[Senate Hearing 107-53]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
. S. Hrg. 107-53
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S
FISCAL YEAR 2002 BUDGET
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MAY 15, 2001
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
73-030 WASHINGTON : 2002
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
one hundred seventh congress
first session
BOB SMITH, New Hampshire, Chairman
HARRY REID, Nevada, Ranking Democratic Member
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia MAX BAUCUS, Montana
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma BOB GRAHAM, Florida
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio BARBARA BOXER, California
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho RON WYDEN, Oregon
LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado JON S. CORZINE, New Jersey
Dave Conover, Republican Staff Director
Eric Washburn, Democratic Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
MAY 15, 2001
OPENING STATEMENTS
Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California... 3
Clinton, Hon. Hillary Rodham, U.S. Senator from the State of New
York........................................................... 6
Corzine, Hon. Jon S., U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey.. 10
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma... 6
Reid, Hon. Harry, U.S. Senator from the State of Nevada.......... 12
Smith, Hon. Bob, U.S. Senator from the State of New Hampshire.... 1
Voinovich, Hon. George V., U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio... 8
Warner, Hon. John W., U.S. Senator from the Commonwealth of
Virginia....................................................... 11
WITNESS
Whitman, Christine Todd, Administrator, Environmental Protection
Agency......................................................... 19
Prepared Statement........................................... 41
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Boxer............................................ 40
Senator Chafee........................................... 75
Senator Corzine.......................................... 52
Senator Reid............................................. 56
Senator Smith............................................ 47
(iii)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S FISCAL YEAR 2002 BUDGET
----------
TUESDAY, MAY 15, 2001
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:40 p.m. in room
SD-628, Senate Dirksen Building, Hon. Bob Smith (chairman of
the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Smith, Warner, Inhofe, Voinovich, Reid,
Boxer, Clinton, and Corzine.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOB SMITH, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Senator Smith. The hearing will come to order.
Let me first of all say to Governor Whitman, now
Administrator Whitman, welcome again to the committee.
I want to thank you for joining me in Winchester, New
Hampshire a few days ago to build support for the brownfields
bills. It certainly was helpful in that regard to do just that.
Today's hearing is on the EPA fiscal year 2002 budget. I am
very pleased that this budget moved along in the direction that
I believe is necessary if we are to achieve long-term success.
It is about partnership with the States and achieving results
through cooperation and smart management.
It reflects many of the priorities that you, Governor
Whitman, instituted at the State level as the Governor of New
Jersey. You can certainly see that Governor's hand on this
budget as you present it.
The end result was that virtually all measurable indicators
show that you left New Jersey with a much-improved environment
than you found it.
I recall in your confirmation hearing praise from both
sides of the aisle for that environmental record. Much of that
praise has to do with how you prioritize that spending based on
the end result of what is best for the environment.
This budget increases spending where it is necessary. It
institutes a smart management approach so that dollars are
spent more wisely. While there will be those who will criticize
it, the Bush budget actually represents a $56 million increase
over the fiscal year 2001 President's budget request.
It is environmentally protective. It is fiscally
disciplined. Certainly, I am pleased about the brownfields
funding, which is increased to $98 million. Those dollars will
be leveraged into $300 million worth of cleanup and then
hopefully even more than that if we can get our brownfields
legislation passed.
The beaches bill that was authorized by this committee last
year will get seed money in this budget to get that program
started.
I want to emphasize that this committee did authorize that
program and we would hope that those programs that are
authorized would get adequate resources.
With regard to clean water as a package, clean water
infrastructure funding is substantially higher than any
previous Administration that I am aware of since I have been
here. I want to work with you on how it is divided.
I am encouraged that the President's budget, unlike in the
past, recognizes the vital importance of clean water
infrastructure to this Nation. I have seen so many examples in
New Hampshire communities, as I am sure my colleagues have all
over the country of antiquated water systems and CSO problems
and SSO problems.
Some of these water systems in our region of the country
were built in the later 1890's or early 1900's and are long in
need of help.
I have a long-standing commitment to the State revolving
loan fund because it represents the best approach for helping
States to meet those environmental needs. I also want the
States to have the flexibility to address their environmental
structure, their priorities and their needs as they see them.
I am very pleased that President Bush's environmental
protection budget recognizes the capabilities of the States and
begins the necessary shift to increasing partnerships with
them. This is a basic philosophical shift. I am pleased to see
that process beginning.
Over 95 percent of inspections and 90 percent of
enforcement actions are carried out by the States, not the
Federal Government. I think this budget recognizes that with
another $25 million in State enforcement grants.
This is interesting because it brought a very positive
response from the States. I would quote one letter from the
environmental council of the States:
We appreciate the recognition that a vast majority of the
enforcement and compliance activity of the Nation occurs within
the States and we welcome the much-
needed infusion of $25 million in State enforcement grants to
assist in that effort.
The President's budget also supports information gathering
and sharing and will better equip the States.
There is $21 million to increase the availability of
quality environmental and health information. EPA also launches
a new $25 million program to provide States and tribes with
assistance in developing environmental information exchange and
so forth.
Finally, I would say this budget is about smarter
management. Beyond funding programs to protect the environment,
the budget priorities focus on quality information, a credible
deterrent to pollution with greater compliance and effective
management.
In conclusion, I would say that when I became chairman I
stated that one of my goals was to see a Environmental
Protection Agency that promotes partnership with States,
encourages cooperation over confrontation, compliance over
lawsuits. It offers a carrot, yet carries a stick in the
pocket, if necessary, an agency that focuses on efforts that
will result in a cleaner and healthier environment.
Governor Whitman, I believe that you are headed in that
direction, in the right direction, with this budget, even
though there will be some differences and criticisms, I am
sure.
Before yielding to Senator Boxer and my colleagues, I would
ask that we go with 5 minutes in the first round and limit the
questions to two rounds because of a commitment by the
Administrator at 4:30. So, hopefully, we will respect that.
Senator Boxer, I yield to you.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much.
Administrator Whitman, Senator Reid said he would be here
as soon as he could. He was managing something on the Senate
floor, so he asked if I would fill in for him.
Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. This is an important
hearing, because I always believe that a budget is really the
guideline for what you believe in and what you think is
important.
When I look at this budget, it is down 6 percent, it is off
$500 million in real dollar terms. I think that is a message
from this Administration and a message that is not good for the
people of this country who overall really strongly believe in a
clean and healthy environment and support all the key landmark
legislative pieces that we fund.
We are looking at this as a matter of priorities. I think
that the EPA's mission to protect human health and the
environment is of great importance.
I am very concerned with the budget, and more than that,
with some of the policies that are coming out of this
Administration.
We need to ensure the people clean air, safe drinking water
and healthy communities in general. We know that for example
children are very vulnerable when we weaken our environmental
laws. That is what this Administration is set to do. I am not
going to list the laundry list that we have already seen coming
out of this Administration.
I am going to focus on one thing today, but let us be
clear: This budget is cut 6 percent. When you asked the
Administrator in the past, I have heard her say, ``Well, these
are just earmarks, just earmarks.''
That is things that this Congress, representing the people,
thought were important. So, I have to question why this
proposed budget doesn't have the level of resources that we
provided in 2001.
Many key programs like Federal enforcement are cut. Other
key programs like the safe drinking water revolving account are
flat. I am very concerned that the people are not getting what
they deserve.
One item I am particularly troubled about is our drinking
water. I am very troubled about that whole issue, especially in
light of the recent suspension of the new arsenic standard for
drinking water, a standard that is supported by years and years
of study and extensive cost analysis.
After a comprehensive review, we still do not today have a
standard for arsenic in our drinking water that is safe.
As we know, this Administration delayed the new arsenic
standard. It is going to be back to that 50 parts per billion
or is back to that 50 parts per billion.
We are allowing people to drink enough arsenic in their
water to cause cancer in 1 of every 100 people. That is why the
State of New Jersey, Governor Whitman, moved the standard back
to 10. You know that. We congratulated you on that.
The question is: If it is good enough for New Jersey, why
isn't it good enough for the American people? I think even 1
day losing time like we are losing on this is not good.
Now, I want to talk with you briefly in this opening
statement about three new studies, because I don't know whether
you have had the chance to be briefed by your staff and we have
brought them with you.
First let me show you a chart which shows the different
countries and their standards. Australia has gone to seven
parts per billion. We see the European Union at 10 parts, Japan
at 10 parts. The World Health Organization should be 10.
Joining us at 50 parts per million are Bangladesh, Bolivia,
China, India and Indonesia. That is where we line up.
I think most Americans don't want us to line up that way.
Now, EPA found in January of this year that we could
establish a new standard now of 10 parts per billion. Not only
did the weight of science support that standard, but also the
cost analysis supported that standard. EPA found the benefits
justified the cost. Years of study supported the 10 parts per
billion standard and recent studies provided even more support.
Now, the new studies that have come out, I am going to make
sure that you get those new studies. The first one, the new
Dartmouth study, published in Environmental Health
Perspectives, finds that arsenic disrupts hormone function.
This finding means that there may be an increase in
diabetes, cardiovascular disease and cancer. Arsenic is more
toxic in more ways than we thought. We can see here from this
new perspective, the Dartmouth Study, March of 2001, it means
increased risk of diabetes, cardiovascular disease and risk of
cancer.
Another chart I want to show you is published in Chemical
Research and Toxicology. It finds a link between arsenic and
DNA damage. This is April 2001, EPA. It finds an increased risk
of cancer and basically that no level of arsenic is clearly
safe.
So, clearly we know the lowest possible standard is needed
and that is very important.
Finally, there is a new study from Taiwan. I understand
this study is published in the premier journal in this field,
the American Journal of Epidemiology. This study finds that
there is an increase and actual doubling of cancer risk when
arsenic is consumed in drinking water between 10.1 and 50 parts
per billion. So, word on the street that you are going to look
at 20 parts per billion is very upsetting because it is not
safe at 20.
This new study says to me that we ought to just keep that
10 in place and not fool around with the health of the people
in this country.
We have a standard in place as a result of the action of
this Administration that was set in 1942.
Now, here is the point I want to make. When you ask people
in your Administration, and you have said this yourself, the
cost to small communities across the country has to be
considered. Of course it does. That is why I wonder why you
have the funding for drinking water infrastructure at a flat
level, no increase.
On the one hand you are complaining that you have to do all
these things. On the other hand, you make this part of the
budget flat. It seems to me if we really care about the local
people, and of course, we all do, I was one once and you were
one once, the fact is we need to help them clean up the water.
You know, we have a debate over these tax cuts. The people
who earn $1 million a year are going to get back hundreds of
thousands a year.
You know, if I asked them in my State, and I have a lot of
them in my State, they think it is nuts when we have arsenic in
the water, when we don't even have a standard for Chromium Six
and anyone who saw the movie, Erin Brockavich, that was real.
Those are real people who died of cancer because Chromium Six
was in the water and we don't even have a standard.
So, it is all intertwined. I know you have been dealt a
certain hand in this budget. But I said to you when I happily
voted for you, and I am glad that I did, that I hoped when you
sat around the table you were going to make a strong case and
not back down, a strong case for the children, for the quality
of the air and the water.
Frankly, looking at this budget, this gets one of the
biggest hits in the entire Administration. So, I am very
distressed about this. I think that what you could do to really
help everyone is to convince this President that backing off of
the arsenic standard is not a good idea.
I think it is illegal. I have sent you a letter. I cited
chapter and verse the law that is in place that says in fact
you have to have a new standard in place. Instead of even
answering that letter, as far as I know I have not even gotten
an answer, I think this Administration has broken the law on
that point.
Congress didn't say ``You may have a standard in place by
this date.''
They said ``You have to have one.''
And there isn't going to be one. So, I am concerned about
the level of this budget. I am concerned about the action on
arsenic. I have given you three new studies. I hope you can go
back to the table and make the case for keeping that arsenic
standard at 10.
I will help you in every way that I can to work on a bill.
Senator Smith, Senator Reid and I am supporting their bill to
increase the funds to help our local communities clean up the
water.
Thank you very much.
Senator Smith. Thank you, Senator Boxer.
Senator Inhofe.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief,
but I will submit my opening statement for the record.
Madam Administrator, I think you have done a real good job
in putting this budget together. In addition to some of the
things that our Chairman mentioned, I would single out the
Information Exchange Network. I think this would be a great
help to the States.
In this information age, it is not reasonable that we
continue to do things the way we have been doing them in the
past.
The Superfund, moving forward with that, I have a concern
here. I do chair the Readiness Subcommittee that has
jurisdiction over the BRAC process and the fact that we need to
have our Federal partners cleaning up the Federal facilities. I
would particularly be concerned with some of our BRAC sites.
The water infrastructure funding, I think, is very
significant. I say that not just for my State of Oklahoma, but
to many other States. The same with total maximum daily loads.
I would single out your commitment to sound science. It is
something that we have been working on for a long time. As I
told you many times when you and I visited about this, it is
very important. In the language that you used, and I am quoting
now,
Science and public policy proceed along fundamentally
different lines, different time lines. We will continue to use
the best available science and scientific analysis to aid in
the development of environmental policy.
I can remember when we virtually ignored the
recommendations of CASAC, the Clean Air Scientific Advisory
Committee. Some 21 scientists, gathered together by EPA, issued
a report with recommendations during the ambient air fight.
Last, on New Source Review, this has been something that
Senator Voinovich and I have been very much concerned with over
a long time. I know this is not your doing. It was a surprise
to me, maybe it should have been more of a surprise than it
was, but these notices of violations of the 114, how many of
them were dated January 19, 2001.
Many of the requests came in in the form of photocopied
documents where one refinery is scratched out and another one
put in. In these areas, I hope we will be able to see activity
in addressing this New Source Review expanded.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Smith. Thank you, Senator Inhofe.
Senator Clinton.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, U.S. SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Senator Clinton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to focus on a couple of issues that concern me. I
certainly second the comments of my colleague, Senator Boxer,
and hope that despite what we heard the arsenic standard will
be issued in a timely and legally appropriate manner by the
date that the Congress set.
I want to talk, though, about the intersection between our
environment and energy. I don't think it will surprise anyone
in this hearing that we have the threat of power outages in our
country, and that is not just in California. It includes New
York.
According to a new Energy Information Administration
report, the probability of rolling blackouts is increased as
reserve margins decline. Supplies of electricity are expected
to be tight in the New York City and Long Island areas this
summer.
While unlikely, blackouts could occur in the event of a
long period of extremely hot weather.
I raise this issue because I am very concerned about what
the threat of blackouts or brownouts means for New Yorkers and
Americans this summer. It appears that President Bush's energy
plan, to be released this week, will not address our short-term
energy needs. In fact, he has said that his tax cut is the
response that his Administration has to the current energy
challenges that we face.
I just could not disagree more, especially because the
budget cuts we see in this budget and the budgets of other
agencies in our government are being made primarily to
accommodate these fiscally irresponsible tax cuts.
Unfortunately, the tax cut requires that there be cuts in
the energy efficiency and energy conservation programs that we
need in order to help us solve our Nation's power problems.
The President's budget cuts research in renewable energy by
an astounding 37 percent and slashes energy efficiency programs
in half. I think these are drastic cuts that lead our country
in the wrong direction. They seem to overlook an important
fact, that energy efficiency, as we heard in testimony before
this committee in the past, represents the second largest
source of energy in the United States.
Now, more than ever, we need a balanced energy policy that
embraces energy efficiency and conservation measures in
combination with new environmental responsible generation of
power, including renewable energy sources.
Now, the EPA's Energy Star Program, which, I think, is
perhaps one of the best examples of what government and
industry can achieve when they work together in partnership,
has been a tremendous success. Everyday this program has made
it easier for businesses and schools and consumers to save
money and protect the environment.
It is my understanding that over the past 8 years, through
simple energy efficient improvements, the Energy Star Program
has helped us avoid the need for over 30 new 300-megawatt power
plants. As technology continues to advance, the program has the
potential to do even more.
Now, given the current energy crunch we find ourselves in,
I believe we should be expanding, not flat funding or cutting
back important programs like the EPA's Energy Star Program.
I am also concerned that the President's plan makes the
EPA's budget and important environmental programs a secondary
priority. In total, the President's budget request for EPA is
approximately $500 million less than the enacted level for
fiscal year 2001, or a 6-percent cut.
Now, if the EPA budget accounted for the 4-percent growth
rate that President Bush said is a reasonable rate of growth,
his request for EPA would represent a 10-percent cut.
The President's request represents significant funding
shortfalls for important programs like the Clean Water State
Revolving Fund, Enforcement, Sound Science, and Pesticide
programs.
I am particularly concerned that these cuts are coming at a
time when we are trying to determine the links between our
environment and our health. For example, many people, not just
in New York, but around our country, believe that the
environment plays some role in the incidence of breast cancer
in women. They have not yet determined what that role is. But
we cannot give up our efforts to control those factors that we
think possibly cause or influence cancer.
We still don't know, for example, what caused the childhood
cancer cluster in Fallon, NV, where I went with Senator Reid
for a hearing, or the high rate of testicular cancer in the
students who attended a high school in Elmira, NY. But we
should not give up on the commitment to determine whether it is
pesticides and other chemicals that get into our water or our
air, whether it is the increasing levels of nitrogen oxides and
other pollutants, whether it is the cumulative effect of
environmental contamination that has been built up over the
years.
We don't know but we are certainly not going to find
answers by cutting funding for EPA's science and technology
programs, including research on air pollution and safe drinking
water.
We are certainly not going to protect our children better
if we fail to increase or even cut investments in programs that
will make our air and water cleaner.
So, I hope that as we look at this budget request, we do
what we on this committee, in a bipartisan manner, believe is
in the best interests of the health of our children, our
environment's improvement, and our energy efficiency.
I find in those three areas this budget proposal just
doesn't meet the challenges that we have.
Senator Smith. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Voinovich.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE V. VOINOVICH,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OHIO
Senator Voinovich. I know that last year we held an EPA
budget hearing each year. I am pleased that we are doing it,
Mr. Chairman. It is very important. I think at that time it is
very important for us to have this oversight over the
appropriations process.
I would like to commend the Administrator for the
President's budget submittal. I know one thing, that you didn't
have a whole lot of time to put this budget together, nor did
the President. It is interesting to me to hear that we need to
spend more money in your budget. I suspect that I agree with
that, but at the same time, we are talking about increasing the
budget for education. If you look at the numbers, it is 25
percent.
Administrator, you know from being a Governor that when you
have large increases in other parts of the budget, they squeeze
out other priorities that you have in the area of
responsibility that you have.
Unfortunately, this Congress, in my observation, has not
been willing to make the hard choices and the priorities to
look at the big picture in the 13 appropriations areas and that
is one of the reasons why we are in trouble today. We just
don't do that.
I really feel sorry for you in a way because of the way
this thing works here. Hopefully, it is not too much of a shock
to you.
I know you have gotten some criticism for transferring part
of the enforcement budget to the States through a $25 million
grant program. But I think that is exactly what you should be
doing.
As the former Governor of Ohio, I realize that the States
are and should be taking the lead on environmental enforcement.
I think many people are not aware of the fact that the States
already conduct 95 percent of all inspections. I think it is
time for the Federal EPA budget to acknowledge that fact.
By proposing these State enforcement grants, we as a Nation
will get a better environmental enforcement program.
Now, there are a few issues I would like addressed today by
you. I have held two meetings in Ohio over the last several
months on Ohio's wastewater infrastructure needs. Most
recently, at the end of April, Senator Crapo conducted a field
hearing in Columbus, OH on the State's wastewater needs.
Mr. Chairman, we are facing a rumbling of a rebellion
across the Nation as communities struggle to deal with aging
water infrastructure growth, increasing Federal water quality
requirements.
In Ohio alone, the estimated need for safe drinking water
and wastewater total $12.4 billion. That is $5 billion for
drinking water and $7.4 billion for wastewater.
I know that you have to defend the budget request of $850
million for the Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund as an
increase. It would, in fact, be a $500 million cut from the
$1.35 billion Congress has appropriated in recent years.
At the same time, the request ignores Congress' goal of
funding the Clean Water SRF Program at $1.35 billion, before
putting any money toward the wastewater grants program, which
is authorized at $750 million for fiscal year 2002.
Now, there is not enough. I have a bill in to increase the
State Revolving Loan Fund to $3 billion a year. That is modest
in terms of the needs. We know that the States need grants.
Last year when we did the authorization, this Congress, as a
sense of the Congress, said we need to at least get the $1.35
billion for the SRF and we needed another $750 million a year
for the grant program.
You know, we have a very serious problem there. I think you
ought to go back and look at that and see if there is not
something that you can do to respond. It is not a whole lot of
money, but it will make a great deal of difference to the
communities throughout our country.
Another issue is human capital. All of our Federal agencies
are confronted with a human capital crisis. I would like to
know from you what is the situation in the EPA and what percent
of your work force is eligible for retirement and early
retirement.
Most importantly, what category are you going to have
problems in? For example, scientists, are you going to be able
to have the scientists that you need? You probably have more
Masters degree and PhD. people working in your agency than in
any other agency. I know it is not easy to keep them or to
attract them.
I am interested to know, does this budget provide you the
wherewithal so that you can keep your folks and attract people
to the agency?
Last year the National Research Council prepared a study
entitled ``Strengthening Science at the U.S. EPA.'' That report
included several recommendations on how to improve the research
management and peer review practices at the agency. While some
of these recommendations require congressional authorization,
many do not.
Is the Administration's budget request sufficient to
accomplish the recommendation necessary to strengthen EPA's
scientific practices.
I look forward to your testimony. You don't have an easy
job. We are hopeful that we can work with you the rest of this
year and next year. Maybe the budget presentation next year
will be easier.
Senator Smith. Thank you, Senator Voinovich.
Senator Corzine.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JON S. CORZINE, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Senator Corzine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It is good to see you, Governor. I want to echo much of
what my Democratic colleagues have said. Also, I want to
identify strongly with Senator Voinovich's comments on the
Clean Water Revolving Fund. I have serious concerns there and
also about arsenic standards, which I think are clear.
The whole level of discretionary spending cuts that are
imbedded in this budget, these budget numbers, really are
reflective of the priorities that are flowing from, I think, an
outsize tax cut as opposed to reflecting our priority needs.
I frankly think the EPA budget request this year is
inadequate to address the environmental needs of the Nation.
The request for the next year is not the exception. Actually,
we are more troubled about the outyears at least as we have
seen it in the proposals. It makes real dollar reductions in
EPA every year for the next 5 years, if I am reading the
numbers right.
We tried to fix this problem during the budget debate.
Every Democrat on this committee voted for an amendment that I
offered to increase environmental funding, including EPA's
budget, by $50 billion over the next 10 years.
I know throwing money at things is not the answer for all
problems, but there are certain levels of funding that are
necessary, I think, to deal with a lot of these issues in our
environmental areas.
So, I think there are real problems with EPA's request. I
have concerns somewhat with some of the policy choices that the
budget makes. It cuts Clean Air, reduces the number of
Superfund cleanup sites, which, you know, in New Jersey is more
than a small problem. It cuts funding for challenge global
warming. I believe it shuffles some accounting columns with
regard to funding for pesticide assessments.
Maybe more importantly, and we talked about this at the
confirmation hearing, I find your enforcement cuts especially
disturbing. I am all for compassionate enforcement, but I think
we need to be real with regard to credible deterrence. It is
hard to believe that this budget, which cuts 269 enforcement
positions, will make the prospect of enforcement more credible
to polluters.
I understand that most of the resources freed by these cuts
are going to the States. I want to help States, Mr. Chairman,
but not at the expense of Federal enforcement. It is too
important. I believe the people of New Jersey depend on it,
reflect on it, think that EPA has done a good job.
They depend on Federal enforcement of the Clean Air Act to
address pollution coming in from other States, which
contributes to New Jersey's ozone problems. We certainly depend
on Federal enforcement to clean up our 114 Superfund sites.
They depend on Federal enforcement backstops to strengthen
compliance with the rest of our environmental laws.
These changes in enforcement policy and cuts to others
areas, I believe, will hurt New Jersey and send a wrong message
to the polluters across the Nation. I will be getting back with
more detail, but I hope that we can all work together to maybe
increase these numbers somewhat so that we can take this and
really apply strong environmental standards for our kids and
for communities.
Senator Smith. Thank you, Senator Corzine.
Senator Warner, do you have any opening remarks?
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN W. WARNER, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Senator Warner. Thank you. I will be very brief.
Madam Secretary, we welcome you. We read a lot about how
much fun you are having in this job. Sheer joy, isn't it?
Ms. Whitman. Absolutely.
Senator Warner. But if it weren't, it wouldn't have
attracted you, those challenges. I have been a member of this
committee, I guess, many years now. I don't count any more. But
we are going to hope to be very supportive and hopefully in a
very bipartisan way.
We reach across this aisle on this committee quite well.
Senator Reid and I have cut through a lot of problems through
the years, haven't we, Harry? Are you listening to what I am
saying?
Senator Reid. Every word of it. I knew you weren't talking
about Jack.
Senator Warner. Anyway, each of us has our own project or
two. But I am looking forward to the President's energy message
that is forthcoming here on Thursday.
Over the many years that I have been here, we have worked
on clean coal-burning technology and other means to preserve
the environment in the face of the use of coal and other
sources of our energy.
I understand that the President is going to rely, as this
Nation must rely, on coal. It is our largest source of fossil
fuel energy. It is basically unlimited. I mean we spend so much
time with grave concern over the increased export of petroleum,
when beneath this wonderful land we have is an inexhaustible
supply of coal. It is well distributed across the United
States.
So, as we move in that direction, I would hope that we
could all work with you to continue to have the high
environmental standards and at the same time enable the free
enterprise system to utilize coal to meet this energy crisis
that is coming.
Do you have any views on that or are you just going to
listen for a minute and then when you get a chance to talk you
will touch on that.
The other issue is the Chesapeake Bay. I was here with
Senator Mathias, a wonderful Senator. We pioneered that
agreement. There are three States that signed this report, and
you are on this, to forge ahead. It is 20 years old now. We
have authorized about $30 million a year. The appropriators
have seen fit for $20 million a year. Now we have dropped down
possibly to $18 million.
But this benefits many States. There are six States that
directly benefit from the watershed. That includes northern
parts of New York. Of course, my States of Virginia and
Maryland are principal beneficiaries.
We are constantly facing a destabilizing environmental
situation now that the Blue Crab is beginning to disappear in
large amounts. We are taking initiatives to reseed the Blue
Crab.
So, I hope this merits some of your attention. I sat here
last year and watched the Everglades bill go through, an
enormous amount of money, benefiting primarily one State,
although the Everglades is a national treasure.
But this is a national treasure also. We have been plugging
away for 20 years on this and there is much more to be done.
So, I hope that you will lend an ear to that program.
I thank you again for your public service.
Senator Smith. Thank you, Senator Warner.
Senator Reid.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HARRY REID, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF NEVADA
Senator Reid. I figured out Senator Smith's goal here. We
use all of our time in statements and then there is no time for
questions.
