U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

64–026CC WASHINGTON : 2000

THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY’S

PROPOSED BUDGET REQUEST FOR FISCAL

YEAR 2001

JOINT HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON

FINANCE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

AND THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON

HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MARCH 30, 2000

Serial No. 106–138

Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce

(

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE

TOM BLILEY, Virginia, Chairman

W.J. ‘‘BILLY’’ TAUZIN, Louisiana

MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio

MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida

JOE BARTON, Texas

FRED UPTON, Michigan

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio

Vice Chairman

JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania

CHRISTOPHER COX, California

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia

STEVE LARGENT, Oklahoma

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky

GREG GANSKE, Iowa

CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia

TOM A. COBURN, Oklahoma

RICK LAZIO, New York

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming

JAMES E. ROGAN, California

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona

CHARLES W. ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING,

Mississippi

VITO FOSSELLA, New York

ROY BLUNT, Missouri

ED BRYANT, Tennessee

ROBERT L. EHRLICH, Jr., Maryland

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio

BART GORDON, Tennessee

PETER DEUTSCH, Florida

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois

ANNA G. ESHOO, California

RON KLINK, Pennsylvania

BART STUPAK, Michigan

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York

TOM SAWYER, Ohio

ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland

GENE GREEN, Texas

KAREN MCCARTHY, Missouri

TED STRICKLAND, Ohio

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado

THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin

BILL LUTHER, Minnesota

LOIS CAPPS, California

JAMES E. DERDERIAN, Chief of Staff

JAMES D. BARNETTE, General Counsel

REID P.F. STUNTZ, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio, Chairman

W.J. ‘‘BILLY’’ TAUZIN, Louisiana

Vice Chairman

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio

JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania

CHRISTOPHER COX, California

STEVE LARGENT, Oklahoma

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

GREG GANSKE, Iowa

RICK LAZIO, New York

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona

VITO FOSSELLA, New York

ROY BLUNT, Missouri

ROBERT L. EHRLICH, Jr., Maryland

TOM BLILEY, Virginia,

(Ex Officio)

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

PETER DEUTSCH, Florida

BART STUPAK, Michigan

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado

THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin

BILL LUTHER, Minnesota

LOIS CAPPS, California

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan,

(Ex Officio)

(II)

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT

MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida, Chairman

FRED UPTON, Michigan

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida

JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky

GREG GANSKE, Iowa

CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia

TOM A. COBURN, Oklahoma

Vice Chairman

RICK LAZIO, New York

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona

CHARLES W. ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING,

Mississippi

ED BRYANT, Tennessee

TOM BLILEY, Virginia,

(Ex Officio)

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey

PETER DEUTSCH, Florida

BART STUPAK, Michigan

GENE GREEN, Texas

TED STRICKLAND, Ohio

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado

THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin

LOIS CAPPS, California

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

ANNA G. ESHOO, California

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan,

(Ex Officio)

(III)

3

C O N T E N T S

Page

Testimony of:

Perciasepe, Robert, Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation;

accompanied by Timothy Fields, Jr., Assistant Administrator Office

of Solid Waste and Emergency Response; J. Charles Fox, Assistant

Administrator, Office of Water; Steve Herman, Assistant Administrator, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance; and Norine

Noonan, Assistant Administrator, Office of Research and Development,

Environmental Protection Agency ............................................................... 13

Material submitted for the record by:

Thompson, Diane E., Associate Administrator, Environmental Protection

Agency:

Letter dated August 31, 2000, enclosing response for the record ......... 67

Letter dated August 29, 2000, enclosing response for the record ......... 97

(V)

(1)

THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY’S PROPOSED BUDGET REQUEST FOR

FISCAL YEAR 2001

THURSDAY, MARCH 30, 2000

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,

JOINT HEARING OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON FINANCE

AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, AND THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittees met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in

room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Michael Bilirakis

(chairman, Subcommittee on Health and Environment) presiding.

Members present, Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous Materials: Representatives Oxley, Bilbray, Shimkus, Deutsch, Stupak,

Engel, Barrett, Luther, Capps, and Markey.

Members present, Subcommittee on Health and Environment:

Representatives Bilirakis, Upton, Deal, Bilbray, Whitfield, Coburn,

Bryant, Brown, Deutsch, Stupak, Green, Strickland, Barrett, and

Capps.

Staff present: Amit Sachdev, majority counsel; Bob Meyers, majority counsel; Joe Stanko, majority counsel; Nandan Kenkeremath,

majority counsel; Kristi Gillis, legislative clerk; Richard Frandsen,

minority counsel; and Alison Taylor, minority counsel.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. The hearing will come to order. This is a joint

hearing with Mr. Oxley’s subcommittee.

The schedule was the he would kick off the hearing, but he is

tied up in Washington traffic, so he will be here as soon as he can

get here.

In any case, I want to extend my welcome, as per usual, to the

Assistant Administrator, Robert Perciasepe, and, of course, the

other EPA officials who will appear to us today.

Thank you for being here today. There are several specific matters which I believe that we should address as part of today’s hearing.

However, I must first comment at the outset regarding how EPA

proposed to—and I use the term—balance its books in the fiscal

year 2001 budget.

That is, the administration’s budget request relies heavily on deleting—at least it seems to be that way—all Congressionally directed spending, while at the same time proposing new, unauthorized spending about which little, if anything, if known.

2

For example, while I support innovative State and local programs on the environment, and might indeed be supportive of more

clean air grant programs, I do have concerns about the Clean Air

Act Partnership Fund.

The fiscal year 2001 budget, like the fiscal year 2000 budget, contains little substantive information.

Indeed, I would venture to say that the average homeowner provides far more specific information to a mortgage company than

EPA has provided to Congress to justify the expenditure of $85 million.

Second, I am disturbed that EPA has apparently made a conscious and deliberate decision to violate, or at least not abide by,

the Clean Air Act provisions respecting air toxics.

The fiscal year 2001 request contains no spending for Federal air

toxic standards, even though these are required by November 15 of

this year.

I would remind the Agency of Section 112(E)(1)(e) of the Clean

Air Act is unambiguous at this point.

The Agency previously acknowledged that it is required—using

its words—required to promulgate MACT standards for all 174

source categories by the year 2000.

Third, I must admit that I will be interested in learning if there

is any substance behind EPA’s recently announced legislative principles and MTBE and the reformulated gasoline program.

At barely a half page in length, the March 20 principles are not

a serious effort to address problems in the RFG Program.

In fact, in testimony before the committee and in subsequent

staff briefings, EPA could not answer even the most basic questions

about what the Agency supports or does not support.

EPA cannot claim to be working with Congress when it cannot

explain in any detail what it is proposing.

Fourth, I remain concerned about safe drinking water research.

Last October, the Subcommittee on Health and Environment

held a hearing to examine the adequacy of State drinking water research programs.

The fiscal year 2001 budget claims a modest increase in such

funding. However, I remain concerned that such spending may still

be woefully short of the needs previously identified by EPA.

I remain concerned that this matter is just not a priority for the

administration.

As a final matter of interest, I am also determined honestly to

hold EPA accountable to local communities in the Superfund cleanup process.

To address that concern, we must assure continued funding for

the Office of the National Hazardous Waste and Superfund ombudsman.

I have experienced firsthand the important work of the ombudsman in connection with the Stouffer Chemical Superfund site located in my district—and I might add, in my community—of Tarpon Springs, Florida.

I invited the ombudsman to conduct an independent review of

the Stouffer site to address the concerns of local citizens who felt

they were being shut out of the clean-up process.

3

More than anyone, residents of the neighborhood surrounding a

hazardous waste site should have their voices heard in the cleanup debate.

The ombudsman has worked effectively and aggressively to uncover the facts surrounding the Stouffer site, as well as other

Superfund sites across the Nation.

He must be allowed to continue his important work, and the EPA

cannot be allowed to impose serious funding cuts or target this office for elimination.

We must ensure that the final fiscal year 2001 budget approved

by Commerce includes adequate funding for this office.

The Chair will now yield to Mr. Brown for his opening statement.

Mr. BROWN. I thank the chairman. I would like to welcome our

witnesses and extend my thanks to you for joining us today to discuss EPA’s budget request for fiscal year 2001.

Americans around the country of every political stripe have made

it clear they want a clean and healthy environment.

I commend the EPA for your hard work and your dedication in

protecting our environment and promoting public health. I strongly support the administration’s request for the $92 million to fund Brownfields site assessment and revolving loan fund

grants.

Almost every town and city in this country has sites or concerns

about contamination from previous commercial or industrial activities prevents productive use of the site.

By encouraging investment in these sites, we can help communities convert them to productive use to create jobs and to save

greenfields from development.

It is my hope that Congress will finally act this year to expand

Brownfields.

I expect the EPA will work closely with the Commerce Committee on Brownfields legislation. I also support funding at the level of $24.4 million proposed in

the President’s budget request for the endocrine-disrupting chemicals testing program.

Synthetic chemicals such as PCBs and dioxin interfere with the

body’s natural hormones and may be indicated in a range of health

problems in people and animals, including reproductive and developmental abnormalities.

