that---- Mr. Shimkus. Mr. Finkelstein. Mr. Finkelstein. I concur. I think that that is the ideal way to go. Mr. Shimkus. Ms. Wittenberg. Ms. Wittenberg. Not a problem. Mr. Shimkus. Not a problem. Great. Thank you. I do have unanimous consent to have inserted into the record of this hearing a letter supporting analysis submitted both, to both of us and dated today from the Business Network for Environmental Justice on H.R. 1103. I understand from staff that this information was transmitted to your staff yesterday, and we were told at the staff level that the majority would have no objection to its inclusion. Ms. Solis [presiding]. Without objection. Mr. Shimkus. Thank you. Ms. Solis. It will be entered into the record. Mr. Shimkus. And then Mr. Bopp, thanks for staying. I think it is important. Your fellow, and remember, those of us who really, and we are trying to talk about small business. I have problems with that definition, what is it, 500, 250? Mr. Bopp. Yes. Mr. Shimkus. But most of us in rural America, small business is small business. It is 30 employees or less. Small business creates 50 percent of all new jobs in America. Mr. Bopp. Uh-huh. Mr. Shimkus. Are those Mom and Pops that create new jobs. So your testimony is important, and I appreciate you coming here, and I appreciate you staying. Obviously, your fellow panelists has overwhelmingly questioned the EPA's TRI burden reduction proposal. They keep pointing to overwhelming amount of comments against this rule. Why is this burden reduction so important? Mr. Bopp. Again, the thing I keep coming back to is for these small businesses it is zero releasers who are getting reduction. Companies in the glass and ceramic industry face real, real, real tough competition from overseas. Every 2-day period, which is what the savings would be that it saved, is valuable. It is helpful, and again, to report nothing. If you are reporting something, our, to use the case of Nancy once again, she lives in the neighborhood. She is the last one who is going to want to have dumping in her neighborhood. So to make it simpler for her, to save her time to just make things better for business without losing any release information, I don't see how that is bad. Mr. Shimkus. Would any of your members or other fellow small businesses be except from reporting under the new rule? Mr. Bopp. No. It is, you are either on the Form R or the Form A. If you release anything at all, you are back on the Form R, and one pound transmitted offsite, you are back on Form R. Mr. Shimkus. Is the TRI, hopefully TUMRI, if we can change that, is TRI the only environmental health or product safety rule that you need to follow? Mr. Bopp. Not at all. Starting with the final product FDA has heavily regulated the use of metals on tableware for years. OSHA rules take precedence for worker exposure possibly in these situations, various States have different rules. As you can imagine, when there is lead in the consumer product, FDA has regulated this tightly for 35 years. It is sort of, it is like leaded crystal. Lead is there. It is, if there is no lead, there is no leaded crystal. That doesn't mean it is dangerous in that form. So it is highly regulated already. Mr. Shimkus. And are Nancy's mugs and the paint on them regulated by anyone else or in any other way? Probably the same question. Mr. Bopp. Same question basically. Yes. Those agencies basically, again, for products using lead, they are heavily, heavily, heavily regulated. Mr. Shimkus. And Dr. Bullard and Mr. Bravo, the question I asked before you returned was if reporting is all the same, would you be supportive of changing the TRI phrase to TUMRI, that is my new lobbying, which would be the toxic use, management, and release inventory? The other panelists, I don't want to sway you, they all said they wouldn't have a problem. I am--could be an amendment, so would you have, if everything else stayed the same, we just changed, release, and added, use, management, and release. Mr. Bullard. Well, Congressman, I would not have a problem with changing that as long as everything stayed the same. Mr. Shimkus. OK. Mr. Bullard. We have lots of names for facilities and reporting requirements like sanitary landfill. Mr. Shimkus. Yes. I just want to get clarify. I am just trying to bring clarity here. Mr. Bravo. Mr. Bravo. Yes. Likewise what Dr. Bullard is saying. I wouldn't have a problem with that, but there is something to be said about names. Mr. Shimkus. Yes. That is right. And I am just, I thank you. I went over my time. Yield back. Ms. Solis. OK. Then I guess I am the closing person here, but I have a lot of questions. Mr. Bopp, you mentioned that there is a burden that is shared by small businesses, and you say in the application process and applying for this information. What is the real cost, though, of compiling that information that they have to by law do anyway? It doesn't mean that they are going to be left without having to do that, so can you give me an idea of what that is, that they currently have to do anyway? Mr. Bopp. Absolutely. Yes. Nancy, I believe she even said in the EPW testimony back in February estimates without having formally done anything that about 130 hours go into calculating the colors used during the year by all employees, because, again, if you are decorating 20 different types of mugs a day with multiple colors, you have to track each color. Each color has a different amount of lead, and so---- Ms. Solis. But she is still going to be required under law to do that anyway. Mr. Bopp. She still has to do that. Absolutely. Ms. Solis. So, that is not really what we are talking about here. We are talking about in this proposal by EPA is to reduce the information so all you are going to, all we are really talking about is that one application and which to me sounds de minimus in some sense. Mr. Bopp. According to EPA it is 15\1/2\ hours. So if Nancy were here, and I will speak for her, that is 2 whole days when she could be doing something else. Ms. Solis. Right. And I understand that. Mr. Bopp. So, and, again, it is, I think the key thing here is in this case for lead to be on that simpler form she has to be reporting zero release onsite and offsite. So I don't see how being on a simpler form, that is the key thing we are reporting here. Ms. Solis. Well, she also makes a choice by running her business that contains that kind of contaminants. So those are choices that business people make. So everyone in our society we usually agree that everyone pays under the law. Mr. Bopp. Oh, absolutely. Ms. Solis. So that is what is happening here. So, anyway, my other question is for Dr. Bullard. Thank you so much for coming and Mr. Bravo and all the panelists obviously, but I wanted to ask you with respect to the comment that was made earlier by Ms. O'Neill, what you feel about the fact that just 1 percentage of less information is going to be made available. What does that mean for communities of color and underrepresented areas? Mr. Bullard. I think it is important to understand that 1 percent across the board may not seem like a large number for the kinds of releases that we are talking about or the number of facilities, but if you are talking about communities that are already overburdened, communities that already have more than their ``fair share'' of types of emitting facilities, you are not talking about a level playing field. Ms. Solis. So maybe what you, I am trying to understand. So I am looking in my own district where we have maybe in the city of Industry, near my district, you have several different industry-run organizations that have heavy, heavy concentrations of pollutants, whether it is paint, whether it is battery acid and arsenic and what have you. And if you are, you are taking some people off that list, it doesn't mean that it lessens the toxicity in the air or the water. And I guess that is what I am trying to understand is, in your opinion is that what would happen? We are not taking away the facility. The facility is still going to be there. Mr. Bullard. Right. The facility will still be there. Again, when you talk about one facility that may produce a small amount of pollution, it may, the toxicity level for that one facility may be such that it creates a huge health problem, health threat in those communities that are already overburdened and saturated. Ms. Solis. And so my concern, too, is that OMB asked EPA to work towards a national figure instead of looking at the localities that we have been hearing today from our witness from Mr. Chairman, and that is why I think when people somehow disregard the importance of environmental justice, that we are trying to somehow capture why it is important to have an equal playing field, because so many times we are not looked at adequately. And I know that is the case right now in my district. I have three Superfund sites, and we have high levels of contaminants, perchlorate in our water, which is another discussion that we have had before. And we have, this is, there is no scientific evidence yet, but I wish we could collaborate and have HHS here at another time to collaborate the data for incidents of diseases as well as high asthma rates, high incidence of epilepsy, cancer, and what