I understand the Administrator wants to leave at 4:30, so
we will have questions either orally or in writing.
Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for scheduling this
hearing. I am always very concerned about saying nice things
about Administrator Whitman. I am afraid it might hurt her more
than help her. Maybe I would be better off saying bad things
about her. It might help more.
Madam Administrator, President Bush has said that a
reasonable rate of growth for the budget was 4 percent. At the
State of the Union he said that. Yet, for EPA, which is what I
care so much about, the budget overall reflects a cut of 6
percent, $500 million.
If we added in President Bush's 4 percent increase that he
said we should get, the budget would have a cut of 10 percent.
Many of the programs we have old funding levels. With new,
complex environmental problems to be faced we still have these
old funding levels.
For example, this Administration has criticized the
regulatory actions taken by EPA in the past for not being
careful enough or as not being supported by science. Yet, the
budget fails to increase funding for the offices responsible
for issuing these regulations and fails to increase funding for
sound science, which would seem to me logically to compound the
complaints the President has had.
So, really what does this budget mean? What sort of
programs would be affected? Now, I know you didn't write the
budget. It is something you have to live with. I think it is
important that we direct your attention to what you do have to
live with.
The Environmental Protection Agency would be funded at $7.3
billion for fiscal year 2002, a cut, as I said, of $500
million. This translates to cuts in programs to protect water
quality, infrastructure, clean air, enforcement of all
environmental laws, and of course, scientific analysis.
Let's talk about the enforcement cuts. One issue that I
would like to highlight is the very serious reductions in the
EPA enforcement efforts. Programs that deter polluters from
ignoring the law in the first place, that is compliance
monitoring and civil enforcement, I believe are the backbone of
Federal environmental protection.
Enforcement both ensures that the companies know their
responsibilities and that companies who comply are rewarded for
their behavior, rather than being put at a competitive
disadvantage with those who fail to follow laws.
Madam Secretary, let me just give you one simple example of
why we have to have enforcement available and we have to use
it. We had a problem in Nevada. I have invited you out there to
take a look at government at its best. We had a big gravel pit.
It was causing all kinds of problems.
The State was trying their best, but they were under-
equipped to deal with eight oil companies. The oil companies
had much, much larger departments in any area, including legal,
than the State of Nevada had.
We brought in the EPA. An emergency Superfund site was
declared. That place was cleaned up quickly. It was dangerous.
We now have a beautiful marina on a lake there. It is so
beautiful. That is why we need money for enforcement, to have
not only the muscle, but companies need to know that the muscle
can be used.
These cuts that I have talked about affect all programs.
They will hurt Clean Air, Clean Water, Safe Food, Right to Know
and other programs. The Administration even cut the budget for
recovering money spent by the Federal Government. One of the
activities that the Government Accounting Office has repeatedly
suggested, EPA needs to beef up, not only because it does a lot
of good, but also we make money doing that.
The President's budget contains a provision that would
shift $25 million for EPA's enforcement of our environmental
laws to State programs. This translates to a cut of Federal
enforcement personnel of 270, about 10 percent of the work
force across the country. These employees are truly the
environmental cops on the beat. Over 80 percent of these cuts
will come from field employees, those closest to the problems,
those working on the cases that ensure environmental laws are
effective.
I fully support assisting the States in their enforcement
efforts, but this should not be funded by undercutting EPA's
ability to enforce environmental laws.
The enforcement budget is one of the most fiscally
efficient ways to improve the environment. For example, under
the Superfund Program, every one dollar spent in enforcement
results in $7 worth of environmental cleanup.
I think the State of New Jersey has had more experience
than any other State with Superfund. So, I am sure you know
that. There are many instances when it makes more sense for the
Federal Government to be involved, such as when there are
companies involved in several states, an example I have already
given; cases where the pollution crosses State boundaries, the
example that I gave, are very large and complex cases which
would over-burden a single State, an example that I already
gave.
Let us talk about budget cuts that deal with clean water in
estuaries. The budget cuts EPA's Clean Water State Revolving
Fund Wastewater Loan Program used to provide loans to
communities for upgrading their water treatment infrastructure
is cut by $450 million. This is terrible. It ignores the
Nation's water infrastructure crisis.
On a bipartisan basis, Senator Ensign and I have introduced
legislation to increase this. The National Estuaries Program
would be cut by 50 percent.
In addition, despite the fact that there are more than 40
percent of the Nation's waterways unsafe for fishing and
swimming, the program monitoring water quality on swimming
beaches will be cut from $30 million in fiscal year 2001 to $2
million in fiscal year 2002. That is a significant cut.
The budget cuts funding for sound science. Sound science
reaches across all aspects of the EPA's programs, from
regulating arsenic to Yucca Mountain. Quality, objective
science gives the EPA the credibility it needs to be an
effective guardian of the health and safety of the public and
the environment.
The EPA has said it would like to make sound science the
basis for policy decisions. The budget fails to support that
claim. The request is $27 million less than last year's enacted
level and $21 million less than last year's request.
Clean Air, the agency's budget request for Clean Air
Programs is inadequate to keep up with the public health
challenges we face every day.
Madam Secretary, asthma has become very, very serious all
over the country. Every day we learn more about the health
impacts of fine particles, air toxins and global warming. We
really don't understand all of them. Yet, the Air budget is
going down, not up.
The Clean Air Program would be cut by 6 percent, even
though more than 100 million people still breath dirty air that
does not meet Clean Air standards. Programs that help States
meet quality standards will be cut by 4 percent. Additional
cuts will be made to ozone reduction, air toxins and acid rain
programs. It is hard for me to believe this, but that is what I
am reading, that is what the budget says.
There are also cuts in scientific research in Clean Air.
During the Presidential campaign, President Bush said that
``Efforts to improve our environment must be based on sound
science, not social fads.''
Yet, when it comes to funding, sound science, research and
air pollution at EPA, the budget is sliced by over $6 million
in research in key air pollutants and cuts more than $1.257
million from EPA programs regulating hazardous air pollutants.
The Administration is proposing to delegate ever more
enforcement authority to States. Air pollution enforcement
requires a strong Federal presence, as we have already
established.
EPA's enforcement actions on New Source Review in 2000 and
a recent GAO report on inadequate funding by large facilities
suggests EPA can and must do the job of overseer when the
States simply don't keep up with the political and resource
demands that are there.
The Bush budget proposes a cut of over half a million
dollars from EPA's climate programs, despite broad recognition
that it is a serious problem.
Brownfields legislation we just passed. The Administration
budget provides only $5 million in additional funding for
brownfields, a shortfall of at least $152 million in funding
for S. 350.
We have already established, Madam Administrator, that
brownfields will create 600,000 jobs, will add revenues to
State and local governments of about $2.5 billion. So, we need
to do this. The budget goals aim for 20 fewer Superfund
cleanups a year. I think it should be at least 20 more
Superfund cleanups a year.
Pesticides and children's health. I was hopeful that
protecting children from dangerous pesticides would be an area
where we could make progress FE not so. In the face of
rollbacks in protections for air and water, we understand that
a consent decree was signed to put EPA on a schedule to provide
critical pesticide protection for children.
The Administration did the right thing, Governor Whitman.
Time and time again since then, President Bush has reminded us,
highlighting the pesticide settlement as evidence of a positive
settlement achievement.
But the budget reveals that all this talk was just that--
talk. EPA has made sure it has a right, under the consent
decree, to change its obligation to protect children from
dangerous pesticides if it experiences substantial cuts to its
budget. You can't do that.
Therefore, the budget actually breaks the promise for
pesticide protections for children by giving EPA an excuse to
get out of the pesticide settlement it has lauded as a major
achievement for this Administration.
This budget would cut 50 percent from last year's level,
resulting in the loss of 200 employees from relevant EPA
programs. When we find that cut the Administration tells us
really it isn't a cut because it plans to finalize the proposed
Clinton administration rule to raise the fees charged pesticide
companies due to its work.
We know that this will never come to be in this Congress.
Lucky next Congress, every time we try to do that we are tied
up in courts for years. What happens if the rule is blocked, as
it has been, additionally not only by court action, but by
riders as it has been for at least one Congress?
In summary, I am disappointed that the Administration
budget fails to provide adequate funding for virtually every
critical program that protects environment. I think this is a
sad day for our country.
[Tables and illustrations submitted by Senator Reid for the
record follow:]
Environmental Protection Agency, Summary of Agency Resources by Goal
[Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2002
FY 2001 enacted President's Delta FY 2002 vs. Percent
Budget FY 2001 change
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clear air..................................... $590,082.0 $564,628.0 $(25,454.0) -4
Clean & safe water............................ 3,675,947.8 3,213,402.5 (462,545.3) -13
Safe food..................................... 109,303.9 108,245.0 (1,058.9) -1
Preventing pollution.......................... 301,113.7 297,572.3 (3,541.4) -1
Better waste management....................... 1,517,539.9 1,510,758.2 (6,781.7) -0.4
Global & cross border......................... 284,410.8 282,698.9 (1,711.9) -1
Quality environmental information............. 178,253.4 189,128.1 10,874.7 6
Sound science................................. 334,326.0 307,247.7 (27,078.3) -8
Credible deterrent............................ 397,274.6 411,215.7 (13,941.1) *4
Effective management.......................... 423,375.5 431,703.8 (8,328.3) -2
Offsetting receipts........................... 0.0 (4,000.0) (4,000.0) .......
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Grand total budget authority................ $7,811,627.6 $7,312,600.2 ($499,027.4) -6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* ``Credible Deterrent'' reflects EPA's budget to enforce Federal environmental laws. Federal enforcement under
this goal actually suffers an $11.059 million cut because the Administration proposes sending $25 million of
its Federal enforcement budget to the States in a block grant. That $25 million grant consumes the entire
$13.941 million enforcement ``increase'' reflected in the chart and results in a deficit of $11.059 million.
Source: EPA Summary of 2002 Budget at 142.
Environmental Protection Agency, Summary of Agency Resources by Goal (Four Percent Growth Rate)
[Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2002
FY 2001 enacted Four percent President's Delta 4% growth Percent
growth Budget vs. FY2002 change
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clear air.................... $590,082.0 $613,685.3 $564,628.0 $(49,057.3) -8
Clean & safe water........... 3,675,947.8 3,822,985.7 3,213,402.5 (609,583.2) -16
Safe food.................... 109,303.9 113,676.1 108,245.0 (5,431.1) -5
Preventing pollution......... 301,113.7 313,158.2 297,572.3 (15,585.9) -5
Better waste management...... 1,517,539.9 1,578,241.5 1,510,758.2 (67,483.3) -4
Global & cross border........ 284,410.8 295,787.2 282,698.9 (13,088.3) -4
Quality environmental 178,253.4 185,383.5 189,128.1 3,744.6 2
information.................
Sound science................ 334,326.0 347,699.0 307,247.7 (40,451.3) -12
Credible deterrent........... 397,274.6 413,165.6 411,215.7 (1,949.9) *-0.5
Effective management......... 423,375.5 440,310.5 431,703.8 (8,606.7) -2
Offsetting receipts.......... 0.0 ................ (4,000.0) ($4,000.0) .........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand total budget $7,811,627.6 $8,124,092.7 $7,312,600.2 ($811,492.5) -10
authority...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* ``Credible Deterrent'' reflects EPA's budget to enforce Federal environmental laws. Federal enforcement under
this goal actually suffers a $26.95 million cut because the Administration proposes sending $25 million of its
Federal enforcement budget to the States in a block grant. That $25 million grant actually increases the
federal enforcement deficit from $1.95 million to $26.95 million.
Source: EPA Summary of 2002 Budget at 142.
Senator Smith. Administrator Whitman, you must feel a
little bit like the tomcat when he kissed the skunk. He said,
``I have enjoyed all this I can stand.''
I am going to give you the opportunity to take as much time
as you need to respond. Of course, as you know, your statement
will be put in the record. So, you are up.
STATEMENT OF CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN, ADMINISTRATOR,
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Ms. Whitman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to talk about the budget before the committee here.
I will submit a longer statement for the record, if that is all
right with you.
Senator Smith. Certainly.
Ms. Whitman. I want to start by thanking the chairman for
having invited me to New Hampshire. We had a very good trip and
were able to visit one of those brownfield sites that is really
going to be able to take advantage of that legislation when we
get the new program through.
I want to congratulate the committee and, of course, the
Senate on their speedy action on S. 350. I look forward to
seeing legislation come out of the House that will enable us to
get something on the President's desk.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to report that the President's
budget provides the funding necessary for the Environmental
Protection Agency to carry out its mission effectively,
efficiently and thoroughly for the next fiscal year.
The fiscal year 2002 budget of $7.3 billion is $56 million
more than last year's request. The President's budget request
for EPA reflects a commitment to building and strengthening
partnerships across America, partnerships we need to achieve
our goal of making America's air cleaner, our water pure and
our land better protected.
The budget encourages the development of innovative
environmental programs and embraces the expertise and
experience of State, local and tribal governments, while
providing them with greater flexibility with which to pursue
our shared goals.
America's States and tribes receive $3.3 billion in this
proposed budget, almost $500 million more than was requested by
the previous Administration. Included in these funds is a $25
million grant for State enforcement programs. Each year, as you
have pointed out and Senator Voinovich pointed out, the States
perform about 95 percent of the Nation's environmental
compliance inspections and take about 90 percent of the
enforcement actions.
Together, the States perform more than 20 times as many
annual inspections as the Environmental Protection Agency. This
program will allow the States to enhance their enforcement
efforts in ways that will increase accountability for the
results and will provide flexibility to reach their unique
needs.
The President's proposed budget also includes $25 million
to improve States' environmental information systems. By
helping States and EPA exchange information electronically, we
will improve accuracy and provide for better decisionmaking.
With the continued clean up of toxic waste sites, the
President's budget requests $1.3 billion for Superfund. This
will allow us to continue to work to address the cleanup of
1200 sites that remain on the Federal national priority list,
while also supporting the Department of Defense efforts to
clean up sites that were part of the Base Realignment and
Closure process.
I am also pleased to report that the proposed budget
increases funding for the brownfields program by $5 million
above last year's enacted budget to $98 million. This program
will provide additional support for the State voluntary cleanup
program and brownfields assessment demonstration pilot program.
It is an excellent illustration of successful partnership
between the Federal Government and the States. When the
brownfields reform legislation becomes law, as I hope it will,
we will be able to make these partnerships even more effective.
With respect to America's water infrastructure, the President's
budget proposal includes $2.1 billion in grants to States to
ensure that every American community enjoys safe and clean
water.
The Administration's proposal of $1.3 billion in Wastewater
Infrastructure Grants to the States includes $450 million in a
new program to help communities address the combined sewer
overflows and sanitary sewer overflows.
Also included is $850 million for continued capitalization
of the clean water revolving fund. Overall, the President's
request for water infrastructure is $500 million more than last
year's request.
In this budget proposal, we have sought to strike the
appropriate balance between the need for infrastructure
funding, both for the clean water SRF and the new grant
program, and the exercise of judicious fiscal restraint. Our
proposal of $850 million for the Clean Water SRF and $450
million for the Wet Weather Act achieves these important goals,
which the Administration certainly shares with the Congress.
I understand that this proposal does not meet Congress'
goal of funding the Clean Water SRF at $1.35 billion before
initiating this new grant program. However, the Administration
believes it is important to begin providing funds for combined
sewer and sanitary sewer overflow grants now, even though the
need for fiscal restraint does not allow us to bring the Clean
Water SRF to the $1.35 billion in the next fiscal year.
We are, of course, ready to work with you and your
colleagues in the Congress to achieve consensus around this
issue.
The President's budget also fully maintains support for
EPA's core water quality programs, programs that help the
States manage water quality programs and addresses nonpoint
source pollution. We will be working with the States to develop
TMDLs for their most impaired waters, as well as to provide
technical assistance in the adoption and implementation of new
drinking water standards.
The President's budget also maintains support for the
development of beach monitoring and notification programs by
State and local governments.
With respect to drinking water, the President's budget
proposes to maintain capitalization of the Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund at the current level of $823 million. The
President's budget will continue to provide States with the
flexibility to transfer funds between their Clean Water and
Drinking Water State Revolving Funds, helping them address
their most critical needs.
On another drinking water issue, I want to assure members
of this committee that EPA is moving forward with its review of
issues associated with arsenic in drinking water. We will set a
new standard that is safe, attainable, and consistent with our
commitment to protect the public health.
I am also pleased that the President's budget request
maintains current funding for the EPA Clean Air Program. This
will allow us to build on the progress we have made since the
passage of the Clean Air Act Amendments in 1990.
It will also allow us to strengthen our relationships with
our State, tribal and local partners by providing $220 million
to help them carry out their clean air responsibilities.
Despite the progress that has been made, much remains to be
done. One hundred and fifty tons of air pollutants were
released into the air of the United States in 1999. More than
62 million of our fellow Americans lived in counties where
monitored data showed unhealthy air for one or more of the six
common pollutants.
By using EPA's authority to set standards that will clean
the air and protect public health, authority recently
reaffirmed by the Supreme Court, we will continue to work with
the States to reduce transported emissions of smog producing
pollutants and we will seek to expand the existing nine-State
market-based allowance trading system to additional States.
With respect to global climate change, the Administration
is requesting $145 million in fiscal year 2002 to strengthen
our partnerships with businesses, organizations and consumers
to achieve voluntary reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
These efforts are expected to result in an annual reduction of
more than 73 million metric tons of carbon equivalent, reduce
energy consumption by more than 85 billion kilowatt hours,
which will save consumers more than $10 billion in energy costs
and help develop a new generation of efficient, cleaner cars
and trucks.
As businesses and individuals purchase new vehicles and
equipment over the coming decade, we want to do all we can to
ensure that these purchasers have smarter, cleaner and more
efficient options available to them.
Therefore this budget supports our voluntary efforts to
promote the development of such equipment and vehicles.
As important as the air we breathe is the safety of the
food we eat. The President's proposed budget supports the
important work of using the strongest science to ensure that
industrial chemicals and pesticides meet today's food safety
standards. Both our pesticides and chemical programs seek to
work with all the stakeholders to ensure that the products use
to protect against insect and other threats to crops are safe,
not just for the food we eat, but to the environment as well.
In all the work we do at EPA, I am committed to ensuring
that the policies we set are based on the best scientific
information available. To help ensure the availability of solid
scientific analysis, the President's budget supports a strong
and rigorous research program, including a proposed $535
million for the Office of Research and Development, a $5
million increase over last year's budget request.
In addition, the President's budget proposal includes $110
million for the Science To Achieve Results or STAR Program, as
it is known. This program gives EPA access to the best
environmental scientists and engineers from outside the agency
so that we can be assured we are relying on the strongest
science available.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I want to discuss an internal matter
at EPA, protecting the civil rights of every EPA employee.
Those who serve the people of our country as Federal workers
have the right to a workplace free of discrimination. I am
determined to ensure that right for every employee at the
Environmental Protection Agency.
I am pleased to advise you that the President's budget
includes a $3 million increase for civil rights activities at
the agency. These additional funds will allow us to address the
backlog of pending discrimination complaints, as well as to
provide training for all the agency's 1600 supervisors.
We have contracted with the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission to provide this mandatory 2-day training and I will
be one of the first EPA employees to take that.
Taken together, the President's budget helps communities
across America address their most pressing environmental
priorities. It provides the funds and sets the priorities my
agency needs to meet its mission of protecting our environment
and safeguarding the public health.
It is this Administration's first installment on our pledge
to leave America's air cleaner, our water purer, and our land
better protected than we found it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be happy to take questions.
Senator Smith. Thank you very much, Administrator Whitman,
for being here. Thank you for your testimony.
Let me just remind members that because Administrator
Whitman has to leave at 4:30, I am going to start with a 6-
minute round. I am going to hold everybody to it, including
myself, so that we can get through at least one round of
questions.
I want to just clarify because of those who may not follow
the debate that took place between what Governor Whitman said
and what some have said about the cuts. The truth is that the
initial request of the previous Administration for the EPA
budget was $7.3 billion. That request was increased by this
Administration by $56 million.
The enacted amount by Congress was more. That is true.
However, if you are going to criticize you have to look in the
mirror as well because that is what the previous Administration
did.
So, I would also point out that this has been a bit of a
shell game in the sense that most of that money, that $500
million had come to the SRF fund, as you talked about, Senator
Voinovich, or CSO/SSO, figuring that Congress would likely put
it back and then the budget could be able to address other
matters.
But I think in fairness this budget is, as presented, $56
million more than the previous budget that was presented to
Congress last year.
Second, on the issue of arsenic, there was some criticism
there and I know the Administrator didn't get into it in her
testimony, but the Bush rule will take effect in the exact same
time period as the previous Administration's rule, in 5 years.
There is no walk-back from 20 parts per billion. They are
looking at it, just as the previous Administration was doing.
So, I think we have to be very careful about saying that
somehow this Administration wants to put more arsenic in the
water and is somehow changing the standard. The standard was
good enough for 8 years. I didn't see any of those charts
during the 8 years of the previous Administration. Now, we see
them within the first 4 or 5 months of this one.
So, I think it is important to get this out there for the
record.
Let me just ask one question, Governor Whitman. When you
became Governor of New Jersey I remember reading about some of
the initiatives that you proposed. They are very similar to the
philosophy that you present here today to us in this budget.
There were Armageddon predictions about what might happen,
environmental disasters in New Jersey. Could you just give us
an indication of what those predictions were and how the
results were based upon the budget that you presented as
Governor of New Jersey with similar proposals in terms of more
State flexibility and responsibility, et cetera.
Ms. Whitman. Certainly, Senator. Well, the situation that I
faced was slightly different in that when I came into office I
discovered a $2 billion deficit that we hadn't known was there.
So, I did cut. I had to cut. I cut across the board. I cut the
Department of Environmental Protection within our State. I was
told that everything would come to a screeching halt and that
the environment would be battered and unable to recover from
the kinds of cuts that we made. But we made them along the
lines of what we thought was appropriate.
I shifted the focus of the agency from one that was driven
by an accounting system that just racked up fines and
penalties, but rather to one that looked at what were the
environmental enhancements that occurred. Was the air cleaner
and water purer?
I am pleased to say that in every one of those measurable
areas we saw marked increases. The number of beach closings is
down significantly. We are the leading State in the opening of
shellfish beds, which is a prime indicator for the clarity of
the water in our estuaries and streams and rivers.
We have had far fewer non-attainment days in our ozone. So,
we were doing better in air and we were preserving land at a
record pace. So, in spite of the fact, this budget gives
increases to the Environmental Protection Agency. I had to
decrease. I had to cut my Department of Environmental
Protection when I first came in.
But, depending on how you do those things, and because we
did it with the same kind of priorities that were outlined
here, we were able to ensure that we did a better job with what
we had. In this budget, we actually have more resources from
what had been requested before to carry out our base
commitment.
We believe that we will be able to meet all the priorities
that have been set for this Administration.
Senator Smith. I am going to yield to Senator Boxer at this
point.
Senator Boxer. Thank you very much.
Administrator Whitman, I know you really did improve New
Jersey, but it is still the No. 1 site for Superfunds and
brownfields. I know Senator Corzine is very concerned. That is
the reason I join him in criticizing this budget. New Jersey
has a lot more cleanup to do, as do, unfortunately, many of our
States.
So, it is not good enough, it seems to me, to rest on
whatever laurels we can all rest on because happily all of us
have worked hard and we have made some progress. There is a lot
more to do. It is not time to cut this budget. This budget is
cut. This environmental budget is not a priority of the Bush
administration, simply put.
Your kids know when something is a priority. You raise it
to a high level. It doesn't always mean funding. It means
importance, priority.
Let me just say, on the arsenic, because I am very
distressed about this situation, I want to talk about this
because I was joined by Senators Reid, Corzine, Clinton,
Schumer and Lieberman in writing this letter.
Would you put up the green chart? This is the law of the
land. It was passed by Congress and signed by the President:
``The Administrator shall promulgate a national primary
drinking water regulation for arsenic not later than June 22,
2001.''
Now, you suspended the new standard.
Ms. Whitman. No, we just put a hold. We indicated an
intention to review the science and the costs of compliance.
But it still stands.
Senator Boxer. What is the standard for arsenic right now?
Ms. Whitman. The enforceable standard is 50 parts per
billion.
Senator Boxer. And what will it be on June 22, 2001?
Ms. Whitman. There are those who argue that it would be in
fact 10 parts per billion because the standard has not been
withdrawn.
Senator Boxer. It will be?
Ms. Whitman. No. I am saying there are those who would
argue that.
Senator Boxer. Well, what do you say? What will the
standard be on June 22, 2001, the date the Administrator was
supposed to enact a new regulation? What, in your opinion, will
the standard be in the country?
Ms. Whitman. The enforceable standard will be just what it
was going to be under the Clinton administration proposal at 50
parts per billion because it was not going to be enforceable
until the year 2006.
Senator Boxer. I am not asking you that. I am asking you
what is the standard, the new standard. What is the new arsenic
standard going to be on June 22?
Ms. Whitman. It will be an appropriate one.
Senator Boxer. You are going to have a new standard on June
22, next month. Is that what you said?
Ms. Whitman. I said we are going to have an appropriate
standard.
Senator Boxer. On June 22?
Ms. Whitman. There are those who will argue legally that we
have a standard in place. I am sure this will become a legal
discussion, just as I am sure when the previous Administration
missed the lead rule by----
Senator Boxer. Well, I am not asking you about the previous
Administration.
Ms. Whitman. There are a number of times, unfortunately,
where the Environmental Protection Agency will miss deadlines.
But if we do it in a way to ensure the best public safety, then
we are doing the right thing.
Senator Boxer. This is not a question about a choice. You
have a date here. This is the law of the land. You are going to
be sued mightily and I am going to go along with an amicus
brief, because this is the law of the land.
You know when Congress passes a law and the President signs
it, it is the law of the land. So, you can't say it will be
appropriate and we may or we may not hide behind legalese.
Ms. Whitman. I appreciate that, Senator. I am sure it was
the same as well on other deadlines under the Safe Drinking
Water Act. I would trust that you would do that because the
previous Administration had a proposed rule that was due in
August 1999, which still hasn't been done yet.
Senator Boxer. Administrator Whitman, I have a brief amount
of time and I am asking the questions, OK? So, we can have a
private meeting about another issue. I am delighted. My door is
open any time.
But I have a brief amount of time. You received a letter
from several Members of Congress and it dealt with another
aspect of the rule that you delayed. That has to do with the
community right to know.
Let us put up the other chart that shows the levels of
arsenic are unsafe between 10.1 and 50, that latest study that
we sent over.
The Clinton administration put in place a very important
rule as part of the arsenic rule. It said that by a date
certain everyone in this country is going to have the right to
know if there are more than five parts per billion arsenic in
their water, which is what your State does, it lets people
know.
What are you doing on that part of the rule because you
delayed the entire rule? What is your stand? Do you think
people ought to know, as the Clinton administration decided,
based on studies, that people ought to know if there are more
than five parts per billion in their water so that if there is
someone pregnant, someone ill with cancer, a child, they can
take steps to protect their families?