Those chemicals have been concentrated at the Great Lakes food

chain, contributing to the decline in some bird and fish species in

that region.

We must find out what the effects are on people. In the 1996

Food Quality Protection Act and amendments to the Safe Drinking

Water Act, Congress directed EPA, with Mr. Stupak’s involvement,

mine, and several others, to develop a screening and testing program to help identify endocrine-disrupting chemicals.

EPA has begun developing a program based on an extraordinary

consensus agreement among a wide range of stakeholders.

Thirty-two of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle joined me

this week in writing to the Appropriations Committee to express

our support for the endocrine-disrupter testing program.

On a closely related topic, the Post reported, yesterday, significant findings from the Air Force’s ongoing study of former serviceVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:15 Sep 18, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 64026.TXT HCOM2 PsN: HCOM2
4

men and -women who worked with Agent Orange, which contained

dioxin during the Vietnam War.

The study has found, quote, a significant and potentially meaningful, unquote, correlation between diabetes and the level of

dioxin in the bloodstream.

While further research is needed, dioxin’s ability to interfere

with the normal activity of the endocrine system, which regulates

the level of glucose in the blood, may, in fact, play a role in the

development of diabetes among these veterans.

Since 1980, over 150 studies of people in 61 countries and regions have found that dioxin and other persistent organic pollutants are building up in our bodies in various tissues and fluids.

Studies of breast milk show high levels of concentration, which

means that our children are exposed to toxics at an early and sensitive stage in their development.

In the last 9 years, the EPA has been conducting a reassessment

of dioxin exposure and human health based on the available scientific information.

This reassessment will identify the spectrum of adverse human

effects from exposure to dioxin and related compounds.

It also includes a comprehensive exposure and source analysis.

I would like to know from you when the remaining three chapters of this very important dioxin reassessment will be made available for public review and public comment. I trust it will be sooner

rather than later.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to comment on the

EPA budget.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. I thank the gentleman. The chairman of the Finance and Hazardous Materials Subcommittee, Mr. Oxley.

Mr. OXLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. I am

pleased to open this joint hearing of the Subcommittee on Finance

and Hazardous Materials and the Subcommittee on Health and Environment.

It is an honor to work with you in this regard to review the Environmental Protection Agency’s fiscal year 2001 budget request.

While I am disappointed that Administrator Browner could not

join us today, I am pleased to see so many senior Agency officials

from the EPA programs that fall within the committee’s jurisdiction.

I welcome them all here today. Without taking too much time,

before we hear from EPA this morning, I want to make some brief

remarks.

This year, EPA is asking for $1.45 billion, an increase of $50 million over last year.

Yet, we are told by all sides that the Superfund program is over

the hump, so how EPA intends to wind this program down, and

how that will reflect in terms of expenditures is of great importance to me and to the members of my committee.

It is an understatement to say this program has not been a

model of efficiency.

GAO has repeatedly described the Superfund program as a,

quote, high risk for waste, fraud, and abuse, end quote.

While sites that have been in the pipeline for many years are

getting to the construction-complete phase, it has not been without

5

significant cost, unfairness to many parties, and unneeded litigation.

I am not anxious to see this program unnecessarily expanded or

for the EPA to embark on new missions without a clear and specific Congressional mandate.

I also have performance concerns about some of the Agency’s

non-NPL or Brownfields programs.

For instance, in its opening statement, the EPA touts its achievement of awarding 68 pilots for Brownfields clean-up revolving loan

funds.

Yet, it is my understanding that, in fact, only three loans have

actually been granted under that program since its inception in

1997.

Aside from Superfund, I have had a lengthy acquaintance with

RCRA. I am interested in the regulatory treatment of fly ash.

An EPA staff report to Congress reached the general conclusion

that coal combustion waste should not be subject to onerous RCRA

hazardous waste regulations.

I understand that a final Agency determination has not been

made.

It is my belief that any decision should be based on sound science

and recognize the success of strong State regulatory programs, including my home State of Ohio.

I appreciate the opportunity to share my views with the Agency

and look forward to working with EPA officials to address specific

issues of concern.

Let me now yield to my other colleagues for opening statements.

Then, as I understand it, Mr. Chairman, I will be introducing our

panel.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Yes, that is correct. Before you go into that, Mr.

Stupak, for an opening statement.

Mr. STUPAK. Nothing, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Shimkus, opening statement?

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is great to be here,

and I am glad to see all my friends and colleagues from the EPA

here.

This is an important time, and I would like to focus on a lot of

different issues dealing with the budget, but with real concerns

that have been addressed in the State of Illinois nationally.

I agree with Chairman Bilirakis on the 21 March RFG program.

I want to ask you all to work—give me a point of contact that

I can work with.

We are putting together a bipartisan coalition to address this.

Congressman Ganske and I have a bill. Karen McCartney is

going to be on the bill.

There is some common ground based upon that—your statement,

based upon some legislation.

It addresses the Clean Air Act and the Safe Water Act, and the

Toxic Substance Act.

I am optimistic that there is a convergence of time and events

that I think something good for America can happen.

But, there is some vagueness in the memo—the questions that

we want to get answered before we can start negotiating.

6

I am also interested in, obviously, biofuels and biodiesel in the

CMAC program, the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Act,

and trying to get some input on that.

I followed up with my colleague, Mr. Oxley, on the fly ash issue.

After the 19-year study, we need some resolution, and we are in

hopes that this is not an issue that will be politicized.

One, we have had, I think, a lot of science, and the States have

done a good job.

The last thing is Superfund small business liability issues.

Quincy, Illinois, it is a broken record in the song that I have been

singing, especially the last 2 years.

I appreciate the help that EPA has done in working with my

small businesses, but there is still a lot to do in changing the law.

I guess the only frustration we have is we hear movement, but

we see no legislation to help us move in that direction.

So, funding will—The budget debate focuses on objectives that

we can accomplish based upon a budget.

We are all going to try to tie that all together today, and I appreciate your attendance.

I appreciate the time, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

Mr. OXLEY. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from

Massachusetts, Mr. Markey.

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. I welcome

the EPA here today.

I think it is perfectly representative of what has happened in the

United States over the last 100 years.

I think this is a good time to report to our country as we begin

the new century.

In the year 1900, the average life expectancy for a male and female was 48 years of age.

Today, it is near 80 for women and 76 for men. One in three children who were born today in a hospital in the United States will

live to the age of 100.

They will see the year 2100. It is largely because of the clean air,

the clean water, the safe food, and other laws that were put on the

books, that have made this place that we live in a lot healthier.

We have a tremendous revolution that has taken place. I see it,

really, in my own district in Woburn, Massachusetts.

Back in the late 1970’s, we identified a site where children had

been dying from leukemia.

A group of parents went out and went door to door to identify

whether or not there was a cluster of deaths, and there had been.

We had to battle long and hard to, first, create a Superfund program, and then to make it possible for it to be funded.

The reality is that we come back today, and that site is now

cleaned up in Woburn, a blue-collar city.

GTE Internet is building 1.8 million square feet of new office

space, to move from the industrial age, in other words, to the information age.

It is such a success story that, when Robert Redford came to film

the movie ‘‘A Civil Action,’’ in 1997, there were no more smokestacks left in Woburn.

That is how fundamentally the economy had changed. They had

to go find another mill town someplace, because we have been able,

7

in this new economy, to change the personality of the kinds of jobs

that are in blue-collar communities.

But, we couldn’t do it without the help of the Federal Government, because, obviously, one city of a population of 40,000 couldn’t

clean up a hazardous waste site left there by dozens of chemical

companies in the 20th century.

The same thing is happening in my own hometown of Malden,

along the Malden River where my grandfather got off the boat in

1902 to work at the Lock Coal Company.

Twenty companies had just used the Malden River as a

dumpsite.

When they left, then that industrial age passed us by, and all we

were left with in Malden was this unusable plot of land as the

high-tech companies have moved up to 128, as the Federal Government had built this interstate beltway around the city of Boston.

But, that blue-collar community was left behind. Because of

Brownfields, because of clean rivers’ laws, we are able now to recapture that land.

We are now planning on building 1.6 million square feet of office

space in something that we call Telecom City, something that is

going to connect blue-collar America to this information age revolution.

That is the beauty of these programs. It really does help those

older cities, those older towns without the resources, who benefited

in the industrial age but now are left with the residue but without

the resources to clean up the damage that was done to the land

and to the water.

So, I want to congratulate you, because I think that, through

these programs, we make it possible, especially for those older cities and towns to help to make this transition quickly so that their

families aren’t left behind in this information age revolution, that

their lands, their schools, can be funded by the property taxes that

are generated from the new industries moving to those communities as well as they do to the suburbs.

So, I just think it is a great time to celebrate the success of these

programs.

I strongly support the Environmental Protection Agency, and I

know that Mr. Stupak wants me to yield very briefly, and I would

like to, if I have any time remaining.

Mr. STUPAK. Just briefly—I am sure Mr. Shimkus left—because

I just wanted to remind him that, for the last 3 years, the legislation he speaks of we have it.