have you. In an area where I grew up nearby a battery recycling plant where acid, arsenic was produced and disposed of, our water has been contaminated. Thank goodness for local jurisdictions in our State of California because we have Proposition 65, which requires notification. And most people will read a flyer that you will get in the mail, but they won't even understand what that means, and it means to be aware of, that there are some maybe ambient particular matter that is there in the air. We have found neighborhoods adjacent to where I live, where I grew up where there are cancer clusters; ovarian, all kinds, uterine. All kinds of different types of cancers, and it is rather alarming to me to know that this isn't just going on in my part of town, that it continues to happen. My time is up. Mr. Chairman, I yield back to you. Mr. Wynn [presiding]. I want to thank the vice-chair for giving me a little break there and particularly, again, for her leadership throughout on this issue. If there are no other questions at this time, I believe that concludes our business with these witnesses. We have no further witnesses today. Thank you again for your patience and for your testimony. I would like to remind Members that you may submit additional questions for the record to be answered by the relevant witnesses. The questions should be submitted to the committee clerk in the electronic form within the next 10 days. The clerk will notify your offices of procedures. And without objection thank you, again, and the subcommittee stands adjourned. [Whereupon, at 2:10 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.086 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.087 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.088 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.089 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.090 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.091 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.092 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.093 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.094 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.095 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.096 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.097 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.098 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.099 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.100 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.101 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.102 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.103 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.104 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.105 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.106 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.107 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.108 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.109 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.110 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.111 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.112 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.113 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.114 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.115 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.116 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.117 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.118 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.119 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.197 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.198 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.120 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.121 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.122 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.123 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.124 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.125 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.126 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.127 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.128 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.129 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.130 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.131 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.132 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.133 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.134 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.135 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.136 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.137 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.138 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.139 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.140 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.141 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.142 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.143 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.144 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.145 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.146 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.147 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.148 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.149 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.150 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.151 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.152 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.153 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.154 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.155 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.156 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.157 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.158 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.159 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.160 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.161 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.162 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.203 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.204 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.205 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.206 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.207 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.163 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.164 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.165 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.166 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.167 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.168 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.169 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.170 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.171 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.172 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.173 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.174 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.175 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.176 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.177 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.178 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.179 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.180 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.181 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.182 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.183 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.184 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.185 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.186 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.187 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.188 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.189 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.190 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.191 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.192 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.193 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.194 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.195 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.196 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.208 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.209 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.210 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.211 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.212 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.213 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.214 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.215 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.216 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.217 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.218 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.219 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.220 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.221 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5093.222