Ms. Whitman. Any water company, and they are all required
to test, any water company that finds any arsenic in the water
is required to notify consumers in their Annual Consumer
Confidence Report. That is the way it works now and I support
that.
Senator Boxer. No, not at five parts per billion,
Administrator. It is 25 parts. It was five parts, that is my
understanding, that the Clinton administration had made as part
of their rule.
Ms. Whitman. I certainly wouldn't change that.
Senator Boxer. So, you are going to keep the community
right-to-know at five parts per billion?
Ms. Whitman. Under consumer confidence reports you have to
report any detection to consumers. I certainly wouldn't change
that notification requirement.
Senator Boxer. So, will you, in fact, keep that part of the
Clinton Rule in place? That would be big news and I would be
very happy.
Ms. Whitman. We will be happy to do that.
Senator Boxer. You will? That is the policy of this
Administration to advise people when they have five parts per
billion arsenic in their water? You will keep that part of the
Clinton Rule regardless.
Ms. Whitman. It is my intention to do that.
Senator Boxer. Well, then I suggest you don't delay that
part of the rule because right now you have delayed it. What
you ought to do, since you seem very clear that you are going
to keep the Clinton Rule on community righ-to-know, you should
in fact clarify that because that has been suspended. Right
now, it is the right to know only if it is 25 parts per
billion.
Let me just say to you that I am concerned about the way
this Administration wants to get around the rules. The other
example is the pesticides that Harry Reid touched upon.
I was pleased when you signed that consent decree to put
EPA on a schedule to comply with critical pesticide protections
for children. Time and time again President Bush has reminded
us of it and he has highlighted the pesticide settlement as a
great environmental achievement. So, all that is wonderful. But
it is a kind of ``now you see it; now you don't.''
You have a 50 percent cut in that part of this budget, a 50
percent cut. You are saying you're going to pass the cost on to
the pesticide manufacturers in order to come up with the 50
percent. Twice now, Congress has attached riders that have
blocked that because President Clinton tried to do that.
What is your contingency plan if you do not get that
funding from your pesticide tax that you have proposed? What is
your contingency plan to fund those programs? Because look at
what is going to happen, Administrator Whitman, if you get a 50
percent cut, that consent decree which deals with pesticides
and children is going to be a problem. Reassessing an
additional 9,700 pesticides is going to be a problem. And it
goes on.
The health effects research, exposure research to identify
highest potential exposure pathways of pesticides to children.
Children are really in trouble in this country with cancers and
the like because we don't have any studies, unfortunately, that
tell us what is safe for them.
Children are not little adults.
Senator Smith. Senator Boxer, we have to move along.
Senator Boxer. I am a little adult and I am being told I am
over time. But the fact is that I worry. So, I will stop here.
I would love to have another hearing if we don't have time for
a second round.
Senator Smith. We will try.
Ms. Whitman. Well, Senator, if I just might on that one,
please understand that we are absolutely committed to
continuing to move forward with that program. I would hope that
Congress would approve the pesticide fee. If they don't we will
have to work with Congress to figure out a way around it.
But we are committed to ensuring the health and safety of
the children. If we have to make other priorities in the budget
of the agency, we will do that in order to ensure that we are
protecting our children.
Senator Boxer. So, you are going to make sure that you
fully fund this program if Congress blocks the tax.
Ms. Whitman. We are going to make sure that we are looking
at those pesticides fees and we are ensuring that we will
preserve the safety and integrity of the food given to our
children and that we protect our children.
Senator Boxer. And implement the consent decree, I assume?
Ms. Whitman. Yes, that is what our intention is. We didn't
enter into it without ensuring that we were going to move
forward in appropriate ways.
Senator Smith. Senator Inhofe.
Senator Inhofe. Well, Mr. Chairman, we have now gone to 9-
minute rounds.
Senator Boxer. I am sorry. I apologize.
Senator Inhofe. I wonder though, as I was listening to
that, and I have a great deal of respect for the Senior Senator
from California, where all this outrage was over the last 8
years when legal deadline after legal deadline was passed and
no one seemed to care that much.
One was the ozone PM standard and many others that ended up
in lawsuits and consent decrees.
Anyway, I am going to make a request that your agency give
me a list of all of the legal deadlines that were missed during
the past 8 years, between 1992 and on, during the Browner
administration.
I think everyone up here, Democrats and Republicans alike,
have expressed a concern in their opening statements for the
balancing of our Nation's environment with the energy needs. I
think effective partnerships are probably the best way to do
this.
The one I have in mind is the Integrated Petroleum
Environmental Consortium, or IPEC. IPEC's mission is to
increase the competitiveness of the domestic petroleum industry
through a reduction in the cost of compliance with
environmental regulations.
You know, we hear in bits and pieces and a kind of a
proliferation of statements on what different things are out
there that are like New Source Review and other things like
reformulated gas, sulfur in gasoline. How many of those things
really increase the cost of energy? I think that IPEC has done
a very good job of determining and quantifying a lot of these.
It was a very small amount of money, $1.6 million, but I
know that another $2.4 million were added by industry and by
the two States of Arkansas and Oklahoma. So, I think this is a
good example of the public-private partnership which we all
know is very effective. I would like to ask for your commitment
for this program which, I think, is a model program of the
public-private partnership.
Ms. Whitman. I will be happy to look into that further
because public-private partnerships, as you point out, are
exactly what we think is an effective way to maximize and
leverage the resources that are available to us to achieve our
shared goals.
Senator Inhofe. In this case the money was more than
doubled because of that partnership and outside efforts joining
in.
Senator Boxer talked about the more Superfund sites in your
State. But I would suggest that in my State the worst Superfund
site is there. It is Tar Creek site. Unfortunately, that is in
my home State of Oklahoma.
There isn't really a solution right now to this. I know
that our Governor came up with a task force and they came up
with a recommendation that we buy all that land and turn it
into a wetlands. This would be really kind of difficult to do
in that there are three major cities in that area.
I didn't know whether you have had time to get into this at
all or not. First of all, have you had a chance to get into
this Superfund site, the Tar Creek site?
Ms. Whitman. I have had briefings on it, yes.
Senator Inhofe. I know you have not had a lot of time to do
that. But I might be requesting at some point that we talk
about this, maybe even make a field trip out there, since this
is the one that is the worst of all the sites.
So, as you move along, any idea you have about resolving
this problem, I would appreciate working with you on this.
Ms. Whitman. Certainly. I can give you a bit of an update,
if you don't already have it.
Senator Inhofe. Please do.
Ms. Whitman. The EPA has initiated a new contract at the
site to better meet both EPA and community concerns. The
remaining work involves the cleanup of about 650 residential
properties and chad piles, taking ponds, tilling ponds and
other industrial process areas.
The work is supposed to resume later this summer on those
areas. So we have been, as you point out, actively working with
the Governor and with the residents of the site. I will be
happy to talk about it with you further.
Senator Inhofe. All right. I will plan to do that and work
with you on it. It is a huge thing. No one has the ultimate
solution in sight.
I mentioned in my opening remarks that I chair the Senate
Armed Services Committee on Readiness, which does have the
jurisdiction over the environmental sites. I appreciate the
comments you have made on how you are planning to approach
these and the budget does include resources to support
continuing cleanup, oversight, technical assistance and
property transfer at various BRAC sites.
I would be interested in knowing if there is any more
detail on that that you would like to share with us. You didn't
have time to do it in your opening statement. If not, maybe do
that for the record.
Ms. Whitman. I would be happy to do that for the record.
[The information referred to follows:]
base realignment and base closure
EPA's Superfund Base Realignment and Base Closure (BRAC) program
has worked with the Department of Defense (DOD) and the State's
environmental programs since its inception in 1994 to acheive the
Agency's goal of protecting human health and the environment at
realigning or closing military installations. Of the 497 BRAC
installations slated for realignment or closure, 205 require
environmental restoration. One hundred and eight (108) of the
installations have been designated as Fast-Track installations.
The Fast-Track program strives to make parcels available for reuse
quickly by transfer of uncontaminated or remediated parcels, lease of
contaminated parcels where cleanup is underway or ``early transfer'' of
contaminated property. The Fast-Track program has successfully used
base cleanup teams at the Fast-Track designated installations. The
teams, which include Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), DOD, and
State environmental experts, are empowered to make decisions to
expedite the process of accelerating cleanup while integrating base
reuse priorities. EPA also engages in public participation by working
with DOD to establish restoration advisory boards at military
installations which foster teamwork by bringing members of the
community together with military officials and government regulators to
discuss cleanup issues.
DOD, EPA, and the States have saved the program an estimated 348
project years and more than $337 million in potential costs. The 205
BRAC installations undergoing environmental restoration have
collectively transferred 403,593 acres of property from DOD to non-
military entities. There are 389,741 acres in BRAC Fast Track program
and more than 133,000 acres have already been leased or transferred.
Senator Inhofe. OK. Well, the last area that I was
interested in was New Source Review. When we made the request
for information, I was shocked to see how many of the notices
of violations that I mentioned in my opening statement, 114
violations were dated January 19.
It was also called to our attention in some of the
responses that we found that the 114 requests came in the form
of photocopied documents with the name of one facility
scratched out and the name of another facility penciled in.
Now, I wouldn't want to name which ones these are, but I
did not see these 114 requests included in the EPA's response.
So, I would like to expand and get as many of these examples as
possible that you might have. I would make that as a request.
Ms. Whitman. We will provide them to you. In that one
instance where you indicated that it was a faxed form with the
names crossed out, as soon as the agency became aware of it, we
took action to correct it and to correct the employee who was
involved in that.
Senator Inhofe. Well, that particular one wasn't in the
response that we got. Let me make sure that you understand, I
am not blaming you for this. This is something that was there
but it is one that needs to be corrected, needs to be
addressed.
We had a hearing on New Source Review in Ohio. Governor
Voinovich at that time was Governor Voinovich. There are so
many examples of abuses. This is something we want to get to.
This, of course, has a direct relationship to the cost of
energy and it is something we are all very much concerned about
right now.
Ms. Whitman. Well, as you know, the Vice President
indicated last week, the Environmental Protection Agency will
be leading the inquiry into the New Source Review. We will be
looking at that to make sure it is achieving its goals and see
what kind of impact it may or may not be having on energy
resources and price and what kind of steps we can take to
streamline and ensure that it is meeting the goals that were
set out for it.
Senator Inhofe. I appreciate that very much. My time has
expired.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Smith. Thank you, Senator Inhofe.
Senator Clinton.
Senator Clinton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have to confess, I am a little confused by the testimony.
I appreciate the fact that I have not gone through this before
so maybe I can get my confusion clarified, but I look at this
chart, this EPA funding gap. The top line is a 4-percent growth
line. The second line is a discretionary base line and the
bottom line is the proposed Bush plan from 2001 to 2006.
Now, we have had a little back and forth about budget
requests and appropriated levels, but even if one were to take
the original budget request, it doesn't come anywhere near to a
4-percent increase over the existing budget.
Now, my understanding is that when President Bush said he
was going to have a 4-percent increase for discretionary
spending that was not based on what the last Clinton
administration budget request was, but that was based on what
actually had been appropriated.
So, we are very far from where we would be were we to have
a 4-percent increase. What concerns me about that is that there
are many priorities on this committee that I think reflect the
priorities of our country. Senator Voinovich spoke of one,
namely the wastewater and drinking water infrastructure needs,
which really probably are at about $2 trillion shortfall when
it comes to water infrastructure.
I will certainly support increasing the dollars that we
put into this because I think it is in the best interests of
the safety of our people. But where is that money going to come
from? I mean there isn't any money in this budget for the kind
of increases that Senator Voinovich talked about with his
wastewater bill that he has worked on.
They are not the kinds of increases that need to be in this
budget in order to keep pace with what we have set as national
environmental priorities. I know that in the give and take of
the budget and appropriation process, people end up in
different places. Certainly, I hope that we are going to be
able to increase some of these levels.
Before I get to specific questions, I just want to point
out that this chart is chilling because it doesn't provide the
dollars to do any of the work that needs to be done. I am very
concerned that it certainly doesn't reflect any kind of 4
percent growth, whether it is a 4-percent growth on a requested
budgetary level or what I think is what the President meant
when he said 4 percent was 4 percent on top of what had
actually been enacted.
But let me just turn to a couple of questions. I would also
like to submit others I don't have time for to the record to
get responses from Administrator Whitman. The first is my
concern about the enforcement and continued pursuit of Clean
Air lawsuits.
The press has reported that there is an internal White
House debate over these Clean Air lawsuits. I am very
interested in your views on whether the Administration is, No.
1, considering dropping the lawsuits that the Environmental
Protection Agency joined, whether such a dropping of the
lawsuits will be part of the President's energy announcement
later this week, and whether in light of the significant cuts
to the EPA's enforcement budget, even if these lawsuits are not
dropped, whether you will have the resources you need to
continue working with the Justice Department on these cases.
Ms. Whitman. Well, Senator, let me start out by saying that
yes, we certainly believe that we will have the resources in
enforcement within the enforcement budget because that overall
enforcement budget is up slightly, but there are changes within
it. There is a decrease in personnel. But we believe we have
the personnel and the ability and the resources to do the work
that we need to do.
Senator Clinton. Well does that mean, Administrator, that
these lawsuits will not be dropped?
Ms. Whitman. I don't know of any proposal to drop the
lawsuits, to review the lawsuits, perhaps, but not to drop.
There is no policy determination made to drop the lawsuits.
Senator Clinton. That is very good news for our air.
Let me ask you about a reduction in the budget for State
Acid Rain Grants. The reduction has been proposed because more
resources are supposed to be available by law through the
collection of fees. As you know, the Clean Air Act gives States
authority to collect permitting fees from industries, but I
know that varies from State to State.
Do we know how much money is being collected in fees by the
States and perhaps equally important, is the money actually
being spent on permitting and enforcement activities that will
reduce acid rain?
Ms. Whitman. What we are seeing in this budget is a shift
of emphasis in the State air grants to high priority areas such
as the air toxics and National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
The air grants for the program in fiscal year 2001 enacted was
$219 million.
The fiscal year 2002 request is to continue at $219
million.
The grant resources targeted for acid rain activities will
shift in 2002 from program implementation to other programs
such as ecological assessment programs, with the States able to
now use the fees they collect from sources to run their State
Acid Rain Programs. We think that in fact you are going to see
an enhancement of the Acid Rain Program overall.
Senator Clinton. Could we at some point get specifics on
that if the EPA has it State-by-State, how much the collection
is and whether it is being used for the purposes intended.
Now, let me also ask, you mention in your testimony that
you are assuming no impediment to promulgating the final
pesticide tolerance fee rule. As you know, this has been tied
up in appropriations riders in previous years.
Would you oppose a rider on the pesticide tolerance fee if
one was attempted?
Ms. Whitman. Well, in general, Senator, we try to avoid
riders. We would like to have the issue dealt with. It is
something that has been a problem from the beginning. If you
would like to hear it, I could give you the whole history. I
could ask Mike Ryan who is here to go into that a little bit on
the stand-offs that we have had in the past on various fees.
We believe that the fees that are being proposed in this
budget on the tolerance fee is a user fee and is an appropriate
one and hope that, in fact, it will be viewed as such and dealt
with as such.
Senator Clinton. I appreciate that very much.
Another issue that has repeatedly been subjected to
appropriation riders is the clean up of the PCB contaminated
sediments in the Hudson River. As we all know, the comment
period on EPA's proposed clean up plan recently closed. I know
from first-hand experience you have received thousands of
comments.
Can you update us on the status of the final decision? Is
that final decision still expected in August and does your
general attitude that would object to riders include objecting
to any riders to prevent the clean up going forward up the
Hudson?
Ms. Whitman. Well, I would certainly hope that we wouldn't
have a rider that would prevent us from doing something that
would protect public health and safety such as a cleanup. I
have had no indication. Everything is on track to meet that
August deadline.
The region is in the position now of reviewing public
comments. As you said, we have gotten literally thousands of
responses and comments on EPA's proposal. They are going
through those responses and comments to see whether or not
there are any in them that would indicate a change in policy or
a change in recommendation. Then they will be briefing me on
that and we will have the discussion. But right now we are on
track for that August timeframe.
Senator Clinton. Thank you very much.
Senator Smith. Thank you, Senator Clinton.
Senator Voinovich.
Senator Voinovich. Administrator, the people in Ohio are
very upset about the high cost of gasoline. We went through
this last year and had expectations that we wouldn't be going
through it this year, although we do know that we are very
reliant upon foreign oil for our source of oil in this country.
There has been an examination made of some of the reasons
why the costs are spiking here moving toward the summer months.
One of them is that I understand there are 25 or 26 different
varieties of gasoline, reformulated gasoline.
I would be interested in having, and I know you can't
answer it now, of having someone look at those 25 varieties of
gasoline that are being asked to be provided to see what impact
that has on the actual cost of gasoline.
I have been told by some people that you can go to three
classes of gasoline and do a better job with the environment
than the 25 boutique things that they are providing now. How
many that is going to add to the cost, I don't know, but I
think all of us are interested in seeing just what is it that
is contributing beyond the shortage to this high cost of
gasoline.
Second of all, in order to do your job, you have to have
the right people. Have you done yet an analysis of your entire
agency to determine whether or not you have the people on board
to get the job done that you have been asked to do? Have you
done an analysis of those people who are eligible to retire and
those that might be eligible to take early retirement?
Ms. Whitman. Senator, I took your charge very seriously in
the confirmation hearings. We have taken a look at that. By the
end of 2005, almost 50 percent of EPA's Senior Executive
Service Corps, will be eligible for optional retirement. We
would lose 19 percent in 2001, 27 in 2002, up to 49 percent by
2005.
We are very aware of those workplace challenges that are
facing us. We have under an umbrella the agency's human capital
strategy. We are assessing future program needs to identify the
skills as you have pointed out, the skills and talents that we
are going to have to replace in determining the gap between
what we have now and what we are going to need in the future.
We are developing programs aimed at the agency's next
generation of executives and managers. We are looking at ways
of providing additional opportunity and training for people who
are already at the agency so that they will be able to move up
in the ranks.
We are developing approaches on recruitment that will
contribute to a diverse----
Senator Voinovich. In your budget, how much of your budget
has been allocated for training?
Ms. Whitman. I will have to get you that for the record.
Senator Voinovich. Well, one of the things that I would
like to see, and I am going to really work with Sean O'Keefe
and with Mitch Daniels is that I believe that we ought to have
a specific item designated for training in each of your
budgets.
Any organization that doesn't have allocation for training
money is not a competitive organization.
The other thing is, have your people analyzed the
incentives that are available to attract people and whether or
not you have provided money in your budget to take advantage of
these? For example, you want to go out and get a good engineer,
something out of school. We do have a program where we can pay
part of the loans that they have. Has there been money
allocated in the budget to put you in a position where you can
compete with these people, funding the incentives?
Ms. Whitman. That is part of the program we have in place,
looking at that and making sure we are maximizing those
opportunities. So, we are doing that right now.
Senator Voinovich. I would like to stay on top of this
because it is kind of a pet project of mine. Maybe if you would
find some things as you go along that you would need, it would
be helpful.
We are trying to get an idea of what other additional tools
our agency is going to need in order to be competitive,
including some broader ability to hire people, perhaps not
running it through the Office of Personnel Management.
The last thing, since I have a little more time, I did have
these hearings in Ohio on the issue of the infrastructure needs
that we have in our State. They are pretty much across the
country. We have an aging infrastructure. But we also
discovered that there are additional things being required as a
result of regulations. And they are very, very costly.
The issue that I think needs to be addressed is whether or
not these new requirements coming out of the EPA, for example,
the Mayor of Mansfield, OH, who has to put in a new system to
treat water that is in a holding tank after a storm, treat it
at a much higher quality than she is now treating it to put it
in a stream whose water is much less than the water that she is
putting into it.
You have to ask yourself; in this particular case the rates
are going to go up 100 percent for her people. The issue is:
Are we asking people to do things out there that really are not
necessary in terms of dealing with clean water and the
environment?
The reason I bring this up is that I was very much involved
and you may have been, in the amendments to the Safe Drinking
Water Act.
If you will recall, they were requiring a lot of these
small communities to have the highest and best technologies,
some of them 10,000 or less, and every 3 years to test for 25
new pesticides, whether they were in the water or not in the
water.
It seems to me that, yes, we are going to need more water
or need more money for the revolving loan fund. We are going to
need a grant program. In fact, this WIN organization says we
are going to have to have $57 billion in the next 5 years to
deal with the problem.
But the issue is, are we asking some of these folks to do
things that really aren't necessary? I don't think we
concentrate enough on that. Again, I would like to have your
folks look at some of these new regs to find out whether or not
they make sense.
Ms. Whitman. Well, Senator, one of the things I have done
is I have directed one of the offices within 45 days, and they
should be coming back to me with the initial results by the end
of this month and I should have a final report in the middle of
June, to take a look at how we promulgate regulations in a
science, policy and cost of compliance factored in at the very
beginning of the rulemaking process.
Senator Voinovich. Well, I want to tell you this: I hope
that you do it a lot differently than what we had in New Source
Review. Because we had industries out there for years that were
relying and told that what they were doing wasn't a problem.
Then somebody in the EPA came up with a new guidance, not a
reg, but a guidance, and said, it is new.
Then we had all of these lawsuits filed all over the
country. Now, definitely there were some people that should
have got permits for some of the things that they did. But this
was the big broad scoop that went out there. Those are the
kinds of things that we need to look at because they defy
common sense and they really don't do very much to clean up the
air or help public health.
Ms. Whitman. That is exactly what we are looking at in how
we do this.
Mr. Chairman, if I might correct something for the record
on what Senator Boxer said, Senator, I just wanted to clarify
that right now the right-to-know requirements of the Safe
Drinking Water Act do require that any detection, even below
five parts per billion of arsenic, must be reported to the
public. It is additional health statements or warnings that are
provided now above that 25 parts per billion. Those statements
would be provided at the five parts per billion level under the
rule published by the previous Administration.
It is not arsenic. It is the other ones that would be, if
the January rule, that change would be delayed by a stay in the
effective date.
Senator Boxer. Well, you are sticking with the Clinton Rule
on right-to-know; is that what you are saying?
Ms. Whitman. On the arsenic, we were talking about the
arsenic.
Senator Boxer. Yeah, on the arsenic, you are sticking with
the right-to-know.
Ms. Whitman. On the arsenic we are sticking with the right-
to-know which is any detection, even below five parts per
billion, must be reported on arsenic.
I think where the confusion comes in is the additional
health statements. That would be affected by a stay and be part
of the overall review.
Senator Boxer. So you are backing off what you said. When I
asked you about the Clinton Rules.
Ms. Whitman. Arsenic standards. We were talking about
arsenic standards.
Senator Boxer. Administrator, I can read you back what you
said. I asked you if you were going to keep that part of the
Clinton Rule that set up a new notification at five parts per
billion. You said you would.
I pressed you on it. We can have the person read it back.
That is fine. Now you are saying you are not. I just want to
make sure I understand what you are saying.
Ms. Whitman. Senator, I was responding to the question of
reporting with respect to detection of arsenic. I was taking
your word for it that in fact five parts per billion of arsenic
was a new reporting requirement, that it was at 25 parts per
billion now. Maybe I misunderstood you. I misunderstood you,
perhaps, and thought that you were saying that right now it was
only at 25 parts per billion that you had to report arsenic.
In that instance, I believe it was absolutely appropriate
to go to five parts per billion. In fact, we were right in
saying initially five parts per billion or any detection for
that matter, any trace amount of arsenic in the water needs to
be reported now.
It is the other additional health statement warnings. I
need to look at those along with the rest of them to see what
it is we are looking at and whether that five parts is the
right figure. Those are at 25 parts per billion now.
Senator Boxer. That is what I was talking about. My
understanding was that you were going to keep the Clinton Rule
as it pertained to the community's right-to-know. That is what
you said.
Now you are saying you misunderstood me. You are not
keeping that part of the Clinton Rule.
Ms. Whitman. Right.
Senator Boxer. Well, that is distressing. Let us continue
this. I will wait for my time. I hope you can extend a little
because now I have more questions on arsenic. I am sorry.
Senator Smith. You also have a colleague that hasn't had
any.
Senator Boxer. I am going to wait. I will stay as long as
it takes.
Senator Smith. Senator Corzine.
Senator Corzine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me begin with a compliment. I am particularly pleased
with your efforts on environmental justice and civil rights. We
talked about it at the confirmation hearing. I am glad to see
there is additional funding there.
The programs you are putting in place, I think, are
absolutely appropriate. I will be anxiously watching your
backlog, which I think is an important thing to get cleaned up
if we are going to have confidence in how the system works.
Let me turn to this wonderful chart up here. Am I reading
the President's budget correctly that $6,672,000,000 is the
number of dollars allocated for pollution control and abatement
in 2006 really reflecting a high percentage of the EPA budget?
Do you understand these numbers to be rough justice of where we
are going, the expected budget of the Environmental Protection
Agency?
Ms. Whitman. Well, we are working off the funding request
by the previous Administration. This year's request is $56
million more than what was requested by the previous
Administration.
Senator Corzine. That is about a \6/10\ of 1 percent.
Ms. Whitman. Oh, it is not a 4-percent increase. There is
no question about that. I would also say that when the
President spoke about a 4-percent increase he didn't
necessarily mean it was going to be a uniform 4 percent across
the board.
In fact, as you know, there is a great deal bigger increase
for education. There is a great deal bigger increase for that
in some of the Defense budget numbers. So, it is not an even 4
percent. It is an overall control of growth.
Senator Corzine. I think that all of us accept that that is
what the reality is. It is not do we agree with it on policy.
Let me ask, I am particularly concerned in seeing the Superfund
site clean up targets going from, I think it is 85 last year to
65 this year. The target was 75 and I guess there were 85
cleanups last year. Excuse me. The target this year is 65.
I am seeing the number spent on hazardous substance
Superfund clean up sites in 2000 is $1.4 billion. By these same
budget proposals, there is only $1.385 billion in 2006. It
never gets back to the same level it was in 2000.
As you know from the New Jersey area, we have a real
interest in seeing these sites cleaned up. I don't understand
this prioritization frankly. I find it hard to fully
comprehend. I would add to that, I don't understand also why
the Superfund costs recovery activities are presumed to be
generating less revenues than they have been in the past when I
was under the impression that ``polluters pay'' is the
principle of the Superfund cleanup activities.
Ms.Whitman. Certainly. First of all, Senator, on the second
part, the numbers on the cost recoveries, those are always
assumptions and the agency's assumptions have traditionally
been way below what has actually been recovered. Those are not
hard and fast numbers.
If you go back and look at fiscal year 2000 and 1999, there
was 102 percent recovery in 2000 and 182.71 recovery in 1999,
above what was expected. So, that is just a number. We still
believe in ``polluter pays.'' It is absolutely true. That is
just a projected number.