It is my legislation. We have offered it. We always get denied an

opportunity for hearing on my legislation to protect those people.

We always get denied the opportunity to present an amendment.

We tried over the last 3 years, but Mr. Shimkus doesn’t have to

recreate the bill.

It is already there. It exists. Please join us. That is what we are

trying to do to get the innocent people out of these EPA lawsuits.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. OXLEY. The gentleman’s time is expired. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Bryant.

Mr. BRYANT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to the

panel.

8

As so often happens up here, we are called back and forth to different meetings, and other committees are meeting.

So, I apologize in advance for having to leave. It is my intention

to get back and hear as much of your testimony as possible.

I appreciate the Administrator’s statement, and particularly in

regards to the Food Quality Protection Act.

I am reviewing, on page 9, the four guiding principles you have

used in the implementation of this bill.

I am concerned about a couple of those, but I think that could

be open to, I think, reasonable debate by reasonable people; certainly the first one using sound science in protecting public health.

That is always one of my concerns, that we use sound science.

Rather than go into an opening statement, I just would like to

pose for Ms. Wayland—you might want to make a note here, if you

could answer in the event I am not here to ask you these questions.

The registration of new pesticides is obviously important to ensure that our farmers and other pesticide users can continue to effectively control the pests that threaten their crops and public

health, especially as the Food Quality Protection Act reviews are

resulting in significant cancellations of the uses of several widely

used pesticides.

I understand that EPA plans to make registration decisions on

19 new pesticides this year.

That is compared to 26 that you made last year and 27 that you

made in 1998.

All this despite an 11 percent increase in your budget—in the

registration budget as the administration requested.

In other words, you are getting more money, but it seems like

your registration decisions are going down from 27 to 26. Now, to

19.

My question is why is productivity going down when funding is

going up?

The fiscal year 2001 budget contains a 14 percent increase for

this pesticide registration program.

How many new pesticide registration decisions do you expect to

make in fiscal year 2001, and how many of those are for conventional pesticides meeting EPA safety standards?

You may not be able to write this down quickly enough. It may

be you have to furnish late-filed some of these answers to your testimony.

One final issue regarding the same issue of EPA’s potential restriction of the uses of several widely used products based on the

Act’s tolerance reassessment process, is to what extent there are

available substitute products that provide equivalent or better efficiency.

We need to know that. Because of the current backlog on pending

registration requests, many of these new products may be years

away from being approved by the EPA as substitutes for the ones

that you are taking off.

What is the Agency doing to address the problem of the backlog,

and what additional resources do you need to expedite the new registration and review process to cut down or bring down this backlog?

9

With that said, I do thank all of our Chairmen and ranking

members for holding this joint hearing.

I think it is very important on many other issues beyond just

this Act that I talked about.

But, I thank you for that and would yield back the balance of my

time.

Mr. OXLEY. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from

Texas, Mr. Green.

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you and my

chairman of the Health and Environment Subcommittee for calling

this hearing today.

I think it is really important. In fact, it is very timely for the

area I represent.

I have a number of areas I would like to explore today with

members of the panel, and I am most pleased to see my friend, Bob

Perciasepe, here.

I am glad that we didn’t scare you off the last time—the last

hearing we had.

EPA has been involved in two issues recently that are of crucial

importance to both myself and my constituents.

The first is the Longhorn pipeline. The second is attempts—and

I know our chairman mentioned eliminating the use of MTBE in

gasoline.

The Longhorn pipeline is a 700-mile pipeline that will transport

refined product from Houston refineries to communities in west

Texas and El Paso.

As a result of a lawsuit, a Federal District Judge in Austin initially ordered an environmental impact statement for the entire

pipeline.

The Federal Government approached Longhorn and asked that

Longhorn not appeal due to the potential that, if the appeal failed,

potentially every pipeline in the country would be subject to an

EIS.

The government offered to conduct an environmental assessment

with predetermined parameters, which is only supposed to take 4

months.

Longhorn has agreed to incorporate substantial mitigation above

and beyond current Federal and State requirements.

I supported the EA process—environmental assessment process—because the standards for safety would be elevated for pipelines in the country.

Turning that environmental assessment into an environmental

impact statement has been proposed by a regional EPA in Texas

and would not add any additional information, and would only result in a perception that the National Environmental Policy Act is

an obstructionist statute as opposed to being a beneficial decisionmaking tool.

Your Agency joined with the Department of Transportation and

released a preliminary finding of no significant impact in October

of last year—October 22.

Four months later, we are still—even longer than 4 months—we

are still studying the pipeline.

I would like the EPA to move this process along. The EPA has

studied everything there is to know about the Longhorn pipeline.

10

Longhorn is committed to make their pipeline one of the safest

in the country.

Frankly, I wouldn’t support it if they wouldn’t. Neither would my

colleague, Congressman Reyes, from El Paso.

You still have time to salvage the good intention that started this

process if you act now.

I would like your assurances today this process will come to an

end somewhere, or else we are not going to see pipelines built anywhere in the country, because you can’t delay decisionmaking.

The second project is MTBE, an oxygenate used in gasoline and

produced in Texas, and the subject of much debate in Congress and

in cities and towns across the country.

The administration suggests that Congress should reduce or

eliminate the use of MTBE. Which one, the reduction or elimination, does the administration support?

How quickly should MTBE be phased out and when? Even more

important for this committee, particularly, what does the administration propose in its place, and how much will it cost?

The administration, in its three-paragraph outline of its proposal,

did not provide much in the way of details.

Again, this committee and the Health and Environment Subcommittee has spent a great deal of time on MTBE.

We know, both, the problems with it, but also the successes it

has had since 1991.

I am hopeful that we will have time to explore the administration’s proposal in greater detail today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. OXLEY. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from

Kentucky, Mr. Whitfield.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I am delighted that we are having this joint committee hearing regarding

EPA’s appropriation request for fiscal year 2001.

I was listening to a radio program the other day, and they were

talking about being a Member of Congress, that it helps if you have

attention deficit disorder, because we very seldom have the opportunity to go into anything in any depth.

I am particularly thankful that we do have an opportunity with

an Agency as important as EPA to have an hour or 2 hours to sit

down and just go over and listen to their request for their appropriations, and the impact their programs have throughout the

country.

So, I am delighted we are having this hearing, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. OXLEY. Thank you. The gentleman from Wisconsin has no

opening statement.

The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Upton.

Mr. UPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am very interested in

today’s hearing.

I am looking forward to hearing primarily on three points.

One is the Agency’s plan for reinstating the 1-hour air quality

standards in light of the Court of Appeals remanding the new 8-

hour standard.

Second, I would like to see discussed the Agency’s significant and

potentially costly proposed change in the total maximum daily

loads and national pollutant discharge elimination permits under

the Clean Water Act.

11

Third, I am interested in the Great Lakes Initiative that was included in the President’s budget. I haven’t seen a lot of detail. I know it is $50 million, and I want

to make sure that it is well thought out.

I yield back the balance of my time so we can get started.

Mr. OXLEY. The gentleman yields back very briefly. Thank you.

[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. CLIFF STEARNS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that we are having this important hearing to allow

Congress an opportunity to critique and express our concern with the EPA’s budget

request. I do have several problems with the EPA’s budget.

One particular issue that I have a concern with is the EPA budget request of over $4 million for the Water Environment Federation. This Federation deals with Class

B biosolids or sludge, which in my opinion, pose a potential health threat. Class B

biosolids were spread on 65 sites in my district last year Can the EPA assure me

that this was done properly? Can EPA assure me that the health of my constituents

and drinking water will not be at risk because of the use of Class B biosolids? How

many enforcement officers does EPA region 4 have to inspect and supervise the application of this sludge? If it is so important to give the Water Environment Federation over $4 million dollars, then what exactly do they do? I do not believe that the

proper research has been done to justify the usage of sludge, nor do I believe that

the proper precautions are being taken in using sludge.

In fact, the Science Committee held a hearing last week regarding agency harassment of persons who disagreed with EPA sludge policy. At this hearing it was revealed that the agency’s inspector general found the EPA’s sludge policy could not

insure public safety. Is the agency reevaluating that policy? When will the EPA stop

mandating before studies are completed? Think of the MTBE crisis. We know that

as early as 1988 that the EPA had some health concerns with MTBE, but they

moved forward anyway. Why?

As a father, a Floridian and a Republican, I want to work to better the environment. But in order to this, we don’t need more unfunded federal mandates and bigger bureaucracies as the EPA would have you believe. We need, instead, to give

more power and flexibility to those closest to the problems, the States and localities.

We need to strengthen existing provisions, crafting measures that work to better the

environment, not measures that create more bureaucracies, impose costs and fees,

and encourage endless litigation for trial lawyers.

The bottom line is that the EPA should not make a mess, and then rely on Congress to fund cleaning it up. Peer review and unbiased studies should be completed

before any EPA mandate. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses and to hearing responses to the questions that I have raised.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL GILLMOR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for calling this hearing on the fiscal year

2001 budget for the Federal agency charged with protecting the health and safety

of the public and many of our natural resources. I appreciate the opportunity to

speak and look forward to the testimony of our witnesses.