Senator Corzine. My concern about that relates back to
these enforcement issues and the numbers.
Ms. Whitman. Let me go back to the enforcement issues for
you. There is a drop of 20 sites in projected cleanups. Part of
that is reflective of the fact that starting back in fiscal
year 2000 there were reductions in appropriations and funding
for those clean ups. That started a couple of fiscal year
cycles before this Administration.
Also, those sites are now getting more complicated and they
are more difficult to clean up. So, even with the money that is
there, with the technical expertise, we are just not expecting
to be able to clean as many because they are tougher to clean.
They are more complicated. They require more attention and
time.
Senator Corzine. It strikes me as maybe a good rationale
for additional funding if we are going to deal with this. I
have some of the same concerns. Under the truly bipartisan
leadership of the chairman, we passed a brownfields package
this year with an authorization. I am just learning about
authorization, and appropriations. They are two different
worlds. I am learning requests and enactments I guess are also.
I am concerned that 98 million versus the $250 million
authorization sounds to me rather thin or what is it, 450,000
brownfields sites estimated across the country? New Jersey, I
think, has estimated something north of 8,000.
These are really important issues. How do we work with the
Administration to get those numbers higher?
Ms. Whitman. Well, if we get the legislation through, then
we are committed to working with the Congress on the
brownfields.
Senator Corzine. It went through 99 to 1.
Ms. Whitman. Oh, it did. I meant that unfortunately it
doesn't get to the President's desk until it goes through the
other house as well.
We look forward to working with the Congress on ensuring
that we have those additional dollars anticipated in the
legislation to address the area.
Senator Corzine. One other area that I am concerned about
which you mentioned in your testimony, and that is the Beaches
Act. The authorization, again, was $30 million. I think the
budget has $2 million in it, if I am not mistaken.
Ms. Whitman. No. You are correct.
Senator Corzine. That also seems rather thin on how we are
going to be able to test the waters across all of our
shorelines.
Ms. Whitman. Well, that is stable funding from last year,
Senator. The difference is that the authorizers often authorize
much more than the appropriators appropriate. This is more of a
reflection of what we have seen in the past being appropriated.
Senator Corzine. Do you think that is adequate to do the
job?
Ms. Whitman. It is flat funding. We believe that we can do
the job that we need to do. The States have been doing a lot of
the work on that. So, we are very comfortable that those are
good numbers.
Senator Corzine. I would just close by saying these are
examples of places where I would hope that you would use those
of us here on the Hill to help get additional focus on some of
the most important issues, I think, that face the environmental
questions in our society.
Ms. Whitman. I would also just add that let us not forget
that the wet weather program, if it goes through as proposed in
this budget also gets to that because a lot of the problems
that we have in those estuaries and the beaches and the
waterways come from storm sewer overflows.
Senator Boxer. Mr. Chairman, I know we are out of time. May
I have----
Ms. Whitman. I will certainly stay for another round of
questions with you, Senator.
Senator Smith. Well, I want to be responsive to the request
of the Administrator here. We have spent a lot of time on a
rule, which really is not the subject of this hearing.
I believe that I have been more than fair on time. But if
the Administrator wants to give another couple of minutes, I
will be happy to do it, to take Senator Boxer out of turn. Does
that meet with your time constraints? I am going to cut it off
in 3 minutes.
Senator Boxer. OK, then let me just sum up what I think you
said, because it is very confusing. We have the tape and I have
made a request for it.
I asked you if you were supporting the ``community right-
to-know'' part of the Clinton Rule. You said ``yes.'' I asked
you a couple of times and you said ``yes.''
When you clarified, you said you misunderstood me. That is
fine. So, now I want to make sure you understand me. The
Clinton Rule had two parts. It said arsenic, from 50 parts per
billion to 10, and it said, rather than receiving a health
warning at 25, you would receive a health warning at 5.
I asked you if you would do that. You said, I thought,
``yes.''
Now, you don't support a health warning at five; is that
correct?
Ms. Whitman. Senator, you are really good and I admire----
Senator Boxer. I'm not good. I am trying to find out what
the heck you meant.
Ms. Whitman. I understand that you are concerned. I
appreciate that. I am trying to be as clear as I can. I may
even approve a standard lower than 10 parts per billion. I am
reserving the right to take another look at other related
elements of the rule.
Senator Boxer. Why is that? Why are you taking another
look? After all these studies and after the GAO said the cost-
benefit study, and the GAO is a Republican GAO, they said to us
that absolutely the studies were clear on the cost-benefit. You
are taking another look, even on the five parts per billion
when your State notifies people when they have five parts per
billion and tells them it could be a health hazard.
Ms. Whitman. Everybody is notified today. All arsenic
detections are reported to the public every year in consumer
confidence reports.
Senator Boxer. That is not the question.
Ms. Whitman. That is already there.
Senator Boxer. The question is a health warning. That is
what President Clinton said was important.
Let me just close by saying this: You look at this gap. By
the year 2006 you are going to be able to do 67 percent of what
you are doing today in the EPA.
Just because I know my chairman was critical that I talked
mostly about arsenic, but you know, I haven't got answers, with
all due respect to my letters on arsenic. So, I had this
opportunity and I wanted to grab it.
But truly, this is a frightening chart for anyone who cares
about the environment and that is 34 million people in
California who I happen to have the honor, the deep honor, to
represent along with Senator Feinstein.
This does not bode well for their air, for their water, for
their Superfund cleanup, for their pesticide enforcement,
cutting 270 enforcement officers and sending the money to the
States, how are we going to hold those States accountable to us
when you could hold those folks accountable every day in your
offices.
I voted for you because I think you are a very skilled
administrator. Now, we are cutting all these people and
creating new bureaucracies in the States. It seems to me a
backward way to do things. It is not right. I am very worried
about this budget, Mr. Chairman.
I am sorry that I took so much time. I also have a meeting
waiting for me, but I thought it was that important when it
comes to health and safety. I think we all agree it is
important.
I thank you, Administrator, for staying a little longer.
Ms. Whitman. Well, Senator, if I could, just to allay your
fears slightly, if I can, if that is possible on the
enforcement, 144 of those positions are funded vacancies. We
are not seeing a reduction in actual personnel of that number.
Really, when you look at what the States are doing now in
enforcement, this is not going to be an across-the-board same
number to every program for the States. This is going to be
based on what States have sophisticated programs that with a
little extra money they can really do the entire job or if not
the entire job because we are still going to be a strong role
for the Federal Government on enforcement.
But this is going to be something that is going to be used
to maximize the dollars we have, recognizing that they already
do better than 90 percent of the enforcement.
So, we still do have a very active, over 3,600 employees in
the Office of Enforcement Compliance at the agency, which is a
large number of employees. It is the largest one of the
divisions that we have.
We really are not backing off from enforcement. That is an
important part of our mission.
[The following statement from Administrator Whitman was
submitted for the record concerning questions from Senator
Boxer on arsenic standards:]
With regard to the exchange between Senator Boxer and Administrator
Whitman, the Agency respectfully submits this clarification on the
Consumer Confidence Report (CCR) rule requirements as they relate to
the arsenic in drinking water standard.
Affecting approximately 54,000 community water systems (CWSs)
nationwide, the CCR rule is designed to provide consumers with a
snapshot of the quality of their drinking water for the previous
calendar year. A basic requirement of the CCR rule is that CWSs must
provide consumers with a list of all contaminants detected in the
system's drinking water supply even if that contaminant is found at
levels that do not violate any drinking water standard. For example, if
a CWS detected arsenic in its drinking water supply below the current
maximum contaminant level. (MCL) of 50 ppb, the system must include
that information in its CCR. This requirement of the CCR rule is a
constant provision and is not affected by the establishment of or
revision to any MCL promulgated under the authority of the Safe
Drinking Water Act by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Another provision in the CCR rule is the publication of additional
educational information within the systems' annual CCR for certain
contaminants due to concerns about special risks for children or
carcinogenicity. The CCR rule now in effect requires water systems to
include additional education information about arsenic where it is
detected above 25 ppb or g/l (50 percent of the MCL of 50).
The regulation provides suggested language but also allows CWSs to
develop their own language in consultation with the primacy agency.
This provision is still in effect.
The arsenic rule of January 2001 revised the CCR requirements in
two ways. First, systems with arsenic above 10 ppb or 10 g/l
(the revised MCL in the January rule) would be required to include the
health effects statement for arsenic in their CCR, even though such
systems would not be in violation of the MCL before 2006. Second,
systems with arsenic greater than 5 but less than 10 ppb or g/
l (the revised MCL in the January rule) would be required to include
educational information about arsenic in the CCR. As previously, the
rule provides suggested language, but systems may develop their own
language in consultation with the primacy agency.
Senator Boxer. Good. Well, I am sure that we will oversee
this and make sure that nobody suffers as a result of these
cuts.
Thank you.
Senator Smith. Let me just make a final comment on this
issue. I think it is important for everyone to understand that
if the Clinton Rule were still to be in effect, the enforceable
level on June 22, 2001, is 50 parts per billion; not 5, not 10,
not 20, but 50.
You have 5 years under the Clinton Rule to lower that to
whatever, 10 parts per billion.
I think that what the Administrator is saying is that there
is a rule here that has three parts: the maximum contaminant
level of 10 parts per billion; the notification requirement
which you talked about of half of that contaminant level; and
the effective date of 5 years.
I think the Administrator is saying when she looks at the
rule and they make the decision on the rule, then the proper
notification will be made. I don't see any reason to question
what was said in the testimony. I think that is what was meant.
Anyway, Administrator Whitman, thank you for being here. We
will be working on that issue at some subcommittee hearing in
the near future on the Safe Drinking Water Act.
If Members have questions that they wish to submit for the
record, I will leave the record open until 5 o'clock on Friday
for that purpose.
[Whereupon, at 4:40 p.m. the committee was adjourned, to
reconvene at the call of the chair.]
[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]
Statement of Governor Christine Todd Whitman, Administrator,
Environmental Protection Agency
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am pleased to be here
to discuss President Bush's request for EPA. The President's budget
provides the necessary funds for the Agency to carry out our mission
efficiently and effectively--to protect human health and safeguard the
environment. The fiscal year 2002 request is $7.3 billion, a $56
million increase compared to last year's request.
The President's FY 2002 budget request for EPA reflects a
commitment to increase partnerships across America to develop
innovative environmental programs that ensure stewardship of our land,
air, and water for generations to come. This request provides the
resources and vision necessary to fulfill our nation's environmental
mission to protect the environment and human health.
Each day, America's communities are developing environmental
experience and expertise. Sharing this expertise with the Agency will
help us reach our goals. The states and tribes receive about half of
EPA's budget, because they are the innovators and energizers and are on
the front line in implementing and enforcing our environmental
statutes. The fiscal year 2002 request for states, tribes and EPA
partners is $3.3 billion, almost $500 million more than was requested
by the previous Administration.
The President's request for EPA reflects a commitment to provide
more flexibility to states and local communities to craft solutions to
meet their unique environmental needs.
new enforcement grant program
The President's budget for fiscal year 2002 includes $25 million
for grants to State enforcement programs. Each year, the states conduct
about 95 percent of the nation's environmental compliance inspections
and take about 90 percent of the enforcement actions. In 1999, the
States conducted 471,000 inspections while EPA conducted 21,800
inspections nationwide. This grant program will benefit the national
environmental enforcement program by providing states much-needed funds
to enhance their enforcement efforts in delegated environmental
programs. EPA envisions a program which includes three ingredients: a
program for which there is accountability for results, flexibility to
use the dollars to address State environmental priorities, and a
program that is simple and efficient to administer. Over the next
several months, EPA plans to work with the states to develop specific
guidelines for the grant program. As we proceed through this process,
we will keep the Committee informed of our progress.
The President's budget includes $475 million for enforcement
activities nationwide. This request represents a $10 million increase
compared to enacted FY2001 level. EPA will continue to have a vital
role in shaping and carrying out the nation's environmental compliance
and enforcement program. EPA will continue to take actions where there
are significant violations at companies with facilities in more than
one state, where states do not yet have delegated programs, and where
the Federal Government is the statutory lead. We will continue to
assist states when requested and when they cannot get the job done.
information exchange network
The budget request also includes a $25 million program intended to
improve the states' environmental information systems. This program
will help states and EPA create the necessary infrastructure to
efficiently exchange information electronically, which will reduce
burden, improve accuracy and inform decisionmaking. This request
reflects 2 years of collaboration with the states, with whom EPA has
created a Network blueprint to improve the nationwide exchange of
environmental information. As an example of our ongoing efforts with
the states in this area, in June 2001, all states will have the
opportunity to begin submitting their Air Emissions Inventory data
using the Information Exchange Network, demonstrating the progress made
so far.
superfund
This budget continues a commitment to clean up toxic waste sites
with $1.3 billion for the Superfund program. The Agency's Superfund
program responds to the needs of states, communities and the public to
address contamination from uncontrolled releases of toxic wastes that
threaten human health, the environment and local economies. The
Superfund program not only protects human health and the environment
through the cleanup of toxic waste sites, but works with both public
and private partners to promote redevelopment of Superfund sites. The
President's budget proposes funding Superfund at the fiscal year 2001
appropriated level.
Cleanup construction is under way or completed at 92 percent of the
1,458 sites on the Federal National Priority List (NPL). In fiscal year
2002, the Superfund program and its partners will complete construction
at 65 private and Federal sites. This target reflects funding
reductions in prior fiscal years and the number of large, complex sites
now entering the construction phase of the Superfund pipeline. By the
end of fiscal year 2002, EPA will have undertaken more than 6,800
removals at hazardous waste sites to immediately reduce the threat to
human health and the environment.
Working with our Federal partners to clean up Federal Facilities,
the fiscal year 2002 budget includes resources to support continuing
cleanup oversight, technical assistance and property transfer at
Federal NPL and Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) sites. Efforts to
support the Department of Defense's (DOD's) BRAC property transfer
program have created jobs and accelerated the availability of more than
350,000 acres for reuse.
brownfields
In the President's fiscal year 2002 budget, the brownfields program
request is increased by $5 million above last year's enacted level, for
a total of $98 million. These resources will be used to provide
additional support for State Voluntary Cleanup Programs and the
Brownfields Assessment Demonstration Pilot program. The fiscal year
2002 funding request provides the resources necessary to award 38
communities new Brownfields Assessment Demonstration Pilots, 29 new
Brownfields Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund pilots, and ten new job
training pilots. The request includes supplemental funding for all
three existing pilot programs, the existing 28 Showcase communities,
and for state/tribal voluntary cleanup programs.
President Bush has made the clean up and redevelopment of
brownfields and the enactment of brownfields legislation a priority.
The brownfields program is an important urban redevelopment tool that
provides an alternative to the development of greenfields, and plays a
key role in the Administration's goal of building strong and healthy
communities for the 21st century. The Agency estimates that the
brownfields program has leveraged more than an estimated $2.9 billion
in cleanup and redevelopment funds. Through the EPA program, states,
tribes and local communities have assessed more than 2,500 sites.
I was pleased to see the Senate pass S. 350 on April 25 by a vote
of 99 to 0. As many of you know, since you were original sponsors of
the bill, this was good news for the nation. The bill encourages
brownfields redevelopment by clarifying Superfund liability and funding
brownfields cleanups that will make our communities safer and cleaner.
This bill reflects the Bush Administration's belief that environmental
protection and economic prosperity do go hand in hand. The vote is an
overwhelming endorsement of brownfields programs that: strengthen
partnerships among states and local community groups and developers;
improve public health; boost local property tax rolls and provide jobs.
I look forward to working with the House to earn its bipartisan
endorsement of brownfields legislation and encourage quick
congressional enactment of brownfields legislation.
I also hope you will support the Administration's efforts to make
the brownfields tax incentive permanent. As you know, the brownfields
tax incentive will expire at the end of 2003. Making this provision
permanent will remove any doubt among taxpayers as to the future
deductibility of remediation costs and would promote the goal of
encouraging cleanup and redevelopment at brownfields sites.
water infrastructure funding
The President's budget includes $2.1 billion in grants to states
for water infrastructure to ensure that safe and clean water is
supplied in every American community. With respect to wastewater
infrastructure, the Administration proposes $1.3 billion for grants to
states in FY 2002, $500 million more than the previous Administration's
fiscal year 2001 request. Included in the wastewater infrastructure
request is a new $450 million grant program to assist local communities
in addressing infrastructure needs related to Combined Sewer Overflows
(CSOs) and Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSOs) to address the largest
remaining municipal wastewater problem, and $850 million for continued
capitalization of State Clean Water State Revolving Loan Funds (CWSRF).
The CWSRF investment keeps EPA on track with our commitment to meet the
goal for the CWSRF to provide $2 billion average in annual financial
assistance over the long-term even after Federal assistance ends.
supporting core water quality programs
The President's request fully maintains support for EPA's core
water quality programs, including $170 million in grants to states
under Clean Water Act Section 106 to manage water quality programs and
$237 million for grants under the Section 319 nonpoint source program
to address polluted runoff. We recommend the elimination of the cap on
Section 319 grants to Indian Tribes. This budget includes $2 million
for ``Beaches'' grants to support the development of beach monitoring
and notification programs at the State and local level.
In addition, the budget maintains support for EPA's most critical
core programs including efforts to:
Work cooperatively with states to develop Total Maximum
Daily Loads (TMDLs) for the states most impaired waters;
Train and provide technical assistance to states to aid in
the adoption and implementation of new drinking water standards;
Reduce the backlog of expired wastewater discharge permits
under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES); and
Work to ensure that states have protective, up-to-date
water quality standards in place.
The budget also maintains funding of $75 million to address
priority water and wastewater infrastructure needs along the U.S.-
Mexico border, and $35 million to support much needed water and
wastewater projects in Alaska rural and Native Villages. Also, in
recognition of the lack of basic wastewater infrastructure that exists
in much of Indian Country, the President is proposing to extend
authority granted by the Congress for the current fiscal year that
allows the Agency to reserve up to one-and-a-half percent of funds
appropriated for the Clean Water SRFs for wastewater grants to tribes.
drinking water srf
With regard to drinking water, the Administration proposes to
maintain capitalization of the drinking water SRF at current levels in
fiscal year 2002, $823 million. By the end of fiscal year 2002, State
drinking water SRFs will have awarded 2,400 loans, with about 850 SRF
funded projects having initiated operations by that date.
In addition, the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996
included a provision that allows states flexibility to transfer funds
between their clean water and drinking water SRFs in order to address
their most compelling infrastructure needs. Under the President's
budget, the Administration is proposing to allow states to continue to
exercise this important flexibility.
arsenic
With respect to arsenic, on April 23rd we proposed extending the
effective date for 9 months, until February 22, 2002, in order to
review the science pertaining to health risks and to better assess
compliance costs and benefits associated with a new standard. Our plan
during this review period is to propose a new rule and take comments on
various possible regulatory options and the associated issues. We have
asked the National Academy of Sciences to review the health issues and
a subgroup of the National Drinking Water Advisory Council to examine
compliance cost issues. We are also developing a process to review the
benefits estimates. We plan to publish a Notice of Data Availability
(NODA) with the findings of that review process and then finalize the
rule based upon the comments on the proposed rule and on the NODA.
ensuring clean air
The President's fiscal year 2002 budget request maintains current
funding for EPA's clean air program, $565 million, allowing us to
continue the progress of past years. Almost $220 million or 40 percent
of the budget request is designated for our state, tribal, and local
partners to help carry out their responsibilities under the Clean Air
Act.
In 1990, Congress passed the Clean Air Act Amendments with
overwhelming support, setting ambitious air pollution reduction goals.
Since then, the Nation has achieved unprecedented success in cleaning
our air and protecting public health. Working with state, tribal, and
local partners, we have achieved these successes through rulemakings,
voluntary measures, market mechanisms, and stakeholder consultation.
The Clean Air Act has succeeded in improving the air quality in our
cities. Since 1970, air emissions have decreased nationally for five of
the six common pollutants subject to air quality standards. Moreover,
in FY2002 we expect increases in the number of areas with clean air and
more areas that will come into compliance with national clean air
health standards .
Our cars and fuels are cleaner. The average new car is over 90
percent cleaner (in terms of emissions) than in 1970. More than 30
percent of the nation's gasoline is now cleaner-burning, reformulated
gasoline. We will continue to implement gasoline sulfur reductions and
the cleanest ever emissions standards for cars, sport utility vehicles
(SUVs), pick-up trucks and minivans. In addition, the Administration is
moving forward to implement new diesel truck and fuel standards that by
2007 will achieve emission reductions of 95 percent for hydrocarbons,
and 90 percent reductions for particulate matter and NOX,
resulting in substantial public health benefits.
We have issued technology-based air toxics rules, or maximum
achievable control technology (or ``MACT'') standards, that by 2002,
will reduce industrial air toxics by an estimated cumulative 40 percent
from 1993 levels, or 1.5 million tons per year. Through FY 2000,
emissions of air toxics have declined 30 percent since the 1993
implementation of the MACT program and the auto emission standards. The
fiscal year 2002 budget request includes the resources needed to
complete the last round of MACT standards.
The Acid Rain Program has succeeded in reducing sulfur dioxide
(SO2) emissions from electric utilities by approximately 28
percent, or 5 million tons. In addition, rainfall acidity in the East
has been reduced by 25 percent. When Title IV is fully implemented in
2010 there will be a reduction in annual cases of premature mortality,
due to reductions in SO2 and nitrogen oxide levels. Acid
rain control will also produce significant benefits in terms of
improved visibility, lowered surface water acidity, and less damage to
high elevation forests and materials. However, more work remains.
Recent ecological studies have found that the problem of acid rain
persists. To further reduce emissions of SO2 and
NOX emissions from power plants, we look forward to working
with the Congress on a multi-pollutant strategy.
Although substantial progress has been made, it is important not to
lose sight of the magnitude of the air pollution problem that still
remains. In 1999, more than 150 million tons of air pollution were
released into the air in the United States, and approximately 62
million people lived in counties where monitored data showed unhealthy
air for one or more of the six common pollutants.
In fiscal year 2002, we will continue our work with states to
reduce transported emissions of nitrogen oxides that contribute
significantly to urban smog in downwind areas. Currently, 15 of the 19
states subject to the NOX SIP Call have plans that EPA has
approved or expects to approve. When fully implemented, the
NOX SIP Call will achieve nearly a million ton reduction in
NOX emissions. During fiscal year 2002 we will be re-
engineering the information technology support structure for the
allowance and emissions tracking systems to provide for improved public
access and timely exchange of data with State partners.
addressing global warming
To address the challenge of global warning, the fiscal year 2002
budget request is $145 million for voluntary and climate change science
programs. This request allows EPA to continue its partnership efforts
with businesses, organizations, and consumers to achieve greenhouse gas
reductions by taking advantage of the many voluntary opportunities to
reduce pollution and energy bills by fostering energy efficient
programs, products, technologies, and cost-effective renewable energy.
EPA's fiscal year 2002 budget request will help us meet the
following goals:
Reduce greenhouse gas emissions annually by more than 73
million metric tons of carbon equivalent, offsetting about 20 percent
of the growth in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions above 1990 levels;
Reduce other forms of pollution, including reducing
NOX emissions by about 180,000 tons;
Reduce U.S. energy consumption by more than 85 billion
kilowatt hours, contributing to at least $6 billion in energy savings
to consumers and businesses that use energy efficient products; and
Contribute to developing a new generation of fuel
efficient and low-polluting cars and trucks.
We have a tremendous opportunity to save on our nation's $600
billion annual energy bill over the next decade and reduce greenhouse
gas emissions and other forms of air pollution. EPA's voluntary energy
efficiency programs will help capitalize on this tremendous opportunity
for consumers, businesses, and organizations to make smarter equipment
purchasing and investment decisions leading to a significant reduction
of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and air pollutants. Voluntary
initiatives to reduce vehicle miles traveled have enormous potential to
provide near-term reductions in energy consumption, air pollution and
greenhouse gas emissions.
ensuring safe food and protecting the public from harmful chemicals
The President's 2002 budget request supports the important work of
applying the latest science to ensure industrial chemicals and
pesticides meet today's safety standards. The budget also supports the
complementary protections brought through pollution prevention and
voluntary partnerships.
For our pesticides programs, we have carried forward earlier
increases, maintaining the registration program at $41 million to keep
a steady flow of new pesticides coming onto the market, many of which
are based on innovative and safer chemistry. Likewise we maintain our
commitment to reviewing older pesticides, ensuring they meet Food
Quality Protection Act (FQPA) standards while at the same time working
with growers and the agricultural industry to help make a smooth
transition to safer pesticides. In August 2002 we expect to meet our
second statutory deadline for tolerance reassessments, completing an
additional 2,527 and meeting the 66 percent of the 9,721 reassessments
required in the law.
This budget request includes $46 million for our new and existing
chemicals programs. Chemicals are in all the products and services we
enjoy in our daily lives. The $14 billion High Production Volume
Chemical Challenge program aims to gather health and safety information
for the public to make better informed choices. As part of the HPV
voluntary program, 469 companies committed to provide basic information
about 2,155 chemicals. The budget request of $20 million will support
partnerships with states and private industry on pollution prevention
projects, reducing use or exposure to chemicals to reduce potential
risks most especially those chemicals that persist in our environment,
collect or bioaccumulate in our bodies, and have adverse or toxic
effects in the environment and on human health.
In both the pesticide and the chemical programs we continue to
place special emphasis on reducing potential risks to children and
other vulnerable populations. Emerging science is focusing our
attention on chemicals that may harm animal or human endocrine systems,
and we are working with the scientific community to find ways to
identify those chemicals as part of our endocrine disruptor program.
Let me mention here that the budget assumes no impediment to
promulgating the final pesticide tolerance fee rule in 2002, and you
will see that the request levels for the reregistration and the
tolerance reassessment programs reflect that change, namely from a
reregistration maintenance fee to a tolerance fee. These two critical
programs are fully supported with $52 million in appropriated funds if
a new fee is in place in 2002 and we will be working with you on this
issue over the coming months.
sound science
Environmental policy should always be based on the soundest
information available. The role of environmental science has become
more critical than ever in making policy decisions, thereby, improving
our ability to sustain natural resources while maintaining public trust
and the integrity of our world's ecosystem. Science has played a vital
role in improving America's environment--from targeting priority
chemicals concerns, better characterizing sources of pollution and
designing control strategies. While we must also realize that science
and public policy proceed along fundamentally different time lines, we
will continue to use the best available science and scientific analyses
to aid in the development of environmental policy.
EPA's fiscal year 2002 President's budget supports a strong and
rigorous research program. The fiscal year 2002 request includes $535
million for the Office of Research and Development (ORD), reflecting an
increase of $5 million compared to the fiscal year 2001 request. This
request will allow the Agency to support a research program focused on
addressing key environmental concerns such as the health effects of
small particles in order to assure promulgation of standards that
protect human health, and heightened interest in better addressing in
Agency decisions the unique susceptibilities of children to potential
environmental health threats. The Agency's request will also continue
to support the Global Change research program focusing efforts on
assessment activities examining the potential consequences of global
change and climate variability on human health, air quality, water
quality and ecosystem health.
In addition to supporting a strong intramural science program at
the Agency, the fiscal year 2002 request provides $110 million for the
Science to Achieve Results (STAR) program which includes competitively
awarded grants and fellowships. The STAR program continues to
successfully engage the best environmental scientists and engineers
from academia through a variety of competitive, peer reviewed grants.
In addition, the Agency will continue its highly successful
Postdoctoral program to hire scientists and engineers who provide a
dynamic infusion of intellectual energy and state-of-the-science
expertise, as well as assist the Agency in addressing long range
research workforce planning needs.
civil rights
The President's budget includes a $3 million increase for civil
rights activities at the agency. The increase is expected to address
the backlog of pending discrimination complaints for both Title VI and
VII complaints. I expect to announce by June 1 a comprehensive strategy
for fully eliminating the Title VI ( those complaints that concern
possible acts of discrimination by recipients of Federal funding),
backlog within 2 years. In addition, Title VII complaints (complaints
that concern possible acts of discrimination against individuals within
the Agency) will be reviewed by a special case closure team. Our goal
for Title VII complaints is to issue a final Agency determination on
all backlogged cases by no later than the end of the year. Furthermore,
this summer all 1,600 EPA supervisors and managers will attend a
national civil rights training program. The Agency has contracted with
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to provide this mandatory,
2-day course. I expect to be among the first to take the course. I
pledge to personally monitor the progress in the civil rights arena.
summary
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, the President's fiscal
year 2002 budget for EPA provides the resources and vision necessary to
reach our Nation's environmental mission to protect the environment and
human health. This budget represents this Administration's commitment
to work with our environmental partners to develop innovative
environmental programs that ensure stewardship of our land, air, and
water for generations to come. This concludes my prepared statement. I
would be pleased to answer any questions that you may have.
__________
Responses by Christine Todd Whitman to Additional Questions from
Senator Smith
Question 1. This budget creates two new state grant programs. One
will provide $25 million for multimedia state enforcement activities.
The other will provide $25 million for improving public access to
environmental information. How do you envision these two programs
working together to improve environmental protection?
Response. Both of these grant programs facilitate local
decisionmaking involving environmental concerns by providing resources
to the people closest to the issues thereby enhancing their ability to
tailor solutions to their circumstances. The enforcement grants provide
funds to state and tribal officials to address environmental risks and
noncompliance patterns through the use of compliance assistance,
incentives for facility self-auditing, inspections and investigations,
and enforcement actions. The information grants provide funds to
officials to develop integrated environmental information systems that
will improve access to such information by the public. Further, EPA and
the States will be better able to share information about facilities
and permits if they are based on a common data architecture.
Question 2a. I am pleased to see that President Bush recognized the
importance of water infrastructure and provided for a substantial
increase over the previous Administration's request. However, I would
like to work with you on how those funds are to be allocated in making
sure that States are given flexibility in deciding their priorities.
Both increasing the SRF and providing funds to fix the many CSOs and
SSOs around the country are important goals. I look forward to working
on legislation this year to better achieve these goals. However, in the
meantime we need to focus on this years budget. Every year we provide
for grants for CSOs and SSOs in the appropriations request.
Would you envision this CSO/SSO grant program taking the place of
those earmarks?
Response. The CSO/SSO grant program proposed by the President
provides a flexible tool for States to address their highest priority
projects in their neediest communities. We would envision that the
highest priority CSO/SSO projects targeted by the states would be
funded through this program.
Question 2b. Do you feel the proposed level for the SRF is
sufficient?
Response. The Administration believes its request for wastewater
infrastructure funding will provide a substantial source of funding for
states to address their communities' highest priority needs. The
proposed level for the CWSRF is $50 million more than the amount
requested by the prior Administration and is $500 million more in total
wastewater infrastructure spending when combined with the new sewer
overflow grants. The $850 million request for the Clean Water SRF
supports the Agency's goal for the State SRFs to provide a long-term
average of $2 billion a year in financial assistance.
Question 2c. In looking at the infrastructure question, is the
Federal Government allowing enough flexibility for the States?
Response. Both the SRF programs represent an innovative approach to
financing a wide range of wastewater and drinking water projects. The
SRF programs are implemented through a State-EPA partnership which EPA
believes allows states a great deal of flexibility. Together with its
state partners, EPA has continually sought ways to improve the program
so that its resources will effectively address the highest priority
water quality and public health problems.
Since each SRF program is managed by the state, project eligibility
varies according to each state's program and priorities. Each state has
developed its own priority system to rank individual projects for
funding. In the Clean Water (CW) SRF program, eligible loan recipients
may include communities, individuals, citizens' groups, and non-profit
organizations. The CWSRF allows for the funding of point source,
nonpoint source and estuary activities. To date, CWSRF funds have
primarily been used to fund point source projects such as the
construction and upgrade of wastewater treatment facilities to
secondary treatment, rehabilitation of sewer collection systems, and
combined sewer overflow measures. However, over the past few years,
there has been a dramatic increase in the CWSRF funding of nonpoint
source and estuary activities. Such activities include projects to
control agricultural runoff, correct or replace onsite septic systems,
and develop streambank buffer zones. Many states are developing
integrated priority systems that consider wastewater and nonpoint
sources of pollution together in addressing impacted waters.
Eligible loan recipients in the Drinking Water (DW) SRF program may
include community water systems (both privately- and publicly-owned),
and nonprofit noncommunity water systems. The state identifies the
projects that are funded using a priority system based on public
health, compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act and affordability
and must offer assistance to the highest priority projects. The DWSRF
program also gives each state the flexibility to use a portion of its
grant funds for programs and activities that address the non-
infrastructure needs of water systems promoting effective state
drinking water programs, source water protection and the technical,
financial and managerial capacity of water systems. Such programs can
reduce the need for more costly infrastructure projects and are
critical in ensuring public health protection.
Question 2d. What areas do you see that need reform?
Response. The Administration is looking forward to a constructive
dialog with the Congress and other shareholders on the full range of
SRF implementation issues, e.g., project eligibilities, loan terms,
privatization, ensuring that Federal mandates are not needlessly costly
and burdensome, and other issues. One area where we have made a
specific proposal in the fiscal year 2002 request concerns the States'
ability to transfer funds between their clean water and drinking water
SRFs.
The 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Amendments, which
authorized the DWSRF program, included a provision allowing states to
transfer an amount equal to up to 33 percent of their DWSRF grant to
their CWSRF program, or an equivalent amount from their CWSRF program
to their DWSRF program. The goal of the provision was to give states
flexibility to address the most critical demands in either program at a
given time. The provision allowed states to make transfers through
September 30, 2001.
The President requests in his fiscal year 2002 budget that Congress
continue the authorization of transfers between the two SRF programs,
in order to give states flexibility to address their most pressing
water infrastructure needs. This can be accomplished by rescinding the
sunset date of September 30, 2001, from the SDWA provision.
Question 3a. I was pleased to see you recognized the importance of
the beaches bill we passed last year. We were successful in not only
passing the beaches bill but also a comprehensive estuaries bill called
the ``Estuaries and Clean Waters Act of 2000''. I hope you will
recognize the efforts by this Committee over the coming years, as we
pass authorizing language, and respect the priorities we see as
important to protect the environment. I would ask that you work with
use in preparing next years budget and increase funding for these
programs, as EPA issues guidance and they mature.
For the beaches grants, is the $2 million request part of the 106
grant program or separate?
Response. The $2 million request for the Beaches grants is separate
from the request for the Section 106 grants.
Question 3b. How will these funds be allocated?
Response. The President's budget allocates $57,000 to each coastal
state and territory.
Question 4a. States and the EPA in nondelegated states, such as New
Hampshire, are going to quickly be faced with implementing a revised
TMDL rule and a revised Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO)
rule. Both of these rules will substantially increase the number of
NPDES permits that need to be issued.
How does the EPA plan to issue the additional NPDES permits and
catch up on the backlog of permits?
Response. EPA began an aggressive effort to reduce the existing
backlog of expired NPDES permits in late 1998. In 1999, the Office of
Wastewater Management formed a work group to assess the problem and to
develop a national strategy in cooperation with its NPDES State
partners. This strategy was published in July 1999, and is posted on
the NPDES program web site (http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/
strategy.pdf). In addition to the national strategy, former Deputy
Administrator Mike McCabe, in March 2000, directed each EPA Regional
Administrator to develop State-specific plans to describe how each
State in the Region would meet the backlog reduction targets. These
strategies have been submitted and are now used to track State and
Regional progress.
Since the Agency began its backlog reduction effort, our Regional
offices have taken a variety of concrete steps to reduce the backlog of
permits for which they are directly responsible. For example, EPA
Region 1, which had the most ``non-authorized'' states, reorganized its
NPDES staff to form permit issuance/backlog reduction teams. Based on
these efforts, the number of expired permits for ``major'' NPDES
dischargers administered by EPA has dropped from 292 (46 percent) to
157 (30 percent).
The Agency will continue to actively track and manage permit
issuance efforts, and will work closely with our State partners to
implement the national and State-specific backlog reduction strategies.
The additional permits that may need to be issued due to the TMDL and
CAFO rules pose additional challenges. We hope that States will use
General Permits and electronic tools that are being developed to make
the process simpler and more efficient.
Question 4b. Will the States be able to handle all of these new
regulatory requirements under the current budget?
Response. The Agency is confident that adequate resources can be
allocated to address the requirement of the permitting programs. As new
rules are finalized, the Agency will evaluate the adequacy of state
grant programs during its annual budget review.
Question 5. We substantially increased the 319 program for nonpoint
sources last year and the President recognized the importance of the
319 program and requested the same level of funding. Has the agency
done any type of needs analysis for the nonpoint source program? What
role do you see yourself playing with USDA in trying to solve the
problem of nonpoint source pollution.
Response. EPA develops and publishes a Clean Watersheds Needs
Survey Report to Congress every 4 years. This survey originally
addressed only municipal point sources. After Congress amended the
Clean Water Act by adding Section 319 to address nonpoint source
pollution and began funding that program in 1990, EPA began with the
1992 report to include nonpoint source needs estimates. Given the lack
of availability of data on the million of specific sources of nonpoint
pollution, the estimates have been based upon the application of
appropriate models to estimate national needs. Assumptions used to
develop the models are explained in the Needs Survey document.
In the most recently published survey (the 1996 Clean Water Needs
Survey), EPA estimated a portion of the Nonpoint Source Needs, focusing
upon agriculture and silvicultural sources of nonpoint pollution. Those
estimates were $5.9 billion and $3.5 billion, or a total of $9.4
billion.
EPA is currently preparing an analysis of nonpoint source needs
that would revise and expand upon the 1996 Needs Survey. As part of the
2000 Clean Watersheds Needs Survey, EPA is both refining its
agricultural and silvicultural needs estimates and adding estimates of
other significant sources of nonpoint pollution, including septic
tanks; abandoned coal mines; small residential construction sites
(larger ones are addressed by the point source permit program under
Section 402 of the Clean Water Act); dams; and marinas.
EPA considers USDA to be a critical partner in our efforts to
control nonpoint source pollution from agricultural sources. USDA's
Environmental Quality Incentives Program is a significant source of
funding to address water quality issues at animal feeding operations,
grazing and pasture land, and both irrigated and non-irrigated cropping
operations. In addition, the Conservation Reserve Program, and
especially the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, have been
critical tools to protect highly eroding areas as well as critical
riparian areas. EPA and USDA have worked very closely together on such
efforts as implementing a unified national strategy for animal feeding
operations, and we jointly fund many projects throughout the United
States using our respective funding mechanisms. Given our complementary
areas of expertise, we look forward to continuing to work together
effectively in this manner.
Question 6a. During the hearing much was said about the arsenic
standard. I would like you to clarify a few issues:
If the arsenic rule under the Clinton administration was in effect
on June 22, 2001, what would the enforceable MCL be on that date and
for the following 4 years?
Response. Under the SDWA, the effective date for compliance with
national primary drinking water regulations (NPDWRs) is 3 years from
the date of promulgation unless EPA determines that an earlier date is
practicable. EPA also may provide drinking water systems with an
additional 2 years to make any capital improvements necessary to come
into compliance with an NPDWR. Under the arsenic drinking water
standard proposed by the previous administration, the revised standard
of 10 ppb would not have gone into effect until January 2006, a full 5
years after the date of promulgation. Therefore, the enforceable MCL as
of June 22, 2001 and for the following 4\1/2\ years (June 2001 through
January 2006), would have remained at 50 ppb.
Question 6b. Do states have the flexibility to set MCLs below what
EPA requires and have States chosen to do so in the area of arsenic? Is
it common for States to set levels different than those required by
EPA?
Response. Under Section 1414(e) of the SDWA, States may set
standards that are more stringent than those established by EPA. Both
New Hampshire and New Jersey, for example, have proposed to establish
MCLs for arsenic that are lower than the current Federal standard of 50
ppb. It is uncommon, however, for states to set MCLs lower than the
Federal standard.
Question 6c. As a part of the arsenic rule under the Clinton
administration, the information required under the Consumer Confidence
Report for arsenic would have been changed to require additional health
information. Presumably this information was linked to data the Clinton
administration used in finalizing the rule. If you decide to change the
rule, would you review all of the new data and studies to make a
determination on what additional health information is necessary, if
any, to provide the public in the consumer confidence reports? How are
the detection levels of arsenic, the MCL, and the consumer confidence
reports linked? What arsenic information do water utilities currently
supply consumers in the consumer confidence reports?
Response. Affecting approximately 54,000 community water systems
(CWSs) nationwide, the Consumer Confidence Report (CCR) rule is
designed to provide consumers with a snapshot of the quality of their
drinking water for the previous calendar year. A basic requirement of
the CCR rule is that CWSs must provide consumers with a list of all
contaminants detected in the system's drinking water supply even if
that contaminant is found at levels that do not violate any drinking
water standard. For example, if a CWS detects arsenic in its drinking
water supply below the current maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 50
ppb, the system still must include that information in its CCR. This
requirement of the CCR rule is a constant provision and is not affected
by the establishment of or revision to any MCL promulgated under the
authority of the Safe Drinking Water Act by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). This provision, therefore, would not have been
changed under the arsenic regulation proposed by the previous
administration.
Another provision in the CCR rule is the publication of additional
educational information within the systems' annual CCR for certain
contaminants due to concerns about special risks for children or
carcinogenicity. The CCR rule now in effect requires water systems to
include additional education information about arsenic where it is
detected above 25 ppb or g/l (50 percent of the MCL of 50).
The regulation provides suggested language but also allows CWSs to
develop their own language in consultation with the primacy agency.
This provision also remains in effect.
The arsenic rule of January 2001 revised the CCR requirements in
two ways. First, systems with arsenic above 10 ppb or 10 g/l
(the revised MCL in the January rule) would be required to include the
health effects statement for arsenic in their CCR, even though such
systems would not be in violation of the MCL before 2006. Second,
systems with arsenic greater than 5 but less than 10 ppb or g/
l (the revised MCL in the January rule) would be required to include
educational information about arsenic in the CCR. As previously, the
rule provides suggested language, but systems may develop their own
language in consultation with the primacy agency.
The revised arsenic CCR requirements were to go into effect March
23, 2001 and would apply to the CCR covering calendar year 2001 that is
distributed to customers no later than July 2002. The change in the
effective date of a final arsenic in drinking water rule to February
22, 2002 would result in the revised arsenic CCR requirements applying
to CCRs covering calendar year 2002. For CCRs covering calendar year
2001, systems are required to follow original arsenic CCR provisions,
namely: (1) indicate any level of arsenic detected, and (2) provide
additional arsenic educational information when arsenic is detected
above 25 ppb or g/l.
In the event we decide to revise the rule, we would also review all
of the new health effects data and studies to determine what bearing
they may have on public information requirements. We believe that the
strength of the health effects information and its relationship to the
arsenic MCL that is ultimately promulgated have a direct bearing on the
consumer confidence report requirements. We will be carefully
considering these issues as we move toward final decisions on the rule.
Question 7a. I sent a letter (6/28/00) to Administrator Browner
last year raising concerns with the application of the Clean Air Act
and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability
Act to air emissions from animal feeding operations. It was my
understanding that the EPA recognized the science and data for air
emissions from animal feeding operations was lacking. Thus, I was
informed industry and the EPA were working together to have the
National Academy of Sciences look at this issues. However, it has come
to my attention that the enforcement office at EPA is proceeding with
legal actions against animal feeding operations under the above
mentioned statutes. I would hope that the enforcement office would
respect the need for further science and wait for the policy offices to
work through that process. The budget document in the section on the
air office briefly mentioned this issue.
Could you update me on EPA's current position on this issue?
Response. EPA initiated a comprehensive literature review of
industry emissions and best management practice information. We have
also begun discussions with the National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
regarding a study to review the scientific issues and to make
recommendations related to measuring and estimating agricultural
emissions. The study should also address best management practices,
including costs. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was formed in
February, 1998 with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to confer
on agriculture and air quality issues. In the spirit of this agreement,
we plan to work closely with USDA, their Agricultural Air Quality Task
Force (AAQTF), and other stakeholders, in the course of the study. We
will use this study to develop scientifically valid emission estimates
that can be used to inform our regulatory policy decisions.
The USDA's AAQTF, has recommended that EPA defer implementation of
Title V of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) until there is a
better understanding of the scientific issues associated with emissions
from agricultural production sources. We are currently reviewing this
recommendation and will work with the USDA on these issues.
Governor Whitman also recently created the position of Counselor to
the Administrator on Agriculture Policy and asked Jean-Mari Peltier of
California to fill the post. By establishing this position, EPA will be
better able to integrate the concerns of the agricultural community
when making important decisions about how best to protect our natural
resources.
Question 7b. Is the enforcement office aware of the need for
further science and data on this issue?
Response. Yes, EPA's enforcement office is aware of the need for
further study on this issue. EPA agrees that we do not currently have
sound emission estimates sufficient to support regulatory
determinations for animal agriculture. At the same time, the Agency has
received complaints from citizens living nearby several very large
combined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) alleging that air emissions
are affecting their health and quality of life. Although we recognize
the need for better air emissions data from CAFOs, EPA must respond to
these concerns by investigating such operations. As described above,
EPA is developing a cross-Agency approach for addressing air emissions
from animal production operations.
Question 8. In the budget request, State air quality grants are
level-funded at $208.5 million from last year's enacted amount.
According to the State and Territorial Air Pollution Program
Administrator's (STAPPA), State agencies are underfunded by nearly $100
million. Does the Administration have a plan to address this resource
need over the long term?
Response. STAPPA, ALAPCO, and EOA conducted a collaborative effort
several years ago to assess funding needs. Collectively it was found
that Federal grants to State and local air pollution control agencies
and tribes under Section 105 of the Clean Air Act fell short of State
and local air funding needs. EPA continues to support fine particulate
matter monitoring through section 103 grants that require no cost
sharing by States. EPA has continued to work with STAPPA/ALAPCO to
identify State and local priorities and to integrate those priorities
at EPA in a transparent as possible planning and budgeting process.
Grants support a variety of activities. For example, there is still
considerable work to be done to address hazardous air pollution.
States/locals must assess the extent of the problem through monitoring
and data analysis implement technology-bases (or ``MACT'') standards,
develop strategies for addressing State/local problems. They also issue
permits to many minor sources (which can be an expensive undertaking
that is not covered by permit fees under Title V of the Clean Air Act.
In addition to toxic air pollution, States/locals must continue to
address criteria pollutant, such as ozone and particulate matter,
regional haze, and visibility. The list of State responsibilities for
which funding may be directed includes, the following: transportation-
related projects; land use and air quality programs; development,
replacement and/or upgrading of monitors (apart from fine particulate
matter monitoring); collection of essential emission and pollutant
data; minor source inspections and permits; training; implementation of
ozone strategies; multi-State approaches to regional air quality
problems; and public education and outreach.
EPA is actively supporting efforts that will overtime, reduce
States burden for reporting to EPA. Air Emissions Inventory submission
under the Clean Air Act were received through Central Data Exchange
from 34 States and several county air boards. In addition, EPA is
requesting $25 million in grant support for the National Environmental
Information Exchange Network, which, when fully implemented will make
it easier to collect essential data, to coordinate permit inspections
and to reduce State reporting costs.
Question 9. You may be familiar with the Army Corps of Engineer's
authority to study the water resource needs or river basins and
regions. Section 729 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986
granted the original authority and the provision was amended in the
Water Resources Development Act of 2000. A study conducted under this
authority is done in cooperation with the Administrator of the EPA, as
well as the secretaries of other relevant Federal agencies. Under this
authority, the Army Corps may assess the water resources' needs of
river basins and watersheds, including needs relating to ecosystem
protection and restoration; flood damage reduction; navigation and
ports; watershed protection; water supply; and drought preparedness. In
the fiscal year 2001 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act,
$500,000 was granted to conduct such a comprehensive study along the
Merrimack River watershed. As you may be aware, five communities along
this river--Nashua and Manchester, NH; Lawrence, Lowell, and Methuen,
MA--are attempting to coordinate and manage their water resource needs.
These communities are eager to get started with this study and hope
that it will shed light on measures they can take as a region to reduce
CSOs and restore the Merrimack River basin. However, considering the
consent orders that have been levied upon them, there is a reluctance
to contribute the required 50 percent match toward the Corps study
unless credit is going to be granted by EPA for this comprehensive
assessment.
This study provides a unique opportunity for communities to band
together and take a holistic approach to their problems. My question to
you is this: would EPA recognize the Comprehensive Merrimack River
Study as a positive step forward for these communities and grant them
credit toward the consent decrees if they commit the required local
match to undertake this study?
Response. It is unclear what is meant by ``grant them credit toward
consent decrees.'' There is no question that wet weather is creating
significant water quality problems for the Merrimack River. It is well
known that combined sewer overflows are a major source of the bacteria
polluting the river. Manchester and Nashua are in the process of
implementing measures to reduce CSOs, and the Massachusetts communities
along the Merrimack are in the final stages of developing CSO abatement
plans. The EPA believes that more information about other pollution
sources could be helpful in understanding all of the impacts along the
river and therefore would support a comprehensive study.
The EPA would examine which projects would provide the greatest
environmental benefits as the results of such a study became available
and make adjustments to future phases of abatement plans as
appropriate. The Agency does believe that a significant amount of CSO
work will be necessary regardless of the outcome of any study. CSO
projects already committed to should proceed as planned. EPA is willing
to credit funds spent on the study toward future CSO work. This means
that in future negotiations, EPA will take into account the
communities' investment in this water quality study when considering
their ability to finance CSO controls. This should not impact the
communities' ability to complete necessary ongoing work.
__________
Responses by Christine Todd Whitman to Additional Questions from
Senator Corzine
Question 1. Two hundred and seventy of the five hundred personnel
that your budget cuts are enforcement positions. I understand from your
testimony that $25 million of the resources freed up by these cuts are
going to states in the form of enforcement grants. I'm concerned that
many of New Jersey's most pressing environmental problems can be
addressed only by strong Federal enforcement. Can you explain how the
State grant program will address the complex interstate NOX
pollution problems that New Jersey faces or help to clean up New
Jersey's Superfund sites? Can you guarantee that this grant program
will not slow cleanup of Superfund sites in New Jersey and elsewhere in
the country?
Response. The reduction of 270 personnel from EPA's enforcement and
compliance assurance program represents a 7.5 percent reduction from
the current workyear ceiling. The fiscal year 2002 budget maintains
sufficient resources to sustain a vigorous Federal environmental
monitoring and enforcement program, and EPA expects to meet its fiscal
year 2002 goals for Superfund cleanup with the resources proposed in
the President's budget.
Question 2. New Jersey has more Superfund sites than any other
State in the nation. Eighty-four of New Jersey's one hundred and eleven
NPL sites are not yet cleaned up to the ``construction complete''
stage. So I am concerned to see that your budget request reduces the
fiscal year 1902 target for cleanups to 65. This is well below the 85
cleanups per year that have been accomplished in the last 4 years; it
is also below last year's target of 75. Yet the overall Superfund
request is relatively flat. When I asked you about this at the hearing,
you said that the reduced target is due to increased cleanup costs at
remaining sites. Can you please provide any additional information
about the Superfund pipeline or other matters that are relevant to your
decision to lower the target for construction completes.
Response. The President's budget establishes an appropriate balance
in the distribution of scarce resources among competing environmental
priorities. In addition to historical budget reductions in the
Superfund program, an important reason for the decline in construction
completions that you describe is the increasing complexity of NPL sites
that have yet to be addressed, including an increase in the number of
operable units at the remaining sites, and an increase in the
percentage of Federal facilities included in the list of remaining
sites. These factors increase the time needed to achieve construction
completion at a site.
Question 3. Your budget cuts Superfund cost recovery activities by
5 percent over last year's enacted levels, and nearly 15 percent versus
last year's request. Superfund cost recovery enforces the ``polluter
pays'' principle, and replenishes the Superfund Trust Fund. Why did you
cut this important activity, particularly in light of the fact that the
Trust Fund is dwindling?
Response. The reduction to cost recovery FTE reflects a pro-rata
share of Ageney-wide reductions to meet the congressionally-directed
ceiling of 17,500 FTE for fiscal year 2002. Despite these reductions,
the President's request provides the funding necessary for EPA to
address all pending cases at sites with total unaddressed response cost
greater than $200,000, prior to expiration of the statute of
limitations. By maintaining this goal, EPA confirms its well-
established commitment to the ``polluter pays'' principle and ensures
that there will be no loss of revenue to the U.S. Treasury Department
due to budgetary constraints.
Question 4. The Supreme Court decided in EPA's favor earlier this
year on the NOX SIP call. Not all of the states have
submitted revisions for their State Implementation Plans, and the
deadline is approaching. Are you committed to preparing and
implementing a Federal Implementation Plan for states that fail to
submit their own plans?
Response. EPA remains committed to implementing on time rules to
combat the regional smog problem in the eastern United States. The
NOX reductions from this action are needed to help many
cities in the eastern half of the United States meet the 1-hour ozone
air quality standard.
So far, 15 states and the District of Columbia have adopted or are
in the process of adopting NOX SIP call rules that we have
approved or expect to be able to approve as achieving the required
reductions on time. We are continuing to work with the states to
maximize chances of getting approvable rules from all states in time
for sources to comply by May 2004. Alternatively, we are positioned to
issue a final FIP rule in a timely manner, if necessary. The FIP rule
was proposed in October 1998 and the NOx trading program-a key part of
the proposed FIP rule-was issued as a final rule under section 126 in
January 2000.
Question 5. EPA has taken New Source Review enforcement actions
against 32 power plants last year. How much does your budget request
allocate to support this litigation? And does your budget allocate
resources to support additional New Source Review enforcement actions?