Today marks the last time that the Clinton Administration will come before this

committee to justify its funding requests for environmental protection. I, personally,

find this to be an important exercise considering the length and depth that the U.S.

EPA has inserted itself over the last seven years. It is essential that the Deputy

Administrators before our panel give detailed accounts of how they wish Federal

money to be spent and what the American taxpayer can expect to receive from it.

While other body has expressed interest in an EPA authorization bill, an idea I find

has real merit, I believe this is about as close as this committee will come to such

an endeavor.

Protecting the health and safety of every American is a goal I know we all support. Over the last seven years, though, I have had grave concerns as to whether

EPA was more concerned about fancy press opportunities and saving desk jobs than

in placing more funding into actual environmental cleanup. Without belaboring the

point, we are all well acquainted with the fact that numerous congressional studies

have shown that EPA is spending less than 50 cents on the dollar from remedial

12

and removal actions under Superfund. Additionally, EPA’s budget seeks $59.3 million for Clean Air Act programs that are not authorized by Congress, and many of

which are based on taxpayer-funded science that has never been released to this

committee, even after repeated requests.

I am also concerned that this budget is last ditch effort to forge ahead on the

goals of the Administration’s political allies, regardless of the merits or the science.

As Vice Chairman of the Commerce Committee, it concerns me greatly that after

almost 60 days; the EPA cannot come up with basic answers on the agency’s plans

with regard to sound scientific assessments of its programs. Also, while MTBE is

contaminating the groundwater of wells across this country, EPA is bent upon playing politics in California and having the Federal government—and many Northeastern States—sue electric power plants in the Midwest. This would not be so maddening except the Federal courts are ruling against EPA. It is time to stop lawsuits

and regulatory actions, and start working cooperatively with Congress, the states,

and local groups to make environment protection a goal worth having.

Mr. Chairman, I have concerns about other aspects of EPA’s budget, like its plans

to implement the Food Quality Protection Act. I am concerned that some of the

planned cancellations are borne more out exacting pain on minor crop farmers who

have little clout, than on larger more politically active producers. Congress must

know how EPA is using this money and what is will mean for the future of production agriculture and the safety of fresh and processed foods.

Again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for this chance to speak. I have long believed

that in an era of finite resources available for environmental protection—be they

Federal, state, local, or private, it is clearly anti-environment to put lots of money

into programs that only minimally protect people while other more pressing problems go unappraised due to lack of funding. I anxiously wait to hear if EPA will

put its money where its mouth is when it comes to reasonably protecting the health

and safety of all Americans.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. TOM BLILEY, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE

Good Morning. Thank you Chairman Oxley and Chairman Bilirakis for calling

this joint Subcommittee hearing to review the Environmental Protection Agency’s

Fiscal Year 2001 Budget Request. Although I am disappointed the Administrator

did not join us today, I am pleased to have the opportunity to address the senior

Agency officials for EPA programs that fall within the Committee’s jurisdiction, and

I welcome them here today.

I will be brief, but I want to mention a couple of matters that I hope we can address today. First, I want EPA to focus its energy on its core mandates. In my view,

‘‘mission creep’’ has, for some time, been a principal nemesis of EPA. As the Agency’s budget has grown to a 9.5 billion dollar request, EPA has gone beyond its core

mandates by spawning boutique programs and initiatives with questionable longterm value and impact. For instance, the Agency has yet to provide me with an explanation for why it has identified ‘‘international brownfields’’ as a key program,

much less tell me what it believes an ‘‘international brownfield’’ is. I have concerns

that dozens of initiatives like these are diverting resources away from EPA’s existing statutory obligations and thus away from our national priorities for environmental protection.

This failure to focus on core mandates was clearly evident in the findings of the

Committee staff report that I released last week demonstrating in great detail how

EPA ignored evidence for many years that diesel engines were emitting millions of

tons of excess pollution. EPA failed to enforce the law, as well as its own regulations, and the American people paid the price in the form of 12 million tons of excess pollution.

Second, I believe the Agency must re-double its efforts to address fundamental

management concerns. According to the General Accounting Office and EPA’s Inspector General, EPA continues to have management problems that have hurt its

effectiveness. Last month, GAO found lax computer security at EPA, the result of

years of neglect by EPA despite repeated warnings and calls for action. While I am

pleased that EPA has been working diligently for several weeks to address these

problems, I am distressed that it took this Committee’s aggressive oversight to spur

EPA action. Without aggressive oversight, I am convinced the agency would not be

correcting its security problems.

In addition, this month, GAO issued a report that shows that rather than reducing paper work by 25% by 1998 in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act

of 1995, EPA is actually expanding that burden on businesses to over 119 million

13

‘‘burden hours’’ as of 1998. Excessive paperwork, poor computer security, and high

overhead do not protect the environment.

I appreciate the opportunity to share my views with the Agency and look forward

to working with EPA officials to address specific issues of concern. I hope the Agency will work with the Congress to focus its mission on core mandates for environmental protection and to address its broader management and security problems.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. OXLEY. I would now like to recognize our panel today. I understand Mr. Perciasepe, the Assistant Administrator for the Office

of Air and Radiation, will present the Agency’s prepared statement

this morning.

Welcome. Mr. Perciasepe, before you begin, let me briefly recognize your colleagues that have joined you at the witness table

today.

We have Chuck Fox, Assistant Administrator, Office of Water;

Steve Herman, Assistant Administrator, Office of Enforcement and

Compliance Assurance; Susan H. Wayland, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances;

Tim Fields—an old friend from our Committee—Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, who I understand will be making an appearance later—he is over on the

Senate side; Norine Noonan, Assistant Administrator, Office of Research and Development; and Margaret Schneider, Deputy Associate Administrator, Office of Environmental Information.

Mr. Perciasepe, you may begin. Again, welcome to both the subcommittee’s jurisdiction.

STATEMENT ROBERT PERCIASEPE, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION, ACCOMPANIED BY

TIMOTHY FIELDS, JR. ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR OFFICE

OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE, J. CHARLES

FOX, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF WATER,

STEVE HERMAN, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF

ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE, AND

NORINE NOONAN, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Both Mr. Chairmens, plural, thank you very

much for the introduction, and, the rest of the committee, thank

you.

As you pointed out, Mr. Chairman, I am going to make an opening statement for the group, so we can just have one opening statement.

Mr. OXLEY. Too bad we couldn’t do it up on this side, but it just

never works that way, so thank you.

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Maybe you guys can work on that.

You mentioned Tim Fields.

I would like to point out, sitting in for him, or pinch-hitting until

he gets here, is Mike Shapiro, his Deputy, who may get some of

the questions.

I just want to recognize them up front. There is Mike Ryan, who

is the Acting Chief Financial Officer. Would you raise your hand?

I might say that we look forward to working with you on the review of the budget process and with the other members of the subcommittee on the many issues that they have brought up.

14

I do believe we have a productive working relationship that has

enabled us to work toward the mutual goal of protecting public

health and the environment.

Together, we have a great opportunity to work in partnership to

provide the American public with strong public health and environmental protections that they want and that they deserve.

The budget we are putting forward achieves that goal. The President has presented a budget that maintains fiscal discipline while

making essential investment in environmental priorities.

The administration has repeatedly demonstrated that we can

enjoy enormous prosperity, including the longest economic expansion in history while aggressively cleaning up the Nation’s air,

water, and land.

Over the past 7 years of unprecedented economic progress, we

have been working with this committee.

We have both distinguished ourselves through unprecedented environmental progress, and we have done it through common-sense,

cost-effective measures that emphasize partnerships and cooperation with business, States, and local governments.

The 1996 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act are an example of what we can do together. We supplied the first ever funding, a $3.6 billion loan program

for communities to upgrade drinking water systems.

We set up the first public right to know program for ensuring

that all consumers of tap water know the source and the quality

of that water.

We have announced new measures to protect the health of 140

million Americans by strengthening protections from emerging

threats like cryptosporidium.

As a result of these efforts, 89 percent of Americans now get tap

water from drinking water systems that meet health standards.

We have tripled the pace of cleaning up toxic waste under Superfund.

At the end of 1999, a total of 670 Superfund sites have been

cleaned up; 515 of these sites were completed since 1993.

We have taken important steps to reduce emissions from automobiles and small trucks by up to 95 percent and, for the first

time, ensure that sport utility vehicles, minivans, and light-duty

trucks meet the same standards as passenger vehicles.

We have required reduced sulphur levels in gasoline, and we

have cut toxic air pollution from municipal combusters and other

important source categories by more than 90 percent.

We have unveiled new efforts to improve air quality in 156 national park and wilderness areas.

As a result of these efforts, some 43 million more Americans

today are breathing cleaner air.

At the same time, we have dramatically increased the public’s

right to know about toxic chemicals released into their communities.

The Clinton-Gore Administration has nearly doubled the number

of chemicals that must be reported to communities and required

over 6000 new facilities to report release of toxic emissions.

As a result of the past decade, toxic pollution has fallen by nearly

50 percent.

15

We have revitalized communities by accelerating the clean-up of

Brownfields, abandoned or contaminated property that can be put

back into commercial use.