Response. EPA does not specifically track resources dedicated to
NSR enforcement cases. In addition, EPA has not developed a specific
budget line item for NSR enforcement at this time. In fiscal year 2002,
the Agency is requesting 866 workyears and $92 million for the civil
enforcement program in the Environmental Program and Management
appropriation. Support for NSR litigation comes from the civil
enforcement budget.
Question 6. Last year, Congress unanimously passed the BEACH Act of
2000. The law established a beach water monitoring grant program for
coastal states and territories to improve and implement beach water
monitoring and public notification activities. Congress authorized $30
million for these grants to help states better protect the public's
health and identify polluted beach waters. Your agency has only
requested $2 million. How can EPA fulfill its responsibilities and
provide assistance for coastal states with less than 7 percent of the
funding authorized for these activities just 8 months ago?
Response. EPA believes the budget request of $2 million to support
BEACH Act grants will provide an adequate level of funding in Fiscal
Year 2002 consistent with a phased approach to implementation. During
the first phase, states will be eligible to apply for beach monitoring
and public notification program development grants. These grants will
enable the states to establish programs that are consistent with the
performance criteria to be published by EPA. During the second phase,
states can apply for program implementation grants.
Beach Act implementation grants may only be awarded to states that
have demonstrated that their programs are consistent with EPA's
performance criteria. In order to do this, states have to develop
detailed implementation plans for monitoring and notification. These
plans must provide information such as: (1) lists of coastal recreation
waters covered by the program, (2) processes by which states may
delegate program responsibilities to local governments, (3) the
frequency and location of all monitoring and assessment activities, (4)
sampling and laboratory methods to be used for detecting levels of
pathogens and pathogen indicators that are harmful to human health; and
the assessment procedures for identifying short-term increases in
pathogens and pathogen indicators, (5) measures for prompt
communication of the exceedence of applicable water quality standards
to EPA and local jurisdictions, (6) measures for the posting of signs
at beaches or similar points of access, or functionally equivalent
communication measures that are sufficient to give notice to the public
that the coastal recreation waters are not meeting or are not expected
to meet applicable water quality standards for pathogens and pathogen
indicators, and (7) measures that inform the public of the potential
risks associated with water contact activities in the coastal
recreation waters that do not meet applicable water quality standards.
Because the above program requirements must be met before states
may receive grants for full program implementation, we believe that
funding requested in the Fiscal Year 2002 budget is appropriately
focused on program development.
Question 7. In your testimony, you congratulate the Senate for
passing a brownfields bill. Yet your budget requests only $98 million
of the $250 million that the bill would authorize. If the bill becomes
law prior to enactment of EPA's fiscal year 2002 appropriation, will
you ask Congress to appropriate more than the $98 million in the
budget?
Response. This Administration has testified in support of Senate
brownfields legislation which authorized a level of funding more than
the $97.7 million requested in the fiscal year 2002 President's budget.
EPA is pleased that legislation has been passed by the Senate and looks
forward to working with the House of Representatives toward enacting a
brownfields law. Should brownfields legislation be enacted, the
Administration will work with Congress to determine an appropriate
level of funding that is consistent with the President's budget
priorities.
Question 8. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recently
released its Third Assessment Report. As you know, the report concluded
that global warming is happening, and that most of the warming in the
last 50 years is attributable to human emissions of greenhouse gases.
As you point out in your testimony, EPA's voluntary climate change
programs have been highly successful in reducing greenhouse gases and
other pollutants. Your request of $145 million for these programs is
similar to last year's funding levels. But it is well short of the $227
million requested last year. Can you explain the rationale for your
request in light of the IPCC report?
Response. The Administration is now conducting a cabinet-level
review to develop an effective and science-based approach to address
the important issues of global climate change. It will encourage
research breakthroughs that lead to technological innovation and take
advante of the power of markets. It will encourage global participation
and pursue actions that will help ensure continued economic growth and
prosperity for our citizens and for citizens throughout the world.
EPA's voluntary climate protection programs continue to be highly
successful in cost-effectively reducing emissions of greenhouse gases
while reducing air pollution and saving businesses, organizations, and
consumers billions of dollars on their energy bills. At the level that
Congress appropriated in fiscal year 2001, EPA's voluntary climate
protection programs will accomplish the following:
Less greenhouse gas pollution.--EPA's climate protection
programs are projected to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by more than
73 MMTCE in 2002, reducing the growth in greenhouse gas emissions above
1990 levels by about 20 percent.
Less local air pollution.--Through energy efficiency
investments, these programs prevent other forms of pollution, including
air pollutants such as nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and
mercury. Nitrogen oxides emissions are projected to be reduced by more
than 180,000 tons in 2002, helping to reduce local smog and improve air
quality.
Lower energy bills for families schools, local
governments, and small businesses: American families, large and small
businesses, schools, and industry that use energy efficient products
will spend up to $6 billion less on energy bills in the next year.
National platform to leverage utility/state resources.--
Energy Star provides a national platform with more than 40 percent
consumer awareness that helps utilities and State energy efficiency
organizations leverage their resources.
Energy efficiency is key to a balanced approach to the
energy crises.--Energy efficiency is low cost to deliver (2-3 cents/
kWh) and enhances system reliability. EPA's Energy Star program helped
reduce peak summer demand by almost 10,000 MW in 2000.
The Administration's National Energy Policy (NEP) provides many
recommendations for enhancing these voluntary programs. For example,
the NEP calls for increasing energy efficiency, including expanding the
Energy Star program to new building types, as well as adding more
products, appliances and services. The NEP also provides
recommendations for EPA to promote cleaner energy supply, such as
Combined Heat and Power. These types of programs will continue to play
a strong role in limiting our national emissions while allowing our
economy to grow. We are currently evaluating how to implement the NEP
recommendations.
Question 9. I understand that you are a member of President Bush's
task force on climate change, and that the task force will be making
recommendations in June. If the task force decides that EPA climate
change programs need additional funding, will you modify your request
for this year?
Response. The Administration is now conducting a cabinet-level
review to develop a climate change policy that protects the
environment, consumers, and the economy. The cabinet-level group is
working on an effective and science-based approach to address the
important issue of global climate change. The President has said that
he is optimistic that, by working constructively with our friends and
allies through international processes, we can develop technologies,
market incentives, and other innovative approaches to address global
climate change.
EPA's Office of Air and Radiation has a great deal of expertise in
several areas important to developing policy responses to the issue of
climate change, including: use of voluntary programs to achieve energy
efficiency gains and the reduction of various greenhouse gases;
development and demonstration of more energy efficient vehicle
technologies; and management of emissions trading programs that help
lower the costs of achieving environmental protection goals. Once the
cabinet-level review is complete, we will assess whether there are any
additional funding needs for fiscal year 2002 and later years.
Question 10. As you know, the recent Supreme Court decision in the
Sandoval case, if broadly interpreted, would make your agency the only
recourse for people who suffer from environmental discrimination.
Therefore, I applaud your commitment to reduce the backlog of Title VI
cases within 2 years. How will you accomplish this goal, even with the
increase in funding that you have requested?
Response. A Task Force has been established under the leadership of
the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance to resolve the
backlog of Title VI complaints. The Task Force will focus exclusively
on addressing the backlog of Title VI complaints. The Task Force will
be responsible for investigating and resolving the backlog in
accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, EPA's
implementing regulations, case law, and the Agency's experience in
evaluating complaints. I am preparing to channel additional resources
toward the formation of this Task Force which will include talented,
experienced personnel from EPA's civil rights, enforcement, legal, and
program offices, as well as additional revenue dollars to ensure that
the goal of eliminating the backlog within 2 years is achieved.
Question 11. I notice that in your testimony, sometimes you use the
fiscal year 2001 enacted level as the measure of your fiscal year 2001
request. Other times, you use the fiscal year 2001 requested level as
the baseline. The choice of the baseline makes a big difference in how
the comparison looks, and using a variety of baselines causes
unnecessary confusion in the debate. What rule or set of principles was
used to determine which baseline was appropriate? If there were no
consistent principles that guided your choices, will you commit to
developing, articulating and applying such principles in future
requests?
Response. It is useful to compare the President's budget request
for fiscal year 2002 with both the fiscal year 2001 budget request and
the fiscal year 2001 enacted budget. A look at both these amounts
provides a more complete context for understanding the Agency's current
budget request. A comparison of budget requests from two different
years is a comparison of two similar items which highlights where
priorities may change or stay the same from one year to another. One
way in which enacted budgets differ from budget requests is in their
composition. They include Congressional earmarks, which are considered
one-time projects and not part of the Agency's baseline budget. When
each Administration formulates a budget request, the usual practice is
to back out these earmarks from the previous year's enacted budget. In
EPA's case, the fiscal year 2001 enacted budget includes nearly $500
million in Congressional earmarks, so our starting point for the fiscal
year 2002 budget request excludes that amount.
In describing our fiscal year 2002 budget request, the
Administrator compared it with the Agency's budget request for fiscal
year 2001-thus illustrating an emphasis on EPA's strong base programs
that protect the environment and public health, as well as some new
priorities that EPA would like to pursue in the coming year.
__________
Responses by Christine Todd Whitman to Additional Questions from
Senator Reid
Question 1. For what part of the last 10 years has EPA had a hiring
freeze in place? Please include in your answer information for EPA as a
whole, the regions and for the Office of [Enforcement and] Compliance
Assurance (OECA) or its predecessor offices.
Response. The information requested is reflected in the tables,
below:
EPA as a Whole
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Freeze Timeframes (specific months are
approximate) Explanatory Notes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 2001 thru March 2001.............. Hiring freeze for the entire
Agency imposed by President
Bush on January 20, 2001
May 1999 thru December 1999............... Hiring freeze for entire
Agency due to budget
uncertainties for all of
the Federal Government;
Federal shutdown
July 1995 thru March 1996................. Hiring freeze due to EPA
budget uncertainties
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Freeze Timeframes Explanatory Notes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
December 1999 thru October 2000........... This was an extension of the
May-December Agency wide
identified above. This
freeze was due to spending
caps imposed by Congress
Current Status............................ All of OECA remains under a
freeze with the exception
of two organizational
components, the Office of
Compliance; and the Office
of Criminal Enforcement,
Forensics and Training
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 2. What are the ``FTE'' ceilings and actual on board
number of employees in: Headquarters, the regions, and the Office of
[Enforcement and] Compliance Assurance (OECA). I would like to know how
this has changed, if at all, over time. Please provide the same
information for the last 10 years, in 6 month increments.
Response. The table which follows, reflects the full-time
equivalent (FTE) and actual on board counts going back to FY1990.
Please note that ``on board counts'' include all Agency employees,
irrespective of whether or not they are working on full time, part-
time, or intermittent appointments and includes experts and
consultants. The on board count for this year reflects information in
our human resource information system [EPAYS] as of June 14th of this
year. The on board counts for fiscal year 1990 through 2000 reflect
employees on Agency rolls as of the last full pay period of that fiscal
year, rather than in 6 month increments, as had been requested.
FTE and Actual On Board Count Data for EPA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regions Headquarters OECA
Fiscal Year -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTE On Board FTE On Board FTE On Board
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990........................ 7661.0 8356 8253.4 9073 384.7 407
1991........................ 8131.2 8906 8624.1 9641 411.7 448
1992........................ 8504.9 8988 8989.0 9508 447.7 487
1993........................ 8671.3 9280 9246.0 9325 480.2 546
1994........................ 8514.1 9059 9074.7 8876 627.6 886
1995........................ 9029.5 8743 9827.1 8969 912.5 914
1996........................ 8351.1 8460 9065.2 8445 887.4 870
1997........................ 8560.0 8743 9377.3 8962 915.5 960
1998........................ 8836.1 9189 9447.4 9337 927.4 972
1999........................ 8729.2 9020 9637.0 9433 942.4 957
2000........................ 8585.1 8716 9514.9 9226 904.9 900
2001........................ 8522.4 8804 9477.6 9305 895.5 868
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 3. In light of the ``National Energy Policy'' released by
the Administration May 17, 2001, do you plan on making any changes to
the EPA budget? If so, for what programs would you increase funding?
For which programs will you decrease funding? Do you plan to increase
EPA's overall budget to address the recommendations contained in the
report? If so, how?
Response. We are still in the process of reviewing the policy
package and have not determined whether and additional resources will
be required in fiscal year 2002 to carry out the National Energy
Policy. Once we have a full understanding of the policy, we will lay
out a plan that will detail resource and program requirements for
fiscal year 2002. The Administration will not be submitting a budget
amendment to Congress for any changes to the EPA budget related to the
National Energy Policy recommendations.
enforcement
Question 1. Administrator Whitman, you said in your confirmation
hearing that companies did not like to be seen as polluters, and so
would take steps to avoid enforcement actions. You said ``I believe
that enforcement is a critical tool. We must not abandon it, nor walk
away from it.'' I agree with this, yet your budget cuts 270 EPA
enforcement personnel. You have emphasized the importance of the role
of the states, yet clearly this doesn't replace a Federal role in
ensuring compliance with Federal environmental laws. Have you changed
your mind on the importance of Federal enforcement?
Response. The fiscal year 2002 budget maintains sufficient
resources to sustain a vigorous Federal environmental monitoring and
enforcement program. The shift places resources directly in the hands
of states, who are closer to the environmental problems in their
states, to carry out delegated enforcement and monitoring activities,
allowing the Federal program to focus on those aspects of environmental
enforcement which states cannot do, or in which they need assistance.
EPA will continue to have a vital role in shaping and carrying out
the nation's environmental compliance and enforcement program. EPA will
continue to take actions where there are significant violations at
companies with facilities in more than one state, where states are not
yet delegated programs, and where the Federal Government is the
statutory lead. We will also continue to backup states where they
cannot get the job done.
Question 2. Do you plan on requiring the states to use the money
for strictly enforcement actions?
Response. States will have flexibility to use a range of compliance
assurance tools to address environmental risks and noncompliance
patterns. These tools include enforcement actions, inspections and
investigations, incentives for facility self-auditing, and compliance
assistance. The tools will be used individually or in combinations
appropriate to the environmental risk or noncompliance pattern being
addressed by the State or tribe.
Question 3. Can you ensure that the states can replace all the
Federal actions which would have been taken but for the funding shift?
How do you plan to ensure this?
Response. States will use the grant funds to address important
environmental risks and noncompliance patterns through strategies that
utilize enforcement actions, inspections and investigations, incentives
for facility self-auditing, and compliance assistance in appropriate
combinations. This integrated approach has been used by EPA to address
noncompliance for several years. The fiscal year 2002 budget provides
EPA's enforcement and compliance assurance program sufficient resources
to continue focusing on Federal cases involving multi-state or multi-
facility corporations, environmental programs which cannot be delegated
to states due to statutory prohibition, or issues for which EPA can
provide specialized expertise.
Question 4. How do you plan to measure the success of the State
enforcement programs? Will this be a continuing process?
Response. States will be approved for grant funding only if their
grant proposal includes specific plans to measure and report on their
performance in achieving results. For example, states will need to
define performance measures for determining whether they are having an
impact on the environmental risk or noncompliance pattern they are
addressing with the grant funds. EPA will establish required reporting
intervals for states to provide performance information which can be
reviewed on a regular basis.
Question 5. In light of the cuts in positions in your Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) at EPA, what activities do
you think might be affected? Are there certain programs or initiatives
that you are planing on protecting from these cuts? What will you do if
there is a case in, for example, a small State with a small legal
office, that the State does not have the resources to address?
Response. The enforcement programs affected by the workyear
reduction will be identified as we work with the regional offices and
states during development of the fiscal year 2002 work plans. EPA will
continue to have a vital role in shaping and carrying out the nation's
environmental compliance and enforcement program. The Agency will
continue to take actions where there are significant violators at
companies with facilities in more than one state, where states are not
yet delegated programs, and there the Federal Government is the
statutory lead. EPA will also backup states where they cannot get the
job done.
Question 6. Can you ensure us that there will be sufficient
resources to bring all the enforcement cases which need to be brought?
Response. The fiscal year 2002 President's budget has sufficient
resources to sustain a vigorous Federal environmental monitoring and
enforcement program. EPA will continue to take actions where there are
significant violations at companies with facilities in more than one
state, where states are not yet delegated programs, and where the
Federal Government is the statutory lead. We will also continue to
backup states where they cannot get the job done. Additionally, the new
$25M State enforcement grant program will allow states to assume a
larger enforcement portfolio.
Question 7. Administrator Whitman, EPA's Inspector General has
criticized EPA for not being aggressive enough in recovering money from
responsible parties under the Superfund program. Despite this, your
budget has a cut of personnel in OECA working on this very function.
Why would you cut funding for this activity? Do you disagree with the
IG's recommendations?
Response. In order to address the Inspector General concerns, in
May of 2000, EPA revised its methodology for calculating its indirect
costs to ensure full cost accounting, in accordance with the Statement
of Federal Financial Accounting Standards No. 4 (SFFAS No. 4). This
will allow for a full accounting of the Superfund indirect costs and
will increase the percentage of EPA's indirect costs that can be
recovered. Because the revised rates are applied in a similar manner to
the previous rates, there are no additional resources needed to
implement the revised rates. In addition, the Office of Site
Remediation Enforcement has been working with the IG's office, EPA
Regions and the Department of Justice to address overdue Superfund
accounts receivable in a timely manner and maximize the collection of
dollars owed to the Trust Fund.
The reduction to cost recovery FTE reflects a pro-rata share of
Agency-wide reductions to meet the congressionally directed ceiling of
17,500 FTE for fiscal year 2002. EPA plans to address 100 percent of
its cost recovery cases with unpaid response costs greater than
$200,000 prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations. EPA
fully expects to achieve all these activities within the requested
resource levels.
Question 8. Administrator Whitman, as you know, I am very much in
favor of funding for the brownfields program, and appreciate even the
small increase in this budget. However, I was puzzled as to why your
budget proposal has the funding for brownfields coming out of the
budget for the enforcement office, since the vast majority of
brownfields activities are not enforcement actions. Can you explain
this?
Response. The brownfields program is a priority in the President's
budget. The funding from all available sources was considered in
developing the budget proposed for EPA's brownfields program.
Question 9. What types of positions do you plan on eliminating in
the 270 personnel ceiling reduction?
Response. Most of the reductions will be coming from the civil
enforcement and compliance monitoring programs. EPA has not identified
the positions that will be eliminated at this time. The Agency will be
working on implementation issues later this summer which will include
identifying the positions that will be eliminated. However, the
positions may include a mix of technical and legal enforcement and
administrative support positions. In addition, some positions are
encumbered and will be moved to other Agency programs while other
positions are vacant and will not be back filled.
Question 10. How many cases does the average EPA regional attorney
handle per workyear? The average attorney at EPA Headquarters? How many
inspections does the average inspector conduct annually? How many
cases, on average, does a program employee supporting the enforcement
program work on?
Response. The fiscal year 2002 President's budget requests 920
workyears and $101 million for the civil enforcement program and 436
workyears and $50 million for the compliance monitoring program. These
resources support both technical, legal, and administrative support for
enforcement cases and inspections. Also, guidance development and
inspector training is included in these numbers.
Enforcement cases and inspections may vary in length and complexity
depending on the statute, the number of facilities involved, the degree
of noncompliance, and the cooperation of the violator. As a result,
some EPA staff may devote an entire year to one particular matter while
others will be handling dozens of different matters. However, to
respond to your question, we have compiled the following estimates of
the average workload of EPA:
On average, EPA attorneys and case development personnel
manage between five and ten active enforcement actions in a given year.
Across all EPA programs, EPA's full time inspectors
average between 35 and 45 inspections per year.
sound science and budget
Question 1. During your nomination hearing, you stated, ``I will
commit to working to make science the foundation for EPA's
policymaking.'' Given this statement, why is the EPA recommending a $27
million cut to the Sound Science program? How will this cut affect your
ability to achieve this goal?
Response. The majority ($26.3 million) of the reduction to Goal 08:
Sound Science is due to Congressional earmarks received during the
fiscal year 2001 appropriations process which are not included in the
fiscal year 2002 President's Request. We are maintaining the practice
of treating the previous fiscal year's congressional additions as one-
time commitments rather than including them in the succeeding year's
budget request. The remainder represents a redirection of funds from
Goal 08: Sound Science to Goal 05: Waste Management in order to better
align laboratory resources that support the Superfund program.
Question 2. Are these cuts targeted to specific policy programs? If
so, what programs?
Response. No specific policy programs are targeted by these cuts.
Question 3. Do you believe the EPA has sufficient budget resources
to address all the needed scientific reviews and analysis needed to
support rulemakings or other policy decisions? If not, what programs
need more resources to address scientific uncertainties?
Response. The President's fiscal year 2002 budget request provides
sufficient budget resources to address all the needed scientific
reviews and analysis needed to support upcoming rulemakings and policy
decisions.
Question 4. The EPA budget will provide a small increase to the
Science Advisory Board. Do you see the board as crucial to achieving
the sound science goal?
Response. The independent scientific and technical advice that the
Science Advisory Board (SAB) gives to Congress and the Administrator on
scientific, engineering, and economic issues remains crucial to
achieving the goal of sound science. The SAB review process provides a
public forum in which noted outside experts conduct the rigorous peer
review of Agency science. The Board's concerns go further than simply
the generation of good science, per se, since it seeks to insure that
credible science is used in credible ways to reach environmental
decisions. The SAB is also a source of important scientific and
technical advice to Agency managers and scientists through the insights
that the SAB shares on a variety of topics, including new developments
in the greater scientific community that the Agency should be aware of.
Finally, SAB's Research Strategies Advisory Committee (RSAC) reviews
EPA's Science and Technology (S&T) budget and provides its views
regarding the Agency's science priorities.
Question 5. How much of the science used by the EPA in making
policy decisions is generated by EPA researchers? How much comes from
other Federal agencies? How much from university or industry research?
Response. EPA relies on all sources of sound science to assist in
decisionmaking. We review and integrate research results from our own
EPA (ORD) research laboratories, other Federal agencies, universities,
and other R&D sources in preparing risk assessments to inform
decisionmakers. Our goal is to use the best pertinent science
available.
Sources of the science used in making policy decisions vary from
rule to rule and are evaluated and used on a case-by-case basis. Peer
review of major scientific and technical work products is an integral
part of the Agency decisionmaking processes. The main principle
underlying the peer review policy is that all major scientific and
technical work products used in decision making should be peer
reviewed. Therefore, all major work products important to EPA
decisionmaking that are generated by other organizations, (e.g. other
Federal agencies, industry, academic institutions, etc.) are considered
as candidates for peer review, just as major peer-reviewed work
products by EPA are considered. However, currently there is no
automated system in place that captures data as you requested. Rather,
extensive literature retrieval efforts, using many different Internet
websites and/or other computerized reference services are used by EPA
experts or contractors to identify and retrieve pertinent published
studies for any given assessment used to support Agency decisionmaking.
Contacts between EPA scientists and their peers in other Federal
Agencies and the general scientific community (including academia,
industry, etc.) also occur.
One example of how scientific information from a variety of sources
is used in Agency rulemaking is EPA's ``Identification of Dangerous
Levels of Lead''. This rule (in response to Title 10, Section 403 of
the 1992 Lead Hazard Reduction Act) established hazard standards for
residential lead-based paint, and residential dust and soil lead. EPA
established standards in this rule based in part on: (a) analyses by
EPA contained in its 1986 Air Quality Criteria Document for Lead and
its 1989 Supplement, and (b) the 1992 Pediatric Iead Advisory issued by
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) which established
a blood-lead level of concern of 10 micrograms per deciliter of blood.
A 1993 National Research Council (NRC,) report on Measuring Lead
Exposure in Infants, Young Children and Other Sensitive Populations
also discussed the extensive literature substantiating unacceptable
health risks being associated with blood lead levels. EPA then
evaluated the amount of exposure to lead that may cause a child to
exhibit a blood lead level exceeding this level of concern.
In evaluating exposure, EPA considered the National Survey of Lead-
Based Paint in Housing conducted from 1989-90 by the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and on HUD's Rochester Lead-in-Dust
Study. EPA then applied its Integrated Exposure, Uptake and Biokinetic
(IEUBK) model for Lead to evaluate the relationship between lead in
dust and soil and blood lead level. Research studies from EPA, National
Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), academia, and
industry were used to derive key parameters that were incorporated into
the IEUBK Model and/or to test its predictive capabilities across
various ranges of exposures and blood lead levels.
Question 6. Do you think the current budget will allow the EPA to
maintain its own research programs or will the EPA rely increasingly on
external sources? Do you think this will make the research more or less
objective? Will this move EPA closer to the goal of using sound
science?
Response. The current budget maintains our programs and reflects
the Administration's commitment to sound science at EPA. The
combination of EPA in-house research and external research should make
the research more objective. All of ORD's research undergoes either
internal or external peer review in an effort to ensure that sound and
credible science underlies all Agency decisions and actions.
Question 7. In developing the Yucca Mountain radiation standard,
the EPA has been criticized for using ``outdated science.'' Does the
EPA currently have a program in place to update elements of that
standard with the most recent science? If not, why not. If so, will the
program maintain its funding in light of a proposed $27 million cut to
EPA's sound science goal?
Response. EPA's standards for the proposed Yucca Mountain
repository are technically sound and protective of human health and the
environment. The concerns about ``outdated science'' have been about
the dosimetry used to develop EPA's drinking water standards for
radionuclides which have been incorporated in the standard to provide
separate ground water protection in the Yucca Mountain standard. Last
year EPA reviewed the radionuclide standards developed under the Safe
Drinking Water Act using the most recent science and concluded that the
risk levels mostly fall within EPA's lifetime risk range goal for fatal
cancer of 10-4 to 10-6 (1 in 10,000 to 1 in
1,000,000 chance of contracting cancer). Therefore, EPA has applied
those same levels in its approach to ground water protection at Yucca
Mountain. EPA has the authority to update rules. Should it be warranted
by new science, the Agency will amend its Yucca Mountain standard.
Question 8. The EPA has received criticism of its Yucca Mountain
radiation standard from the [NRC] and DOE. In discussions you have had
with these agencies, do they offer their own independent scientific
analysis of these standards? If so, does the EPA have the budget
resources to independently analyze those results?
Response. Most of the criticism of the Yucca Mountain standards
from NRC and DOE are about our ground water policy. EPA and most
states, including Nevada, have a policy to protect current and future
drinking water resources, as we did with the separate ground water
standard for Yucca Mountain. DOE and NRC are responsible for
determining whether the repository can meet EPA's standards. DOE
recently released analyses of the performance of the repository system
that indicate the current design could meet EPA's standard. The Agency
does not have the finds to independently verify DOE's results.
water infrastructure
Question 1a. Administrator Whitman, when you testified before us
during your January 17 nomination hearing, you listed the lack of
funding for water infrastructure as one of the most pressing
environmental problems facing our nation. You referred to this lack of
funding related to wastewater and drinking water treatment as an
``enormous problem,'' an area in which the Federal Government could
provide additional funds. And in response to questions from Senator
Voinovich related to the shortfall in water infrastructure funding, you
repeatedly stated that President Bush ``recognized this need.'' In your
budget, however, I see no evidence whatsoever that either you or the
President recognize the need. In fact, I see just the opposite, I see
this ``enormous need'' being ignored. Further, in contrast to the
specific instructions of Congress, you have cut $500 million from the
fiscal year 2001 appropriated levels for Clean Water State Revolving
Loan Fund (CWSRF) program to pay for grants for combined sewer and
sanitary overflow projects.