Communities across America are gaining new hope with nearly

$70 million in seed grants awarded to over 300 Brownfields

projects.

These projects have leveraged more than $2 billion in new investments and created thousands of jobs, expanding the tax base

for local communities and bringing decayed areas of cities back to

vibrant use.

Working with Congress, we have passed a new Food Quality Protection Act, that, for the first time, sets pesticide safety standards

that are protective of children.

We have recently taken action to reduce significantly the special

risks posed to children by eliminating the use of two pesticides

most widely used on foods found in the diets of children.

While ensuring strong environmental protection, we have reinvented government in innovative ways to achieve greater environmental results at less cost.

We have vigorously pursued common-sense, cost-effective solutions to today’s environmental problems.

The President’s new budget, which requests $7.3 billion for EPA

and $2.2 billion for the Better America Bonds program builds and

continues 7 years of environmental achievement under the ClintonGore Administration.

The budget provides an 11 percent increase for EPA’s core programs for air, water quality, drinking water quality, food safety,

scientific research, and enforcement.

The administration’s request provides for such programs such as

President Clinton’s Clean Water Action Plan designed to finish the

job of cleaning up America’s waters and restoring to full use the

magnificent lakes, rivers, and bays of this country.

It provides for a new initiative to protect and improve one of the

Nation’s greatest shared treasures, the Great Lakes.

It provides for the President’s program for cleaner waters across

America, which, for the first time, targets individual waterways for

clean-up plans tailored specifically to their needs.

It provides new funding to protect our waterways from polluted

run-off, the largest remaining threat to America’s water quality

and gives the States the flexibility they need to address this threat

allowing up to 19 percent of the clean water revolving fund to be

used for this critical goal.

The President’s budget provides the necessary funding for one of

the Nation’s top environmental priorities, protecting children’s

health, including targeting such special threats to children as lead

contamination, air pollution that contributes to asthma, and dangerous levels of pesticide residues in foods.

The President’s budget also provides for a creative clean air partnership fund. The partnership fund promotes early reductions in

air pollution.

It fosters partnerships and flexibility between State and local

governments in order to encourage new ideas for improving air

quality that are custom-built by and for local communities.

16

This budget calls for continuing to expand the public’s right to

know, including a new effort to develop a network for key environmental data with our State partners.

That new network will be aimed at ensuring data quality, achieving reductions in reporting burdens, and enhancing public access.

The budget calls for continuing our success in cleaning up the

Nation’s worst toxic sites.

It calls for investing in our highly successful Brownfields program so that more communities can work together to create jobs

and put abandoned properties back to work.

The budget again calls for making our communities more livable

through Better America Bonds.

The administration is proposing this innovative financial tool to

give communities resources they need to make their own decisions

about preserving green spaces, addressing water pollution concerns, and promoting attractive settings for economic development.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairmens, plural, this budget builds on 7

years of proven success.

It builds on 7 years of developing the kind of programs that the

American public wants.

It is a budget that will build strong American communities

through partnerships and cooperation through tough health standards and through innovative, flexible strategies.

It is a budget that will ensure a strong economy and a healthy

environment for this country.

We look forward to working with you, and we will be happy to

answer any of your questions.

[The prepared statement of Robert Perciasepe follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT PERCIASEPE, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR AIR

AND RADIATION, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Chairman Oxley, Chairman Bilirakis and Members of the Subcommittees, I am

pleased to be here today to present the Clinton-Gore Administration’s FY 2001

budget request for the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA). I am joined today by

Assistant Administrators for major programs in the Environmental Protection Agency. We appreciate the opportunity to discuss the FY 2001 request for our respective

programs, present an overview of the accomplishments of these programs, and respond to questions.

I speak for all of my colleagues today when I express my thanks to your two Subcommittees for working with our respective Program Offices over the years. While

we may not have agreed on every issue and policy, we know that the members of

the Subcommittees do share our goal of protecting the public health and the environment.

EPA’s $7.3 billion request, and the $2.15 billion Better America Bonds program,

continue and strengthen the Administration’s commitment to the environment and

public health by providing our nation’s families and communities with cleaner

water, cleaner air and an improved quality of life.

The Clinton-Gore budget protects the health and the environment of the American

public. Last year, however, Congress ‘‘earmarked’’ from EPA’s budget some $470

million for more than 320 special projects in individual congressional districts.

These earmarks direct money from the Agency’s core programs—the very programs

that keep the environmental cops on the beat, use the best science to set standards

to protect our children, and support the work of our partners, the states, tribes and

local governments. That is why we are not carrying forward last year’s earmarks,

and that is why we will continue this year to oppose earmarks.

We also remain strongly opposed to any legislative riders that undermine our

country’s basic environmental laws. Our goal is to work with this Committee, and

others in Congress with jurisdiction over this country’s environmental laws, to provide real protections for the Nation. I strongly believe that the authorizing commitVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:15 Sep 18, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 64026.TXT HCOM2 PsN: HCOM2
17

tees, the traditional forum for discussing these issues, should again guide the process.

By providing our children and our communities with cleaner air, cleaner water

and an improved quality of life, this budget maintains the Administration’s dedication to the protection of public health and the environment. This budget ensures

that the EPA will aggressively build on seven years of unprecedented environmental

progress accomplished during the Clinton-Gore Administration.

Over the past seven years of unprecedented economic progress, this Administration, working with Congress, has distinguished itself through unprecedented environmental progress. While each of my colleagues present today will discuss the specifics of their FY 2001 budgets, as well as accomplishments, new investments, and

long-term goals, I would like to highlight some of these areas.

Office of Air and Radiation

In 1990, Congress passed the Clean Air Act Amendments with overwhelming support, setting ambitious air pollution reduction goals. Since then, we have achieved

unprecedented success in cleaning our nation’s air and protecting public health. We

have achieved these successes through rulemakings, voluntary measures, market

mechanisms, state partnerships, and stakeholder negotiations.

From 1970 to 1997, U.S. Gross Domestic Product has grown by 114 percent, the

U.S. population by 31 percent, and the number of miles traveled by on-road vehicles

(VMT) by 127 percent. Yet, the aggregate emissions of criteria pollutants—ozone

precursors, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide and lead—are down

31 percent. Emissions are down significantly for each of these pollutants except for

nitrogen oxides (NOX), which have increased somewhat. Lead emissions have been

cut 98 percent. Most of these declines in emissions can be attributed to implementation of the Clean Air Act. A few prominent examples of Clean Air Act successes

since 1990 include the following:

• In the Acid Rain program, electric utilities have reduced sulfur dioxide (SO22)

emissions by 22%, or 3.5 million tons, and have cut rainfall acidity in the East

by up to 25%.

• The U.S. and other developed countries have phased out production of many of

the chemicals most harmful to the stratospheric ozone layer, including CFCs.

We have estimated that, once completed, the worldwide phase out will prevent

approximately 295 million skin cancers in the U.S. through 2075.

• The air in our cities is cleaner that it has been in a long time. Nationally, average

air quality levels have improved for all five of six common pollutants subject

to air quality standards. There have been dramatic reductions in the number

of areas violating these standards.

• Through our voluntary climate change programs, the American people have enjoyed a significant return on their investment. For every dollar spent by EPA

on its voluntary energy efficiency programs, the private sector and consumers

have been encouraged to invest more than $15.00 in new more efficient technologies; businesses and consumers have saved over $70.00; and greenhouse

gases have been reduced by more than half a ton of carbon equivalent.

FY 2001 Budget Request: The Office of Air and Radiation is requesting a total

of $831 million for FY 2001. Of that total, $308 million is for grants to states, tribes

and localities. $523 million is for the operating programs.

EPA is also requesting funding in FY 2001 for the Clean Air Partnership Fund.

This is a priority for the Administration. We proposed the Fund for the first time

last year and we still believe it provides an innovative, yet common sense approach

for speeding reductions in pollution. The President’s Budget requests $85 million for

the Partnership Fund. The Fund will support demonstration projects by cities,

states and tribes that (1) control multiple air pollution problems simultaneously; (2)

leverage the original federal funds; (3) facilitate meaningful public involvement, and

(4) provide examples that can be replicated across the country. By stimulating innovative technology and policies, the Clean Air Partnership Fund will help communities provide clean, healthful air to local citizens.

To address global warming, the Administration is requesting $227 million. We are

proposing an increase of $124 million above the FY 2000 enacted budget for the

third year of the Climate Change Technology Initiative. Under this budget, EPA will

expand its partnership efforts with businesses, organizations, and consumers to

achieve greenhouse gas reductions by taking advantage of the many opportunities

to reduce pollution and energy bills by fostering energy efficient programs, products,

technologies, and cost-effective renewable energy. As a result of work already under

way, EPA efforts with FY 2001 funding will:

18

• Reduce greenhouse gas emissions annually by over 66 million metric on carbon

equivalent, offsetting about 20% of the growth in greenhouse gas emissions

above 1990 levels; • Reduce other forms of pollution, including reducing NOX emissions by about

170,000 tons; • Contribute to developing a new generation of efficient and low-polluting cars and

trucks.

The opportunity to save on our nation’s $500 billion annual energy bill over the

next decade while reducing air pollution is tremendous. The opportunity to reduce

greenhouse gas emissions is also large. We currently expect that more than half of

the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions in 2010 will come from equipment that will

be purchased over the next ten years. We should not forgo this opportunity by not

funding expanded energy efficiency programs. For air toxics, we are requesting $23 million, an increase of $6.6 million over FY

2000 operating plan levels, to address the final round of MACT standards by the

May 2002 ‘‘hammer date’’—the date by which states must determine controls for

such sources if EPA has not acted.

The request for the Montreal Protocol Fund totals $21 million, an increase of $9

million over the FY 2000 enacted level. The funding to the Protocol is dedicated to

paying our dues to the fund and to reduce accumulated arrearage.

To strengthen our relationships with our state and tribal partners, this budget provides $215 million in state and tribal grants to help implement solutions to air

pollution problems locally. Of these resources, a $5 million increase will be targeted

to regional planning bodies to combat the problem of regional haze—one of the most

obvious effects of air pollution. Additionally, $8 million is provided to our state and

tribal partners to design, implement, and maintain radon programs.

Office of Water

EPA is in its 4th full year of implementation of the 1996 Safe Drinking Water

Act Amendments, and we are very proud of the progress we have made in meeting

the ambitious agenda laid out in the Act to ensure safe drinking water and protect

public health. Substantial achievements have been made in terms of establishing

protective, scientifically sound standards, promoting source water protection as an

integral part of a comprehensive drinking water program, fostering the consumer’s

right-to-know, and increasing funding to states and communities. Among the examples are:

• Promulgation of two health-based regulations that: 1) strengthen efforts directed

to microbial contaminants and protect Americans from waterborne pathogens,

such as cryptosporidium, and 2) address health risks associated with the byproducts of chemical disinfection. • Implementation of the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) and expeditious actions by the states to award loans to local communities to build and

upgrade their drinking water facilities. To date, so far, Congress has provided

$3.6 billion in funding for the Drinking Water SRF program. • We expect shortly that states will make their 1,000th loan under the DWSRF,

representing nearly $2 billion in loan assistance to local communities. By the

end of FY 2001, we expect that 1,800 loans will have been made and some 450

SRF-funded projects will have initiated operations.

While our successes are indeed noteworthy, significant challenges lie before us as

the drinking water community—EPA, the states and localities, drinking water systems and stakeholders—strive to address and implement the remaining requirements of the SDWA amendments. For EPA, the most pressing long-term activities

are to:

• Make regulatory determinations on the first Contaminant Candidate List (CCL)—

August 2001. • Issue a second regulation on byproducts of chemical disinfection—May 2002. • Review more than 80 existing National Primary Drinking Water Regulations—

August 2002. • Develop the second Contaminant Candidate List (CCL2)—August 2003. • Compile and maintain complete, accurate, and timely data in the Safe Drinking

Water Information System on states’ implementation and compliance with existing and new regulations.

To meet these regulatory requirements, EPA must make sure that there is a solid

scientific underpinning for setting new drinking water standards for contaminants

identified on the Contaminant Candidate List that was issued in 1998, for controlling disinfection by-products, for reviewing and revising regulations for contaminants that are already being regulated, and for developing the CCL that is to be

published in 2003.

19

FY 2001 Budget Request: A critical concern is to balance these research needs

over the next several years to ensure that we have the science necessary to make

sound regulatory decisions. To help address this need, the Agency is requesting an

additional $5 million for drinking water research, especially for research on CCL

contaminants.

The States face the daunting task of: 1) adopting new regulations (more than ten

by the end of 2000) that have been issued as well as maintaining compliance with

existing regulations, and, 2) reporting comprehensive, accurate and timely data to

the Safe Drinking Water Information System. To support the States in these activities, the FY 2001 President’s budget includes a request of $93 million for Public

Water System Supervision (PWSS) grants to States. To address drinking water infrastructure needs, $825 million is requested for the Drinking Water SRF, a $5 million increase above the FY 2000 levels.

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response

The Superfund, Brownfields, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),

Underground Storage Tank, Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention,

and Oil programs share an important common goal of ensuring that America’s

wastes will be managed and remediated in ways that prevent harm to people and

to the environment. These programs directly support the Administration’s efforts to

build strong and healthy communities for the 21st Century.

FY 2001 Budget Request: The Administration is requesting $1.45 billion in discretionary budget authority and $150 million in mandatory budget authority for fiscal year 2001 in support of the Superfund program to clean up the Nation’s most

serious hazardous waste sites. The Superfund program will continue to emphasize

the completion of construction at NPL sites and the use of removal actions to protect

human health and the environment. The President’s goal of 900 construction completions is still on schedule to be achieved by the end of fiscal year 2002. Through

three rounds of Administrative Reforms, the Administration has been successful in

achieving a fairer, more effective, and more efficient Superfund program. More than

three times as many NPL sites have had completed construction in the past seven

years than in the prior twelve years of the program. Approximately 90% sites on

the NPL now are either undergoing cleanup construction (remedial or removal) or

are completed, and approximately 6,000 removal actions have been taken at hazardous waste sites to immediately reduce the threat to public health and the environment.

The Agency is requesting $91.7 million in fiscal year 2001 to continue implementation of the successful Brownfields Initiative. EPA’s Brownfields Initiative, announced by Administrator Browner in 1995, serves as a catalyst to empower states,

local governments, communities, and other stakeholders interested in environmental

cleanup and economic redevelopment to work together in preventing, assessing,

safely cleaning up, and reusing hundreds of thousands of abandoned, idled, or

under-used industrial and commercial properties (brownfields). To date, EPA has

awarded 307 assessment pilots to local communities. These pilots have resulted in

the assessment of 1,687 brownfields properties, generated nearly 6,000 cleanup and

redevelopment jobs, and leveraged over $1.8 billion. Beyond assessment, EPA has

awarded 68 Brownfields Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund (BCRLF) pilots representing

88 communities to enable eligible states, tribes and political subdivisions to capitalize revolving loan funds for use in the cleanup and sustainable reuse of

brownfields. Further, EPA and its federal partners have named 16 Brownfields

Showcase Communities to serve as national models demonstrating the benefits of

collaborative activity to clean up and redevelop brownfields. EPA also has awarded

21 Job Training Pilots to community-based organizations, community colleges, universities, states, tribes, political subdivisions and non-profit groups.

The Administration is requesting $224 million to support the RCRA program in

FY 2001. The RCRA program protects human health and the environment from hazardous wastes by: reducing or eliminating the amount of waste generated; encouraging waste recycling and recovery; ensuring that wastes are managed in an environmental safe manner; and cleaning up contamination resulting from past mismanagement of industrial wastes. The RCRA program is predominantly implemented by authorized states, and one of the Agency’s highest priorities continues

to be providing funding and assistance to state programs, and working with states

to remove any federal barriers to making progress in state solid and hazardous

waste programs.

EPA will continue to provide leadership, technical assistance and support for recycling and source reduction through voluntary programs such as our WasteWise and

Jobs Through Recycling programs. In 1998, the fifth year of the program,

WasteWise partners reduced over 7.7 million tons of waste through prevention and

20

recycling. Under RCRA Corrective Action, the focus is on environmental goals at

over 1,700 high priority facilities. In July of 1999, EPA announced a series of RCRA

reforms that are already producing faster and more flexible cleanup actions. Specifically, the cleanup reforms reduce impediments to achieving effective and timely

cleanups, enhance state and stakeholder involvement, and encourage innovative approaches. The Administration’s fiscal year 2001 request includes additional resources that are absolutely necessary to implement these reforms, and to stay on

track to meet the goals. The Agency is requesting $87.3 million in fiscal year 2001 to support the Underground Storage Tank (UST) and Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) programs. EPA and states have made significant progress in addressing the UST problem. Since the inception of the UST program in the late 1980’s, more than 1.3 million substandard USTs have been closed. EPA will continue to work with the States

to increase the compliance rate with the spill, overfill, and corrosion (1998 upgrade

requirements) portion of the regulations. EPA also will continue to work with the

States to improve the compliance rate with the leak detection requirements. One of

EPA’s highest priorities for FY 2001 is, in conjunction with the states, to undertake

a major multi-year effort to increase owners’ and operators’ compliance rates with

the leak detection requirements.

Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

EPA has fundamentally changed the Agency’s compliance program to achieve better public health and environmental results. The basis of this program is a strong,

well-targeted enforcement program that addresses very serious environmental violations. It is complimented by an equally strong compliance assistance and incentives

program directed toward achieving greater compliance. This system of carrots and

sticks has served us well and we believe it will continue to serve us well in the future.

I would like to share the results of these improvements to this program. Over the

past four years, EPA has required reductions in emissions of nearly 5.9 billion

pounds of NOx, over 700 million pounds of PCB-contaminated material, and over

409 million pounds of CO. These actions have resulted in more than $479 million

in environmental improvements from supplemental environmental projects; $8.7 billion (including $2.7 billion in superfund) in environmental cleanups, installations of

pollution control equipment, and improved monitoring; and $849 million in fines.