Is it the case that the President's budget request for the CWSRF is
roughly $50 million less than the levels appropriated in fiscal year
2001 (roughly $1.35 billion)?
Response. In making our request for wastewater infrastructure, we
have balanced the need for a substantial continued investment in the
Clean Water SRF program with the need to provide meaningful funding for
the newly authorized wet weather grants program--all in the context of
budget targets that are designed to restore fiscal discipline to the
Federal budget process.
Under the President's request, states can continue to manage their
Clean Water SRFs, with the added advantage of grant funding to address
their most compelling sewer overflow related needs.
Question 1b. Did not Congress specifically direct you to provide
grants to the new CSO/SSO program only after the CWSRF program was
fully funded at $1.35 billion?
Response. The Agency is requesting $850 million in fiscal year 2002
for the CWSRF, $50 million more than the amount requested by the prior
Administration and $500 million more in total wastewater infrastructure
spending when combined with the new sewer overflow control grants. The
$850 million level supports the Agency's goal to have the States SRFs
provide a long-term average of $2 billion a year in financial
assistance.
Question 1c. Do you plan to ignore the constraint that Congress
placed on funding the new CSO/SSO program? If no, how do you intend to
address it?
Response. The Agency acknowledges that the Congress specified in
the Omnibus Appropriations bill that funding for the new sewer overflow
grants would only be available when the CWSRF program was funded at
$1.35 billion or higher. The Agency has asked for an exemption from
this provision in order to begin this important grants program while
maintaining a substantial investment in the CWSRF program.
Question 1d. How much less money would go to the State of Nevada
through the CWSRF in fiscal year 2002, if the President's $500 million
cut in this budget is sustained?
Response. The State of Nevada would receive $4,162,300 if the CWSRF
were funded at $850 million, $2,433,800 less than it would receive if
the CWSRF were funded at the fiscal year 2001 level of $1.35 billion.
Question 1e. How much money would be directed to the State of
Nevada through the new CSO/SSO program, if the $450 million funding
proposal for the program is sustained?
Response. The State of Nevada would receive $2,181,600 through the
new CSO/SSO program, if the President's $450 million funding request is
sustained.
Question 1f. Please provide your best estimate of the CSO/SSO
dollar needs in Nevada and the basis of this estimate.
Response. There are no known CSOs in Nevada. SSO needs are being
evaluated and will be quantified for the first time in the 2000 Clean
Water Needs Survey Report to Congress, which will be delivered to
Congress in Fall, 2002. Preliminary results are not available.
Question 1g. Please provide your best estimate of how Nevada's CSO/
SSO needs compare to other estimated dollar needs that could be funded
through the CWSRF, such as secondary wastewater treatment. Please
provide the basis used for this comparison.
Response. Since there are no known CSOs in Nevada, and SSO needs
are now being evaluated and quantified for the first time, EPA has at
present no data for CSOs or SSOs to compare to secondary wastewater
treatment needs for Nevada.
Question 2. EPA estimates put the total capital need for water
infrastructure over the next 20 years in the neighborhood of $300
billion. A coalition of industry and environmental groups (Water
Infrastructure Network) puts the 20-year need closer to $2 trillion,
with a ``gap'' between needs and funding of close to $23 billion
annually. How does the President's budget--which cuts the CWSRF funding
by $500 million and flat-funds the Drinking Water State Revolving
Fund--``recognize the need'' related to this ``enormous problem''?
Response. The Administration believes its request for water and
wastewater infrastructure funding provides a substantial source of
funding for states to address their communities' highest priority
needs. The proposed level for the CWSRF is $50 million more than the
amount requested by the prior Administration and is $500 million more
in total wastewater infrastructure spending when combined with the new
sewer overflow grants.
Since 1989, EPA has invested more than $18 billion in grants to
help capitalize the 51 SRFs, over twice the original Clean Water Act
authorized level of $8.4 billion.
A continued investment in the DWSRF has resulted in significant
progress in financing drinking water infrastructure projects. At the
end of fiscal year 2000, more than 1,400 loans for $2.8 billion had
been made to water systems for eligible projects and $1.4 billion
remains available for loans. Of these 1,400 loans, 74 percent went to
small water systems that serve 10,000 persons or fewer.
The Administration is very interested in working with the Congress
to find the right solutions to address water and wastewater
infrastructure needs. EPA would like to discuss with the Congress and
other stakeholders the appropriate roles of Federal, State, local
governments, and the private sector in meeting these infrastructure
needs. In addition to discussing the appropriate Federal role, we
believe the dialog should also include other non-financial mechanisms
to improve the efficiency of the water infrastructure sector.
Question 3a-h. You mentioned in testimony that funding the CWSRF at
the requested $850 million level will keep the Agency on track to meet
a goal of ``revolving'' the Fund at $2 billion.
(a) By what year will this goal be met?
(b) By what year will the goal for the DWSRF be met?
(c) What is the impact of cutting the CWSRF from $1.35 billion to
$850 million in terms of meeting the $2 billion goal, i.e., how many
years will the attainment of that goal be delayed if the President's
proposed $500 million cut in CWSRF funding (as compared to fiscal year
2001 appropriation) is sustained?
(d) What is the basis of the $2 billion goal for the CWSRF and the
goal for the DWSRF?
(e) Are these goals for revolving the CWSRF tied in any way to the
estimated $150 billion to almost $1 trillion funding need that has been
identified for clean water projects?
(f) Is it true that the CWSRF and DWSRF revolving goals were
established before the ``enormous problem'' facing the nation's water
infrastructure was fully recognized?
(g) Do you believe that the $2 billion goal for the CWSRF and the
goal for the DWSRF are adequate goals for revolving these funds?
(h) Do you have any plans to reassess the adequacy of these goals?
Response. The fiscal year 2001 Appropriation of $1.35 billion
enables the CWSRF to revolve at $2 billion per year over the long-term.
EPA set this goal to maintain approximately the level of assistance
provided annually under the Clean Water Act during the last 10 years of
the construction grants program, as well as the average level of EPA
funding provided to the States over the beginning years of the CWSRF.
EPA estimates that another 4 to 5 years of additional
capitalization at approximately $825 million/year will be needed to
allow the DWSRF program to reach the revolving goal of $500 million.
The goal was set at a level consistent with drinking water compliance
needs identified in the 1993 report to the Congress, ``Technical and
Economic Capacity of States and Public Water Systems to Implement
Drinking Water Regulations.''
The Administration is very interested in working with the Congress
to find the right solutions to address water and wastewater
infrastructure needs. EPA would like to discuss with the Congress and
other stakeholders the appropriate roles of Federal, state, local
governments, and the private sector in meeting these infrastructure
needs. In addition to discussing the appropriate Federal role, we
believe the dialog should also include other non-financial mechanisms
to improve the efficiency of the water infrastructure sector.
Questions 4a-c. The Congressional Budget Office, General Accounting
Office, and EPA are all examining elements of the funding needs
associated with water infrastructure.
(a) Given the budget agreement and the huge tax cut that [is] being
pushed through Congress--a tax cut that really doesn't bite into the
budget until the out years--where would the Administration find the
money needed to significantly increase Federal funding for water
infrastructure, especially over the next 2 to 6 years?
(b) You have mentioned in the past that the President recognizes
the ``enormous problem'' facing our nation's communities as it relates
to water infrastructure. In the context of the constraints that the
budget agreement and tax cut will put on Federal discretionary funding
over the next several years, have you discussed the need with [the]
President to provide additional Federal assistance to communities with
water infrastructure?
(c) Has the President made any commitments to you related to
providing additional funding to address the ``enormous problem'' in the
future?
Response. The Administration is confident that the President's
budget proposal is consistent with appropriate levels of Federal
investment in water infrastructure. The Administration is continuing
its review and analysis of water infrastructure needs and looks forward
to a constructive dialog with Congress and other stakeholders on the
future role of the Federal Government in funding water infrastructure.
Question 4e. Has the President ruled out offsetting future EPA
funding for water infrastructure with cuts elsewhere in EPA's budget?
Response. The Agency is continuing its internal review and analysis
of the work done by outside organizations concerning the needed
investment in water infrastructure. Until these analyses of the future
investment for water and wastewater needs are complete, it is premature
to comment. The Administration looks forward to working with Congress
on this issue.
other water issues
Question 1a. Watershed Planning. In your January testimony before
this Committee, you spoke at length about the need for EPA to be
``aggressive'' about watershed planning. You point out that it was
important for EPA to help people understand that ``Mother Nature does a
much better job for a lot less cost of cleaning our water than do
filtration plants.'' You noted that you were able to get increased
funding for watershed management as Governor of New Jersey. In response
to my written questions, you also said you'd like to see the Federal
Government increase funding for watersheds.
Do you continue to believe that ``Mother Nature does a much better
job for a lot less cost of cleaning our water than do filtration
plants.''?
Response. Natural ecosystems, such as wetlands, help improve water
quality, including that of drinking water sources, by intercepting
surface runoff and removing or retaining its nutrients, processing
organic wastes, and reducing sediment before it reaches open water.
Wetlands often function like natural tubs or sponges, storing water
(flood water, or surface water that collects in isolated depressions)
and slowly releasing it. Trees and other wetland vegetation help slow
flood waters. This combined action, storage and slowing, can lower
flood heights and reduce the water's erosive potential, and reduce the
likelihood of flood damage to crops in agricultural areas, help control
runoff in urban areas, and buffer shorelines against erosion. A
comprehensive approach to watershed management will include reliance on
both natural systems and man-made controls such as treatment and
filtration plants.
Question 1b. In the President's budget, there is only ``flat
funding'' for Section 106 grants and nonpoint source pollution
management programs. It also appears that funding for watershed
research has been cut by 25 percent. Given all you've told us about the
importance of watersheds, and your statement to this Committee that you
would like to see additional Federal funding for watershed activities,
please explain the absence of a proposal for additional funding for
these activities in the EPA budget?
Response. The increased funding provided in Section 106 grants and
nonpoint source pollution management in recent years has greatly aided
State efforts to aggressively address their watershed activities.
States have achieved some fairly dramatic reductions in nitrogen and
phosphorous loadings in key areas which have been instrumental in
restoring habitats and aquatic life. In addition, increased Section 319
funding has helped leverage significant State funding to help implement
nonpoint source programs. In the latter case, I would mention very
ambitious funding efforts in California, New York and Pennsylvania. I'm
pleased to note that the President's budget maintains funding for these
important programs at the level provided by Congress this fiscal year.
Questions 1c-d. Given that you have been unsuccessful in achieving
increased Federal funding for watershed activities, what ``aggressive''
steps do you plan to pursue in this regard? How will these steps be
funded?
Response. There is a very wide umbrella under which the many
activities that could improve watershed health and water quality fall.
EPA is working diligently within the Agency, with other Federal
agencies, as well as with State and local governments and other
partners to focus the resources that it currently has on the highest
priorities and best approaches. There are three basic areas of
watershed activities: the monitoring and assessment of water quality
conditions; the development of watershed protection or ``watershed
recovery'' plans, of which TMDLs can be a critical tool; and the
implementation of on-the-ground actions, such as BMPs for nonpoint
sources of pollution and permit requirements included in the NPDES
water permits. EPA is seeking streamlining in each of these areas, for
example, efficiencies from clustering pollution control decisions on a
watershed basis, in order to leverage our resources to the maximum
extent. Section 106 funding that may be used for monitoring and
assessment activities was increased by 50 percent in FY 2001 and
funding for nonpoint source control activities has been increased from
$100 million to $238 million within the past 5 years. In addition,
there are many incentive-based, cost-share programs available from USDA
and within many states to fund the installation of best management
practices.
Question 1e. Does EPA have any data or information that would
suggest that States are in a better position to sustain watershed
protection, planning, and other related activities than New Jersey was
at the time you began to provide additional funding for watershed
programs? If so, please provide such data or information.
Response. As the primary implementors of water quality programs,
States are well positioned to continue their critical role in watershed
planning and protection. We are in the process of examining some of the
State watershed programs to determine the current status of their
watershed activities and their future needs. As I discussed in a
previous response for the record, we are aware that the needs are
significant, and we are working to effectively target our resources.
Question 1f. Please describe, in detail, the research programs or
projects being eliminated through the 25 percent cut described above in
1b.
Response. This reduction to the watershed research program is due
to a Congressional earmark received during the fiscal year 2001
appropriations process which is not included in the fiscal year 2002
President's Request.
Question 2a. Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL's). In your January
testimony before this Committee, you identified nonpoint source
pollution as one of the most pressing environmental problems. Clearly,
one way to address this pollution, and ensure that watershed plans are
effective, is through establishing TMDLs. In a response to my questions
from that hearing, you responded that TMDLs are important tools for
achieving water quality goals.
In promulgating the new TMDL rule last summer, EPA identified costs
to States associated with complying with existing TMDL requirements
(i.e., those not associated with the ``new'' TMDL rule). What were the
costs?
Response. EPA identified only the costs associated with the
revisions of the current requirements for the TMDL program contained in
the July 13, 2000 final rule. Those incremental costs over the current
TMDL program requirements were estimated at $23 million per year, and
account for costs accrued by an expedited pace for developing the TMDLs
and the requirement to incorporate an implementation plan in the TMDL.
Question 2b. Do you expect that EPA's restudy of the costs of the
TMDL regulations finalized last year will suggest additional funding
for State compliance is needed?
Response. EPA is still in the process of analyzing these costs. We
expect to issue a draft cost study in the near future and will be
discussing the estimates with Members of Congress and their staff.
Question 2c. Do you expect that the current National Academy of
Sciences review of TMDLs will identify additional research or
monitoring needs that will require additional funding?
Response. The NAS study was released on June 15. While it did find
that the TMDL program should proceed, it recognized that current water
quality monitoring efforts and other aspects of the TMDL process
(including State water quality standards) could be strengthened, which
would have resource implications.
Question 2d. The President's budget flat-funds both the Section 106
grant and the nonpoint source pollution programs--the two sources of
funding available to states to fund TMDLs. By failing to recognize the
need in your budget, aren't you simply setting the new TMDL rule up to
fail? If EPA doesn't provide any increased assistance to States, won't
you be creating a situation which will give a justification to decide
the new TMDL rules are too costly, and therefore, need to be withdrawn
or drastically modified?
Response. We recognize that the States face significant financial
challenges in their efforts to address environmental problems. However,
the President's budget maintains significant increases of recent years
in both the Section 106 and the Section 319 programs, providing a
significant pool of Federal funds from which States may support TMDL
development. As stated above, we estimate the incremental cost of the
new rule to be approximately $23 million; we believe that this
incremental need can be accommodated within available Federal and State
budgets.
Question 2e-f. If you do not believe that you are setting up the
new TMDL rule to fail, please describe how you expect States to fund
requirements associated with existing TMDLs requirement, as well as
those associated with the new rule, in light of the flat-funding
proposed in your budget for Section 106 grant and nonpoint source
pollution programs? Please describe whether you expect, absent
additional Federal assistance for the purpose, States to ``rob Peter to
pay Paul'' within their own budgets to comply with existing TMDLs
requirements and those of the new rule?
Response. We recognize the challenges States face in trying to
address the full range of environmental issues. However, we believe
that the FY2001 increases for Sections 106 and 319 ($57 million and $38
million, respectively, both of which are continued in our 2002
request), along with State funding, can support States' needs in 2002.
other questions
Question 1a-b. Senate Relations.--In testimony for your nomination
hearing before this Committee, you stated that among President Bush's
principles for environmental protection was launching a new era of
cooperation among all stakeholders. While you didn't mention Congress
in your testimony, I would think that we would be included as important
stakeholders. Despite this, it is my impression that my staff and I
have not received either timely or complete responses to request made
of EPA under your leadership. Last week, I provided you with a detailed
list of the many letters or hearing follow-up questions to which have
received no response. Many of these requests were outstanding for long
periods of time, or for which we have yet to receive replies. And, it
often seems, even when we do receive a response, it does not address
many of the questions or issues raised in the request. (For example, we
have still not been provided with a list of what regulations you are
planning to review, and when, despite written and oral requests for
this basic information). I believe that such information is critical to
building a good working relationship with the Committee, and to
enabling us to perform our oversight function.
(a) Do you recognize that your responses to my requests and those
of my staff have, to date, been excessively delayed and incomplete in
many cases?
(b) What assurances are you willing to make that, in the future,
your Agency will provide me and my staff with timely and complete
responses to our requests?
Response. In the interest of cooperating with your oversight
interests, I want to assure you that my goal is to supply full and
complete information to you and your staff on Agency activities. For
example, your May 10, 2001 correspondence on this subject highlighted
nine recent information requests. The Agency response dated May 14,
provided a status summary illustrating an average response time of 2 to
3 weeks in the majority of cases. For those few cases that may take
much longer, they typically include some of the following situations:
the subject involves an ongoing activity where decisions are in the
process of being made; the response requires interagency consultation;
and/or the request involves the identification and organization of a
large volume of documents from several offices and regions. In summary,
it is my goal to respond to all written requests for information from
Congress within 2 weeks of their receipt. If a response is not possible
within that timeframe, you will be notified as to the circumstances of
the delay and given an anticipated schedule for meeting the request.
Question 1c. In an April 12 letter to you and Ms. Claudia Tornblum
of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on the rule clarifying the
definition of ``discharge of dredged material'', I raised the important
issue of EPA, as the lead agency in implementing this rule, in
enforcing the rule and issuing guidance to ensure that the rule closes
the regulatory gaps in wetlands protection for which it was designed. I
also raised the issue of EPA, the Corps, and the Administration
undertaking a vigorous defense of the rule. Your response to this
letter, received on May 8, failed to respond to these issues. What
actions, if any, is EPA taking, or planning to take, to enforce the new
rule clarifying the definition of discharge of dredged material?
Response. EPA will act to fairly and effectively implement our
existing statutory authorities to further wetlands protection,
including taking appropriate enforcement action. We will work closely
with our partner agency, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, to ensure
effective implementation and enforcement of the new ``discharge of
dredged material'' rule. Because the court's invalidation of the
predecessor ``Tulloch'' rule rested on its interpretation of the Clean
Water Act as not allowing for the regulation of ``incidental
fallback,'' the new rule cannot completely fill the resulting gap in
wetlands protection. As explained in the rule's preamble, the new rule
sets forth the agencies' view that the use of mechanized earth-moving
equipment in waters of the U.S. results in a discharge of dredged
material, unless there is evidence that only incidental fallback
results. Under the new rule, we will carefully evaluate situations
involving the use of mechanized earth moving equipment in waters of the
U.S., and will take appropriate enforcement action when unpermitted
discharges result.
Question 1d. Will EPA be issuing guidance on the new rule? If so,
when? If not, why not?
Response. We drafted the preamble for the proposed and final rule
to discuss the effect of the rule, relevant case law, and factors we
would consider in determining if a regulable discharge occurs. At
present, we believe those preamble discussions provide an appropriate
level of guidance on the new rule. As experience with the new rule
evolves and questions or issues axise in its implementation, we would
then consider, in coordination with the Corps, the need for further
guidance.
Question 1e. What actions, if any, is EPA taking to defend this
rule in current litigation aimed at overturning the regulation?
Response. There currently are two industry challenges to the new
rule, one brought by the National Association of Homebuilders, and the
other by the National Stone, Sand, and Gravel Association, which was
recently joined by the American Road and Transportation Builders
Association. The plaintiffs claim the rule exceeds our Clean Water Act
authority by regulating activities that remove, rather than add,
pollutants, and also assert notice and comment claims under the
Administrative Procedure Act as well as claims of violation of the
Constitution's 10th amendment. We are working with attorneys from the
Department of Justice and the Corps of Engineers on defense of this
suit, and have participated with them in one meeting with plaintiffs to
better understand plaintiffs' concerns and determine if there is the
potential for settlement that would be consistent with effective
wetlands protection.
Question 1f. When will we be provided with the list of regulations
your administration is reviewing, and the schedule for such a review? I
reiterate my request for this information, and the other requests in my
letters of January 30, 2001, February 21, 2001, including periodic
updates on the status of the various regulations under consideration.
Response. I am committed to fostering a cooperative relationship
between the Agency and the Congress. I realize that providing
information in a timely manner to the Congress helps to build a good
relationship between our two organizations.
The latest response the Agency provided to you was on May 14. This
response provided you with an updated status of rules, pending
settlements, and other legal matters that are within the Agency's
purview. The May 14 response addressed all follow-up questions that you
have raised in your letters. We have attempted to provide you with
timely and complete responses to all your requests; however, some of
your information requests have required additional time on our part to
collect and organize. In an effort to be responsive to your requests,
we have sometimes provided you with a partial response followed at a
later time by the remaining answers that have required additional time
for us to collect. I hope this approach is more acceptable than
delaying the submission of all information to you until all responses
are complete. This approach is the Agency's standard procedure for
replying to all information requests.
Question 2a. Sound Science.--On a number of occasions, you have
been quoted as stating that one of the major reasons the final arsenic
standard was withdrawn was concern that there was not ``enough''
science to support it. I disagree with your assessment of the science
of arsenic. But I'm also concerned that, while you seemed to have
raised the Agency's bar as to what is ``enough'' science, this budget
clearly does not provide additional funding for science. In fact, your
budget decreases research into safe drinking water by $4 million. And,
overall, the budget decreases funding to ``Sound Science'' by over $27
million. I am concerned that you may be setting up all new
environmental regulations to fail by, one, expecting an unrealistic
level of scientific certainty and, two, failing to provide the funding
needed to produce science to support them.
Please itemize each cut, contributing to the overall $27 million
cut, that the President's budget makes to ``Sound Science,'' including
each specific research program or project cut, their authorized or
previously appropriated funding level, and their purpose.
Response. The majority ($26 million) of the reduction to Goal 08:
Sound Science is due to Congressional earmarks, which we did not carry
forward into the fiscal year 2002 President's Request. These earmarks
are outlined in Conference Report 106-988, pages 119-121 and pages 123-
128. The remaining $1 million represents a redirection of funds from
Goal 08: Sound Science to Goal 05: Waste Management in order to better
align laboratory resources that support the Superfund program. No
specific Agency research programs have been cut.
Question 2b. Please describe how you expect to generate the
additional science you indicate is needed for making ``sound science''
decisions on environmental regulations, if you cut funding to generate
this science?
Response. The President's FY 2002 budget request for Goal 8: Sound
Science is level to the FY 2001 enacted level, when controlled for
Congressional earmarks. Twenty-six million dollars of the total $27
million reduction is due to earmarks which are not included in the FY
2002 President's Request. The remaining $1 million represents a
redirection of funds from Goal 08 Sound Science to Goal 05: Waste
Management in order to better align laboratory resources that support
the Superfund program. Because we have not cut funding for the Agency's
science programs, we believe that the FY 2002 budget request provides
sufficient budget resources to address the sound science support for
environmental regulations.
Question 3a. Arsenic.--In response to a question asked by Senator
Voinovich about decisionmaking environmental standards during your
nomination hearing, you stated that cost-benefit analyses need to be
considered, but you said ``the final decision has to rest on the health
of the environment and the population. That is the responsibility of
the Agency.'' You have told us that you will be reviewing the economics
of the arsenic drinking water standard. The Safe Drinking Water Act
Amendments of 1996 provide for consideration of such costs. However,
these amendments don't specify what decisions must be reached based on
cost-benefit analyses; Congress clearly provided EPA with discretion in
that decisionmaking.
Do you intend to put what you stated to Senator Voinovich into
practice with respect to finalizing the arsenic drinking water
standard? In other words, will your ``final decision'' on what standard
to adopt ``rest on the health of the environment and the population?''
Response. Under the 1996 SDWA Amendments, when setting standards
and developing regulations the Agency must use the best available data
on human health effects and risks. At the same time, the Agency also
must determine whether the health benefits of a proposed regulation
justify the costs of meeting the standard. Toward that end, we have
asked the National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council's
review panel to review the latest science on arsenic. We also have the
unique opportunity to obtain the advice of nationally recognized,
technical experts convened under the National Drinking Water Advisory
Council to analyze different compliance cost estimates. I am fully
confident that as a result of the ongoing review of both the latest
science and the cost estimates, and the regulatory decisions made on
the basis of that information, the final arsenic in drinking water
standard will be fully protective of all Americans served by both large
and small drinking water systems.
Question 3b. Did you or any of your staff have communications, in
any form, with anyone associated with the National Academy of Sciences
on any specific person or persons under consideration by the Academy
for membership on the scientific review panel for the arsenic in
drinking water standard? If yes, please identify the EPA employee or
employees, and the person or persons associated with the Academy, who
participated in these communications, describe the substance of these
communications (including what prospective panel member or members were
discussed), and provide a copy of any related correspondence.
Response. To the best of our knowledge, only two EPA employees and
two National Academy of Sciences (NAS) employees had any communications
regarding potential members of the scientific panel to review the
arsenic in drinking water standard. Further, and also to the best of
our knowledge, these communications were entirely verbal; there was no
written correspondence regarding potential members of the scientific
panel. Parties to the EPA-NAS discussions were as follows:
EPA.--Ephraim King, Director, Standards and Risk
Management Division, OGWDW and Jeanette Wiltse, Director, Health and
Ecological Criteria Division, Office of Science and Technology.
NAS.--Dr. James Reisa, Director, Board on Environmental
Studies and Toxicology (BEST), NAS and Dr. Michelle Catlin, Staff
Officer, BEST, NAS.
These conversations concerned candidate selection, areas of
scientific expertise, and possible individuals, including: Dr. Kenneth
P. Cantor, Dr. David L. Eaton, Dr. Robert A. Goyer, Dr. Rogene F.
Henderson, Dr. Michael J. Kosnett, Dr. Louise M. Ryan, Dr. Kimberly M.
Thompson, and Dr. Marie E. Vahter.
Two other individuals who were not selected to be members of the
final review panel, but who were the subject of discussion between NAS
and EPA, were Dr. Harvey Clewell and Dr. Mel Anderson.
Other EPA staff engaged in phone conversations, fax transmittals or
E-mail exchanges with NAS staff. To the best of our knowledge, however,
these communications concerned only the agenda of a public meeting held
on May 21, 2001, clarification of the estimated costs in conducting the
review, or other strictly administrative matters. Only those EPA and
NAS senior staff and managers listed above participated in the
discussion of candidates for membership on the scientific review panel.
Question 3c. Please explain why you rejected my request, made in an
April 26 letter, for my staff and I to receive advance notice of the
persons proposed to be empaneled for the economic review and to be
given an opportunity to discuss the membership of the panels with you
before the panel was finalized.