OECA has also built an excellent compliance assistance program. Many in the

regulated community, particularly small businesses and small communities, need

assistance to comply with the law. EPA has ten compliance assistance centers on

the Internet that are being visited over 700 times a day. In FY 1999, these centers

were visited about 260,000 times. In addition, in FY 1999, compliance assistance activities and tools—seminars, on-site assistance, mailings and handouts—reached

about 330,000 entities.

Though OECA has accomplished a lot to date, our compliance assistance program

is not yet complete. Last year, the compliance assistance program worked with its

stakeholders to identify remaining needs, and issued an action plan in January,

2000. A cornerstone of that plan involves the enrichment of OECA’s compliance assistance program. We are in a unique position to deliver compliance assistance materials to a wide audience, including compliance assistance providers who work directly with the regulated community. In effect, EPA will take on more of a ‘‘wholesaler’’ role in the delivery of compliance assistance. Among other things, we will continue to create tools, such as compliance guides and Internet assistance centers.

OECA is also developing a compliance assistance clearinghouse, a searchable web

site that will give users access to compliance assistance materials developed by

EPA, states, trade associations, and other assistance providers.

In the last few years, OECA has also put in place incentives for those who want

to self-police and discover and disclose environmental violations. Many responsible

companies are using the EPA’s Self-Disclosure Policy. To date, almost 700 companies have disclosed violations at over 2700 facilities. Companies like GTE and American Airlines have recognized the benefit of the Self-Disclosure Policy by making

multi-facility, multi-state disclosures. As a result of an initiative with the telecommunications industry that stemmed from the GTE disclosure, environmental

violations have been corrected at 750 telecommunication facilities.

Finally, OECA has made ground-breaking progress in measuring the outcomes of

performance. With input from the States, we developed state of the art methods to

measure the impact of our enforcement and compliance activities. Beginning this

year, these measures will, among other things, give this office a better understanding of significant noncompliance by high priority facilities and the improvements that result from compliance assistance.

21

FY 2001 Budget Request: To maintain this progress in Fiscal Year 2001, EPA

has requested a total of $474 million and 3,540 workyears for the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.

Of the amount requested, $177 million and 1,137 workyears are from the Superfund Trust Fund to ensure that the parties responsible for contamination at Superfund sites continue to do the majority of the cleanups. EPA’s ‘‘Enforcement First’’

strategy has resulted in responsible parties performing or paying for more than 70%

of long-term cleanups since 1991, thereby conserving the Superfund Trust Fund for

sites for which there are no viable or liable responsible parties. This approach has

saved taxpayers more than $16 billion to date—more than $13 billion in response

settlements and nearly $2.5 billion in cost recovery settlements.

Another portion of the request, $27 million, is to provide grants directly to States

and Tribes to carry out pesticides and toxic substances enforcement programs. The

State and Tribal grant programs are designed to build environmental partnerships

with States and Tribes and to strengthen their ability to address environmental and

public health threats. These threats include contaminated drinking water, pesticides

in food, hazardous waste, toxic substances and air pollution. The program will

award more than $25 million in State and Tribal enforcement grants in 2001 to assist in the implementation of the enforcement provisions of the Toxic Substances

Control Act (TSCA) and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act

(FIFRA). These grants support state and tribal compliance activities to protect the

environment from harmful chemicals and pesticides.

The bulk of the resource request provides the essential monies needed to continue

the work that is being discussed today. This work includes inspections and monitoring, criminal and civil enforcement and training, compliance assistance, and compliance incentives. It also includes OECA’s work in environmental justice, and our

review of environmental impact statements and environmental assessments under

the National Environmental Policy Act.

Office of Pollution, Prevention and Toxic Substances

Through the Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, EPA is making

substantial new investments in programs implementing the Food Quality Protection

Act of 1996 (FQPA) as well as the Toxic Substances Control Act. FQPA brought

comprehensive reform to our nation’s pesticide and food safety laws—setting in motion many fundamental changes in our approach to protecting human health and

the environment from risks associated with pesticide use. FQPA focuses on the registration of reduced risk pesticides to provide an alternative to the older versions

on the market, and on developing and delivering information on alternative pesticides/techniques and best pest control practices to pesticide users. Under the Toxic

Substances Controls Act, EPA identifies and controls unreasonable risks associated

with chemicals.

Meeting FQPA’s immediate and more stringent requirements for a single, healthbased safety standard for new and existing pesticides, while also maintaining momentum for bringing new biologicals and safer products to market, has been an extraordinary challenge. EPA’s activities have been guided by four principles: using

sound science in protecting public health, developing a sufficiently transparent implementation process, providing a process for the reasonable transition of agriculture to new pest management strategies, and maintaining open consultation with

the public and other agencies. EPA will continue to work closely with our federal,

state and tribal partners, as well as with our many public stakeholders to seek guidance and meaningful public involvement in FQPA implementation activities.

Since enactment of FQPA, EPA has registered 89 new pesticide active ingredients,

56 of which are considered ‘‘safer’’ than conventional pesticides. FQPA also requires

EPA to reassess all 9721 pesticide tolerances and tolerance exemptions that were

in effect when the law was passed. As required by FQPA, EPA reassessed 3,290 tolerances by July 30, 1999, surpassing the 33% goal for August 1999.

FY 2001 Budget Request: EPA will address serious deficiencies in the availability of basic health and environmental hazard information for chemicals manufactured in, or imported into the United States in amounts greater than one million

pounds per year. EPA will continue to invest in the High Production Volume (HPV)

Challenge Program, which will provide information on over 2000 chemicals through

a voluntary program with over 435 company partners. In addition, the 2001 request

includes $75 million to help meet the multiple challenges on the implementation of

FQPA so that all Americans will continue to enjoy one of the safest, most abundant,

and most affordable food supplies in the world. In 2001 EPA will:

• Reassess an additional 1,200 of the 9,721 existing pesticide tolerances to ensure

that they meet the statutory standard of ‘‘reasonable certainty of no harm.’’

22

Support for tolerance reassessments will reduce the risks to public health from

older pesticides.

• Complete reassessment of a cumulative 66 percent (560) of the 848 tolerances of

special concern in protecting the health of children.

• Help farmers improve their pest management strategies through the Regional

Strategic Agricultural Partnerships Initiative, and the Pesticide Environmental

Stewardship Program.

Office of Environmental Information

The unprecedented change in information technology and the burgeoning public

thirst for information have radically altered the information landscape in the course

of just a few years. Just this past October, our Agency finalized a major reorganization aimed at consolidating and enhancing EPA’s management of environmental information. This reorganization brings together in one organization various functions

related to the collection, management, and use of EPA’s information by the Agency,

its State and Tribal partners, and the public. The creation of the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) resulted from Administrator Browner’s view that information is an essential resource for environmental decision-making. This new centralized focus on information, under the leadership of an Assistant Administrator, adds

additional authority to the Agency’s Chief Information Officer position, and enables

the Agency to provide better guidance and oversight of data integrity and quality

issues. In response, EPA has taken major steps to improve and enhance its environmental information capabilities and its overall approach to information.

Our new Office of Environmental Information (OEI) is the first federal agency to

recognize the critical inter-dependencies between the information the Agency collects and disseminates, and the policy and technology needed to support and secure

it. The FY 2001 budget request of $168M for OEI will support efforts to improve

how the Agency collects, manages, integrates and provides access to environmental

information.

Working with State and Tribal partners and stakeholders, OEI is striving to make

data more useful and understandable for informing decisions, improve information

management, reducing reporting burdens, measuring success, and enhancing public

access. The Agency has seen the value of putting information in the hands of the

American people, as their increased knowledge becomes a force for protecting public

health and the environment. We have provided communities with increased access

to more information about pollutants released into their communities by greatly expanding the public’s right-to-know. Access to environmental information has led to

creative and sustainable solutions to environmental risks and opportunities for preventing pollution.

The President’s budget continues to enhance the public’s right-to-know about environmental emissions in their local communities through several initiatives. One of

the new efforts represents a fundamentally new approach to ensuring the efficient

collection and management and broad public dissemination of high quality environmental data. Under the Information Integration Initiative, the Administration will

work with the States to develop one of the Nation’s greatest sources of shared environmental information. We are also stepping up our efforts to assure data accuracy,

stakeholder involvement, information security, and information dissemination while

balancing public interest in these emerging areas of public policy.

Office of Research and Development

The Agency’s key priorities of clean air, clean water, healthy children, healthy

ecosystems, and partnerships with stakeholders provide the structure for the Agency’s ORD budget request for FY 2001. Over the last five years, ORD has undertaken

an ambitious modernization and streamlining effort. We reorganized our National

Laboratories and research portfolio along the Risk Assessment/Risk Management

paradigm. We balanced our research activities across the two broad categories of

Problem-Driven Research (to solve environmental problems of high risk and high

scientific uncertainty) and Core Research (to improve the underlying scientific tools

for understanding and protecting human health and the environment). We continue

to enhance the linkages between these mutually reinforcing aspects of our scientific

mission.