Response. In your letter of April 26, you stated that, in
conducting scientific and economic reviews of the arsenic standard, EPA
must ensure that the reviews are ``conducted fully `in the open', and
that panels are sufficiently balanced. . .'' Let me summarize for you
the steps we have taken to convene the Working Group. These steps
ensured both a full opportunity for a detailed and open public
discussion of cost issues, and a cost review panel that consist of
high-quality, independent and objective members.
We published a Federal Register notice soliciting Working
Group nominations.
We contacted and requested names from all major drinking
water stakeholders, including the Western Coalition of Arid States
(WESCAS), the Western Governors Association, the Association of State
Drinking Water Administrators, the American Water Works Association,
the National Rural Water Association, and the Association of
Metropolitan Water Agencies.
To ensure balance and independent analysis, both NDWAC and
EPA believe that it was not appropriate to select members from states
or localities involved in legal suits with EPA on the arsenic in
drinking water regulation. In addition, all authors/researchers, who
were directly involved in the cost studies performed by American Water
Works Association Research Foundation or EPA, were not eligible for
participation on the Working Group. However, I want to emphasize that,
as outlined in the charge to the Working Group, both EPA and NDWAC have
invited and welcome technical input from these groups as well as other
interested stakeholders.
We hired two consultants as primary staff to the Arsenic
Working Group, both of whom participated in the development of cost
estimates in the southwest, including for the city of Albuquerque. They
and EPA staff jointly presented the major findings and analysis of both
EPA's and AWWARF's studies supporting these cost estimates to the
Working Group on May 29-30, 2001.
In addition to these steps, the Working Group will accept for its
consideration any information from the public that could be useful in
conducting its review of cost studies.
As explained in our May 14, 2001 of response, we did not feel it
was appropriate to establish a separate vetting process for
establishing the Working Group with Members of Congress or the public
beyond that described above. We feel that the process we followed
provided ample opportunity for input on the part of interested members
of the public. We are confident that, as a result of the steps we have
taken, the members of the working group are experts in their respective
fields, represent diverse backgrounds and perspectives, and are
objective. If you would like further information, we would be pleased
to update you and your staff on the specific composition of the Working
Group, its mandate, and its progress to date.
brownfields
Question 1. Administrator Whitman, I was very pleased that we were
able to pass a bi-partisan brownfields bill out of the Senate, and was
also very pleased that you and the Administration came out strongly in
favor of that bill. However, this budget only provides for $5 million
in additional funding for brownfields. If the bill is signed into law,
would the Administration be in favor of additional funding to cover the
provisions of that bill? How would you fund it given your current
budget? From what program would you take money?
Response. This Administration has testified in support of Senate
brownfields legislation which authorized a level of funding more than
the $97.7 million requested in the fiscal year 2002 President's budget.
EPA is pleased that legislation has been passed by the Senate and looks
forward to working with the House of Representatives toward enacting a
brownfields law. Should brownfields legislation be enacted, the
Administration will work with Congress to determine an appropriate
level of funding that is consistent with the President's budget
priorities.
air
Question 1. The Agency's budget document says that ``We (the
Agency) continue to believe that the standards (`the revised, more
protective NAAQS for ozone and PM') are necessary to protect human
health, and nothing in the (court) decisions undercuts that belief.''
Is that correct, does the Administration support the revised standards,
as published in 1997, and their implementation as indicated by Mr.
Holmstead in his nomination hearing?
Response. Yes, the Administration supports the revised standards
for ozone and particulate matter, published in 1997 and their
implementation. EPA is in the process of determining how to implement
the standards consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion.
Question 2. Does the Administration budget request for the Agency
include sufficient and adequate funds to implement the outcome of the
court decisions to which you referred, including vigorously defending
the standards against further litigation?
Response. Yes, the Agency's budget request includes funding to
implement the outcome of the court decisions. The Agency is continuing
to work with the Department of Justice in defending the revised
standards in the ongoing litigation concerning the revised ozone and
particulate matter standards which is currently before the D.C. Circuit
Court of Appeals.
Question 3. Implementation of the new NAAQS for ozone will require
EPA to take a number of steps, not the least of which is defending the
standards in court. These steps include: (a) Promulgating a final rule
on the relative benefits of ozone pollution in reducing human exposure
to ultraviolet B solar radiation; (b) Developing an implementation
strategy that comports with the Supreme Courts direction to harmonize
Subpart 1 and 2; and (c) Making nonattainment designations.
Will the Agency accomplish all these things, more or less in that
order, in FY 2002? If not, why not?
Response. The Agency plans to propose a response to the remand of
the D.C. Circuit Court to consider the alleged beneficial health
effects of ozone pollution in shielding the public from the ``harmful
effects of the sun's ultraviolet rays.'' Our schedule after that is to
publish the proposed response no later than October 31 and finalize the
response by the end of August 2002.
With regard to responding to the Supreme Court's remand to develop
an implementation strategy to harmonize Subparts 1 and 2, we are
working with state, local and tribal partners to develop a proposal.
Our intent is to propose a new implementation strategy next spring.
EPA continues to work with States and Tribes to identify areas not
meeting the 8-hour ozone standard. EPA will not issue final
designations of nonattainment areas until we issue a final
implementation framework for the standard.
Question 4. TEA-21 set out a statutory schedule for the designation
of areas that are in nonattainment with the new PM-2.5
standard. EPA seems to be off that schedule somewhat (by about 1 year).
Assuming that EPA receives at least the resources in the budget request
for PM-related work, when will those designations occur?
Response. EPA is not behind in meeting the schedule in TEA-21 for
designating areas that are not attaining the PM-2.5
standard. Assuming adequate resources, EPA intends to meet the schedule
in TEA-21, which requires designations no later than December 31, 2005.
EPA's scientific review of the PM-2.5 standard is somewhat
delayed (about a year) from the schedule EPA issued when it adopted the
PM-2.5 standard in 1997, but this delay should not prevent
EPA from meeting the
TEA-21 schedule (assuming adequate resources).
Question 5. Last week, before the House Appropriations Committee,
you pointed out that the budget request includes level funding for the
Agency's climate change activities. Most of these are voluntary in
nature and that approach can be helpful. At that hearing, you said that
``. . . we've actually seen decreases in greenhouse gases.'' As far as
I can tell, we have steadily increased our emissions of these gases for
many years. Please clarify your statement?
Response. Although total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions have
increased by about 12 percent from 1990 to 1999 (the latest year of our
annual emissions inventory), EPA's voluntary climate programs have
reduced this growth by about 20 percent from what it would have been
without these programs. In 2000 alone, the voluntary climate programs
reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 57 million metric tons of carbon
equivalent (MMTCE). Emissions in a few specific sectors, particularly
where we have voluntary programs with industry, have declined in some
cases. In addition, total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions relative to
gross domestic product have decreased by more than 15 percent during
the same period.
Question 6. Does the budget request include adequate funds for the
Agency to work with Congress on the development of a multi-pollutant
bill, potentially including carbon dioxide, that deals with power
plants?
Response. For fiscal year 2002, EPA will redirect approximately
$900,000 to help support the development of a multi-pollutant bill to
integrate emission reduction strategies for nitrogen oxides
(NOX), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and mercury. This
redirection will support a modest analytical effort associated with the
bill. The need for any additional resources for fiscal year 2002 will
depend on progress in developing and enacting the bill.
The Administration's National Energy Policy (NEP) provides many
recommendations for enhancing these voluntary programs. The NEP calls
for increasing energy efficiency, including expanding the ENERGY STAR
program to new building types, as well as to additional products,
appliances, and services. The NEP also provides recommendations for EPA
to promote cleaner energy supply, such as Combined Heat and Power.
These types of programs will continue to play a strong role in limiting
national emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants, while
allowing our economy to grow.
Question 7. Do you believe that man made emissions are causing the
Earth to warm?
Response. Atmospheric greenhouse gases (water vapor, carbon
dioxide, and other gases) trap some of the outgoing solar energy,
retaining heat somewhat like the glass panels of a greenhouse. Some
greenhouse gases occur naturally in the atmosphere, although human
activities, such as burning fossil fuel, are a significant source of
current emissions of these gases. Since the beginning of the industrial
revolution, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide have increased
30 percent, methane concentrations have more than tripled, and nitrous
oxide concentrations have risen by about 15 percent. In addition to
these greenhouse gases, there are several potent greenhouse gases which
are, for the most part, solely a product of manmade industrial
activities. These manmade industrial gases are a small part of total
current emissions, but are growing rapidly.
The increases in all of these greenhouse gases have enhanced the
heat-trapping capability of the earth's atmosphere. In short, the
globally averaged temperature is rising, and the best available
evidence to date suggests that most of the observed warming over the
last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse
gas concentrations. A recent study by the National Academy of Sciences
(NAS) on climate change supports this theory. However, the NAS study
also tells us that we do not know how much effect natural fluctuations
in climate may have had on warming, or how much our climate could
change in the future, or how fast change could occur, or even how some
of our actions could impact it.
Question 8. You have expressed your support for voluntary programs,
like ENERGY STAR, but these voluntary activities have not actually
moved the Nation much toward our Senate-ratified treaty commitment.
That commitment says we will get to 1990 emissions levels by the year
2000. We are 13 percent over that goal now. Why will the voluntary
programs start working in a significant way now to achieve that goal,
when they have not before?
Response. The Administration is now conducting a cabinet-level
review to develop an effective and science-based approach to address
the important issue of global climate change. To date, EPA's voluntary
climate protection programs have been very effective. They have slowed
the growth of greenhouse gases, while reducing air pollution and saving
businesses, organizations, and consumers billions of dollars on their
energy bills, all in a period of strong economic growth. Although it is
true that U.S. greenhouse gases have increased about 12 percent
compared to 1990, we estimate that our voluntary programs have reduced
this growth by about 20 percent from what it would have been without
these programs. In 2000 alone, the programs:
Reduced U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by an estimated 57
million metric tons of carbon equivalent.
Reduced energy consumption by an estimated 75 billion
kilowatt hours.
Offset almost 10,000 megawatts of peak summer capacity.
Question 9. As you may know, Senator Lieberman and I have publicly
stated that we are not really interested in working on a multi-
pollutant bill unless it covers carbon dioxide. During your testimony,
it sounded as if you were supporting a ``cap-and-trade'' program for
carbon dioxide, similar to the acid rain program. Can we work out some
kind of system without labeling it mandatory or voluntary that
effectively caps carbon dioxide emissions from power plants?
Response. The Administration is now conducting a cabinet-level
review to develop effective and science-based approach to address the
important issue of global climate change. The Administration intends to
work with Congress to establish emissions caps on sulfur dioxide,
nitrogen oxides, and mercury from power plants. However, the President
does not believe that the government should impose mandatory emissions
reductions for carbon dioxide from power plants, because it creates the
potential for significantly higher electricity prices, with little or
no benefits.
Question 10. The Supreme Court also decided another case in EPA's
favor earlier this year. That was on the NOX SIP call. Not
all of the states have submitted revisions for their SIP (state
implementation plans) and the clock is ticking. Does the budget request
contain adequate funds for the preparation and possible imposition of a
Federal Implementation Plan for states who fail to submit timely and
complete SIPs?
Response. EPA remains committed to implementing on time, rules to
combat the regional smog problem in the eastern United States. The
NOX reductions from SIP call are needed to help many cities
in the eastern half of the United States meet the 1-hour ozone air
quality standard set to protect public health. So far, 15 states and
the District of Columbia have adopted or are in the process of adopting
NOX SIP call rules that EPA has approved, or expects to be
able to approve, as achieving the required reductions on time. We are
continuing to work with the states to maximize chances of getting
approvable rules from all states in time for sources to comply by May
2004.
Alternatively, we are positioned to issue a final Federal
implementation plan (FIP) rule in a timely manner, if necessary. EPA
proposed the FIP rule in October 1998 and issued the NOX
trading program--a key part of the proposed FIP rule--as a final rule
under section 126 in January 2000.
Question 11. Does the budget request assume that the Agency will
finalize guidance in fiscal year 2002 on the best available retrofit
technology (BART) to the states so they can go ahead with implementing
the Regional Haze rule? When will that final guidance be issued?
Response. On June 22, 2001, EPA Administrator Christie Whitman
signed the BART proposal. The proposed rule provides guidelines for
states and tribal air quality agencies to determine air pollution
controls for a number of older, large power plants and other industrial
facilities. The proposed amendments appeared in the Federal Register on
July 20, 2001; the public-comment period for this proposal closes on
September 18, after which EPA will develop the final rule in light of
comments received. EPA's schedule calls for submission of the final
rule to OMB in May or June of 2002, with the final rule issued in the
Fall of 2002.
Question 12. New Source Review has been under much discussion since
EPA took enforcement actions against 32 power plans last year. How much
does your budget request assume will be spent on supporting the ongoing
litigation involving those actions?
Response. EPA does not track how much is being spent on these
enforcement cases. In addition, EPA has not developed a specific budget
line item for NSR enforcement at this time. In fiscal year 2002, the
Agency is requesting 866 workyears and $92 million for the civil
enforcement program in the Environmental Programs and Management
appropriation. Support for NSR litigation comes from the civil
enforcement budget.
Question 13. Does your budget request assume and include resources
to support additional enforcement actions under New Source Review in
fiscal year 2002? Please quantify those specific resources.
Response. EPA does not specifically track resources dedicated to
NSR. In addition, EPA has not developed a specific budget line item for
NSR enforcement at this time. In fiscal year 2002, The Agency is
requesting 866 workyears and $92 million for the civil enforcement
program in the Environmental Program and Management appropriation.
Support for NSR litigation comes from the civil enforcement budget.
Question 14. Given the number of reports and activities directed by
the President's new National Energy Policy involving EPA, how will the
agency comply with those directions and existing resource/program
requirements in fiscal year 2002? Please specify the additional amounts
necessary or quantify the probable shifts in resource allocations that
will occur in fiscal year 2002 to comply with those directions.
Response. We are in the process of reviewing the policy
recommendations to determine which current EPA programs fit in the
policy, where we may need to expand or scale back current programs and/
or initiate new programs, and how EPA, in conjunction with other
Federal agencies, can best meet the requirements of the National Energy
Policy. Once we have a full understanding of the policy, we will lay
out a plan that will allow us to comply with the Administration's
recommendations. This plan would include resource and program
requirements for fiscal year 2002.
pesticide
Question 1. As you know, I wrote you on March 15 urging you to sign
a consent decree to put EPA on a schedule to comply with critical
pesticide protections for children. I was very pleased when you signed
the decree. Time and time again since then, President Bush has reminded
us of that action, highlighting the pesticide settlement as great
environmental achievement.
That achievement is only as good as the dollars the President is
willing to put behind it. This year, maintenance fees authorized under
the Federal Insecticides, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) which
support reregistration of pesticides will expire. You have not
requested an extension of that authorization. At the same time, your
budget also shows as cut of 50 percent from last year's level for the
pesticide tolerance reassessment program.
Together the lack of reauthorization of these FIFRA fees and the
cut in appropriated dollars for the pesticide tolerance program would,
by your own estimation, result in the loss of 200 employees who perform
tolerance work--25 percent of the pesticide program office. I
understand that the Administration doesn't view this as a cut because
it plans to finalize a proposed Clinton Administration rule to raise
the fees charged pesticide companies to do this work. In view of the
Administration's strong commitment to advancing critical pesticide
protections for children, and its reliance upon the tolerance fee rule
of effect that goal.
Will you strongly oppose legislative riders seeking to limit or
prohibit EPA from finalizing or implementing the tolerance fee rule?
Response. EPA will work to secure to passage of the President's
budget that calls for implementation of the tolerance fee rule.
Question 2. Will you recommend that the President veto legislation
that contains a rider to block the imposition of the tolerance rule?
Please provide a yes or no answer to this question.
Response. It is not possible to provide a yes or no answer at this
time, because I can not speculate on the Administration's future
position on appropriations legislation. It is critical, however, that a
stable funding mechanism be identified.
Question 3. In the event that the rule is blocked either by
congressional or judicial action, will you commit to fully implementing
the consent decree signed on March 19, 2001 in NRDC v. Whitman?
Response. Yes, EPA is committed to seeing that work go forward.
Currently the Consent Decree is undergoing public comment, and EPA will
review these comments.
Question 4. In the event that the rule is blocked by either
congressional or judicial action, will you commit to fully implementing
the programs contained in your budget request including, but not
limited to: reassessing 9,721 pesticide standards to protect children;
priority reassessment for high risk pesticides on foods commonly eaten
by children; health effects research to measure the effects of
pesticides on children; exposure research to measure pathways of
pesticide exposure to children; and research to assess the cumulative
risks pesticides pose to children?
Response. EPA does not intend to implement any reductions-in-force.
The Agency is committed to implementing the tolerance reassessment
program on schedule. If the tolerance fee as mandated by FQPA is not,
in the opinion of Congress, the best method of funding these critical
pesticide tolerance reassessment programs, we welcome the opportunity
to work with the Congress to explore other approaches to providing
full, stable funding for the program.
Qeustion 5. In the event that the rule is blocked by either
congressional or judicial action, will you seek additional appropriated
dollars or fees to support the above-mentioned programs rather than
institute cuts to other EPA programs?
Response. EPA does not plan to implement any reductions-in-force,
and it is important that a stable funding mechanism be identified.
Question 6. Would you support legislation to reauthorize the
maintenance fees FIFRA?
Response. EPA fully supports the President's budget and to collect
maintenance fees instead of tolerance fees would be inconsistent with
the current statutory mandate to collect tolerance fees that is
reflected in the President's budget. The important work of the
tolerance reassessment program must continue, and the tolerance fee
rule provides for full, stable funding for the life of the program. Any
alternatives would need to offer similarly stable and adequate funds.
superfund
Question 1. As you well know from your experience in New Jersey,
the Superfund program could not achieve the number of cleanups we have
seen in recent years without the significant participation of PRPs:
PRPs conduct approximately 70 percent of the cleanups of NPL sites. I
am very concerned that the cuts to enforcement will result in fewer
cleanup agreements between EPA and PRPs, and less cost recovery. As you
know, unlike other environmental laws, states cannot be authorized to
implement Superfund--only EPA has the authority to select remedies and
issue cleanup orders and enter settlements at NPL sites. Under the
President's proposed budget would there be any reduction to the number
of FTEs for Superfund enforcement?
Response. The President's fiscal year 2002 budget request includes
a reduction of 68.1 FTE to the Superfund enforcement program. This is
part of an overall Agency reduction to meet a congressionally-directed
FTE ceiling of 17,500 for EPA in fiscal year 2002.
Question 2. Can you guarantee that there will be sufficient staff
resources to ensure all of the needs will be met, and no cleanup
agreements will be delayed? How can you demonstrate this?
Response. In fiscal year 2002, EPA will continue to stress
``enforcement first'' by getting PRPs to initiate or fund 70 percent of
new remedial construction starts, at non-Federal Facility Superfund
sites, and emphasize fairness in the settlement process. Furthermore,
the President's budget request provides sufficient funding to address
cost recovery cases greater than or equal to $200,000 prior to the
expiration of their statute of limitations.
It will require hard work and creativity to achieve our goals with
these reductions. I'm asking my people to look for new efficiencies and
innovations in the way they carry out their day to day work to keep
enforcement projects, including settlement negotiations, proceeding at
a steady pace. The Superfund enforcement program's reduction of 68 FTE
does not mean 68 people, as the program is currently operating below
the fiscal year 2001 FTE levels. I expect to meet this reduced level
through attrition.
Question 3. As you know, any reduction in cleanups by PRPs means
either a greater shift of cleanup costs to the general public, or a
sacrifice in the number of cleanups. I am concerned that the
President's budget request is setting us up for less cost recovery. Can
you demonstrate to me that this is not the case? Are there FTE cuts in
the Superfund cost recovery area?
Response. The Agency has requested sufficient funding to meet its
goal of addressing all cost recovery cases with total past costs
greater than $200,000 before the expiration of their statute of
limitation. Cost recovery collections received by the U.S. Treasury
Department will vary from year to year depending on the value of
settlements the Agency achieves. However, the Agency doesn't anticipate
any loss of revenue as a result of reductions to enforcement. The
Superfund enforcement program was reduced by a total of 68 FTE, of this
amount, 16 FTE were reduced from the cost recovery program. I expect to
meet this reduced level through attrition.
underground storage tank program
Questions 1 and 2. I have a question about the underground storage
tanks program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. It is
my understanding that there are approximately 160,000 confirmed
gasoline leaks that still need to be cleaned up, plus about 200,000
abandoned petroleum tanks at brownfields sites that still need to be
cleaned up; a new GAO report that concludes that compliance with EPA
tank regulations is still a significant problem; MTBE contamination in
our nations's drinking water from Long Island to Lake Tahoe and many
places in between; and a $1.5 billion balance sitting in EPA's Leaking
Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund, collecting about $90 million in
interest a year and another $190 million in new revenue a year. Why is
the Administration only requesting $71.9 million in fiscal year 2002
for the underground tank program?
Response. We believe that the amount we are requesting from the
Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Trust Fund is appropriate at
this time. Cleaning up petroleum contamination from leaking underground
storage tanks that affect public health and the environment is an
important priority for EPA. We will continue to evaluate the adequacy
of resources to address these releases especially in light of the
presence of additional contaminants such as methyl ter-butyl ether
(MTBE) which have caused cleanups to take longer and be more expensive.
Question 3. Do you think that amount will allow the Administration,
with the states, to address the backlog of sites requiring inspections,
cleanup and enforcement? Can you explain how this would be
accomplished?
Response. EPA has begun implementing an initiative to reduce the
backlog of cleanups. Under this initiative, EPA will work with states
to establish national, regional, and state-specific cleanup goals that
will reduce the backlog over time. EPA will also promote the use of
innovative cleanup tools including multi-site cleanup agreements and
performance-based cleanup contracts as part of this initiative. EPA
believes that the current budget provides the resources needed to begin
the process of addressing the cleanup backlog. We will, however,
continue to evaluate our cleanup progress and the adequacy of resources
to reduce the backlog.
With respect to inspections and enforcement of EPA's underground
storage tank regulatory requirements, the budget provides $10 million
in State grants. EPA believes that this amount is sufficient to begin
implementing an initiative to increase compliance with the regulatory
requirements. Working with states, EPA will set national and regional
targets for bringing tanks into compliance. EPA will also work with
states to obtain commitments to increase their inspection and
enforcement presence if state-specific targets are not met. As part of
this initiative, EPA and the states will use innovative tools such as
multi-site agreements to bring more tanks into compliance. EPA will
also provide technical assistance tools, improved guidance, and
training to owners, operators and inspectors to foster improved
operational compliance with the requirements.
__________
Responses by Christine Todd Whitman to Additional Questions from
Senator Chafee
Question 1. The Estuaries and Clean Water Act of 2000, signed into
law last year, expands the National Estuary Program (NEP) and
reauthorizes funding for the program at $35 million for fiscal year
2002. Despite the growth in the number of NEPs, the level of
appropriated funds has peaked at roughly $18 million, resulting in
baseline funding for each NEP of between $310,000 and $350,000 after
accounting for administrative costs. Meanwhile, documented needs for
the NEPs are estimated in the billions of dollars.
In light of the recent reauthorization, could you provide
justification for EPA's fiscal year 2002 request for the NEP?
Response. We believe that the fiscal year 2002 request will be
sufficient to maintain approximately level funding for the 28 current
NEPs. It should be noted that funding under the NEP program has largely
been focused on organizing local stakeholder interests and developing
management plants, not on large scale implementation of those plans.
Other Agency funds support implementation efforts, including the $450
million in new grants to states requested in fiscal year 2002 to
address combined sewer overflows and sanitary sewer overflows--issues
of critical significance to many estuaries.
Question 2a. I have been contacted by a Rhode Island water company
that is concerned with the Agency's plans to reclassify chlorine gas
used for water treatment as a ``restricted use'' pesticide. I
understand this reclassification is now under review. As the new
administrator, what changes may be made to the chlorine gas regulation?
Response. By way of background, EPA regulates pesticides under the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). EPA
requires pesticides to be thoroughly tested before they are registered
(licensed by EPA for sale and use in U.S.). In evaluating a pesticide
registration application, EPA assesses a wide variety of potential
human health and environmental effects associated with use of the
product. We carefully consider the scientific evidence to determine
whether or not and how the pesticide can be distributed and used safely
in the United States and if so, under what restrictions. If, after
registration, the Agency has reason to suspect that a pesticide may
pose any unreasonable risk, we will take additional regulatory action
as appropriate.
EPA is currently in the midst of reassessing pesticides through the
reregistration program. EPA is assuring that older pesticides meet
contemporary health and safety standards and product labeling
requirements.
The Agency has not made its final decision on the reregistration of
chlorine gas. Chlorine gas is currently undergoing reregistration
review. In February 1999, the Agency issued a draft Reregistration
Eligibility Decision (RED) on the pesticidal uses of chlorine gas. On
March 10, 1999, the Agency published a Federal Register (FR) Notice of
Availability opening a 60-day public comment period for the Chlorine
Gas RED. Based on comments received, a second Notice of Availability
was published September 2000, specifically requesting comment on
possible restricted use status for chlorine gas. The comment period
closed on December 18, 2000. EPA encouraged registrants, users, other
stakeholders and the public to fully participate and submit their
comments. EPA is carefully considering all comments and is working with
industry, the states, and other stakeholders in addressing them. Many
water suppliers participated in the comment process and EPA is
reviewing their concerns.
Question 2b. When is the new regulation for chlorine gas
reclassification expected to be proposed?
Response. EPA intends to have the amended chlorine gas RED
completed by Fall 2001. This will include our decision of whether or
not to list chlorine gas as a Restricted Use Pesticide and require
pesticide training and certification for chlorine gas applicators. This
would include drinking water treatment system operators, although we
would encourage States to use their current training and certification
programs to avoid duplicative training requirements. The scheduled time
for implementation will be a minimum of 2 years after the date of our
final decision.
Question 3. It is my understanding that EPA's Office of Solid Waste
has been working on a draft Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for some time
that would clarify Federal Policy under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act regarding the handling and treatment of industrial wiping
products used with industrial solvents. What is the status of this
rulemaking? Do you expect EPA to publish this rulemaking during this
fiscal year?
Response. EPA's Office of Solid Waste has been examining the issue
of Federal policy regarding the regulation of solvent-contaminated
industrial wiping materials. The Agency has not determined what, if
any, regulatory action may be appropriate for solvent-contaminated
wipes. Thus, we are unable at this time to predict if or when a
proposed regulation would be issued. We do not expect a rule to be
proposed this fiscal year.
EPA's goal is to ensure that solvent-contaminated wipes are managed
in an environmentally sound and cost-effective manner that encourages
source reduction and recycling of hazardous solvents. Throughout our
process, we have met with key stakeholders, including small businesses,
to listen to their concerns and incorporate those concerns wherever
appropriate. In addition to the ongoing stakeholder outreach effort,
EPA has been and will continue to analyze the economic impact,
including small business impacts, of any future rule on the
stakeholders who would be affected.