Recent work on an updated ORD Strategic Plan 2000 is reinforcing our organization’s alignment around and attainment of our strategic goals. By planning our FY

2001 research program within the structure of EPA’s Strategic Plan, we are ensuring that ORD’s research program solidly supports EPA’s National Program Offices.

Our budget request will continue to assure that ORD will provide leading-edge

science and engineering to support EPA’s environmental decision-making.

Let me give you a few examples of the important research ORD is providing:

23

• ORD evaluated the overall ecological conditions of estuaries in the Gulf of Mexico,

which are critical for commercial fisheries, wildlife habitat, and recreational opportunities. Results of this research (published in our report Ecological Condition of the Estuaries in the Gulf of Mexico) will assist resource managers and

the public in focusing on solutions for the most serious problems. • ORD established five Airborne Particulate Matter (PM) Research Centers to advance the understanding of the health effects of particulate matter by drawing

upon the expertise of some of the nation’s leading researchers outside of the federal government. The Centers were established via competitive grants awarded

to universities through the Science to Achieve Results (STAR) program. • An ORD scientist led the research that will support EPA decisions to protect lakes

and streams from acid rain. The study examined trends in lake and stream recovery from acid rain in North America and Europe. The study, which was reported in Nature, involved investigators from nine countries, and found that recovery was occurring in some regions, with signs of likely recovery in others.

ORD effectively leverages the Nation’s scientific resources by partnering with

other Federal Agencies on the Committee on Environment and Natural Resources

(CENR) and through our Science to Achieve Results (STAR) grants to scientists and

engineers in universities and not-for-profit science organizations. Our partnerships

are the result of multiple layers of careful integration that ensure that all external

work complements and strengthens our in-house research. Partnering with Federal

Agencies provides a common sense and cost-effective way for us to utilize the special

expertise residing outside of our Agency, while also reducing overlapping and duplicative work.

ORD’s FY 2001 budget request builds upon ORD’s significant accomplishments,

supports the Agency’s mission, and provides the scientific and technical information

that is essential for EPA to achieve its long-term goals. The research and development program outlined in this office’s budget request reflects both ORD’s highly effective in-house research program, and our efforts to partner and work with other

research organizations. ORD is seeking $107M in support of our Science to Achieve

Results (STAR) grants program which leverages our research capabilities by tapping

into expertise from the Nation’s top academic and not-for-profit scientific organizations through a variety of competitive grants, investigator-initiated exploratory research awards, graduate fellowships and environmental research centers. Further,

the office’s long range program of hiring Postdoctoral scientists and engineers for

three year appointments, boosts our state-of-the science expertise to ensure that we

produce outstanding scientists and engineers in the field of environmental protection. ORD is focused on optimizing the delivery of timely RESULTS to our Agency

customers, stakeholders, and the American public.

FY 2001 Budget Request: The Office of Research and Development’s FY 2001

budget request supports the Agency’s key priorities of clean air, clean water, healthy

children, healthy ecosystems, and partnerships with stakeholders. The Agency’s

total FY 2001 request in the Science and Technology (S&T) account is $674.3 million and 2464 total work years, an increase of $32 million and four work years from

the FY 2000 enacted level. ORD’s total FY 2001 request is $530 million and 1972

work years. Of this total, ORD’s FY 2001 request in the S&T account is $492.5 million and 1848 work years. The Office of Research and Development’s key research

efforts will include:

• Particulate Matter—In 2001, EPA is requesting $65.3M to support PM chronic

epidemiology research to evaluate the role of chronic PM and co-pollutant exposure in producing death and disease, and to assess the most prominent PM

health risks. This work continues to provide sound science in support of establishing NAAQS and builds upon an extensive network of ORD partnerships

with other agencies under the auspices of the Committee on Environment and

Natural Resources. • Drinking Water Research—We are requesting $48.9M, a $5 million increase to

support the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996 which require EPA

to publish a list of unregulated contaminants to aid in priority setting for the

Agency’s drinking water program. The existing Contaminant Candidate List

(CCL) categorizes 60 chemicals and microbes where additional research in the

areas of health effects, analytical methods and/or treatment is necessary to provide a sound scientific basis for regulatory decision making. This builds on important FY 2000 accomplishments in identifying drinking water disinfections

byproducts and evaluating their relative toxicities.

• Ecosystem Protection Research—In requesting $106.1M to continue our successful ecological assessment work in the Nation’s coastal waters, we are increasing our understanding of their condition and how they can be protected.

In particular, in 2001, we will focus attention on the second year of the EnvironVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:15 Sep 18, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 64026.TXT HCOM2 PsN: HCOM2
24

mental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) Western Pilot to sample

estuaries, streams and rivers, and landscapes in 12 western states. We will also

enter the second year of our Regional Vulnerability Assessment project to combine modeled projections of changes in stresses (e.g. pollution deposition, land

use change) with information on sensitive ecosystems to identify the greatest

environmental risks in the next 5-25 years.

Again, I am pleased to have presented the highlights of EPA’s Fiscal Year 2001

budget request, and we appreciate this opportunity to appear before the Subcommittees to discuss these highlights indepth.

Mr. OXLEY. Thank you, Mr. Perciasepe. The Chair recognizes

himself for 5 minutes for the first round of questions.

Mr. Shapiro, welcome. I understand you are filling in for Tim

Fields, and we appreciate your being here.

As you know, EPA has repeatedly come before this committee

and testified about the Superfund administrative reforms.

In testimony before our committee and almost every public release, the Agency has touted the success of these administrative reforms as the single most important reason why we don’t need

Superfund reform legislation.

I understand you grouped these reforms by the Agency in three

tiers comprised of a total of 62 separate administrative reforms.

I have a series of questions I would like to ask you about that.

Has EPA quantified its expenditures on designing and implementing these reforms, and can the EPA provide such an estimate

for each one of those reforms?

Mr. SHAPIRO. As far as I can tell, we have not separately identified budget line items associated with developing and implementing the reforms.

So, we would be unable to provide you with precise information

about that.

We could obviously try to roughly approximate it; we have not

kept the books in a way that would allow us to easily measure

costs associated with each reform.

Mr. OXLEY. It is my understanding that EPA has reviewed its reforms, and, using the Agency’s own definitions, EPA concluded that

only 14 of the 62 reforms resulted in fundamental change to the

operation of the Superfund program and produced measurable results.

Put in another way, according to EPA, 48 of the 62 Superfund

administrative reforms either did not produce any measurable results or did not fundamentally change the Superfund program.

If this is the case, how can EPA claim these reforms have made

such an impact on the program?

Why is it that the vast majority of these reforms have been so

ineffective even though you constantly talked about how successful

they have been?

Mr. SHAPIRO. I would like to make a couple of points in response

to that.

First of all, I think, taken as a whole, we continue to believe that

the administrative reforms have had an enormous impact on the

Superfund program.

We have accelerated the rate at which we can bring sites

through to completion.

25

As demonstrated by the statistics in the program, they have actually greatly accelerated our ability to achieve construction completions.

We have reduced the costs of achieving environmentally protective remedies, saving well over a billion dollars through using the

best science and the best technology in our remedies and even

going back and changing remedies when the situation warrants.

We have clearly made the program fairer, and I am sure Steve

Herman has a lot to add on that if you would like to hear from

him.

Again, overall, we think there is quite a good story to tell in

terms of the impacts that the reforms overall have had on the program.

Not every reform is easily measurable, and, therefore, when we

say we can’t necessarily measure the success of the reform, that

doesn’t mean that the reform itself, as a piece of a whole series of

actions to improve the program, has not been an important element.

Finally, even in those cases where we think work remains to be

done, we think that, as in any activity where we are trying to continuously improve our program, the Superfund reform’s effort was

not intended to be a one-shot solution to improving the program.

We intend to learn from the experience in implementing the reforms and, where necessary, work harder to implement those reforms that have not fully worked out, as well as learn from both

our own internal experience the experience of our stakeholders as

to areas where we can continue to introduce new improvements

into the program.

Mr. OXLEY. As you know, we have offered to put into the legislation those reforms that the EPA felt would work or that have

worked.

We felt that, if they were so effective, that it would be important

to put them into law.

But, in essence, we have been unable to connect those dots.

Let me ask you a question about the Superfund program. At the

end of fiscal 1999, you claim that fully 92 percent of the sites are

on the NPL list who are undergoing clean-up construction or were

completed.

Even allowing for additions of new sites as projected by EPA, it

appears clear that the future size of the NPL will be much smaller.

Does the Agency anticipate a significant reduction in the funding

requirements to the program as it matures further?

Mr. SHAPIRO. We think, at this point, it is premature to speculate

on the eventual size of the program.

But, certainly for the foreseeable future, the workload ahead of

us in terms of the number of NPL sites that remain to be worked

on, as well as the other very important responsibilities of the program, including responding to emergencies, cleaning up sites under

our removal program, maintaining the integrity of remedies where

we have to go back and doing periodic reviews is such that we are

not, at this point, comfortable projecting a reduction or ramp-down

in the size of the program.

There is, as you know, a very important study that has been

chartered by Congress, being undertaken by Resources for the FuVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:15 Sep 18, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 64026.TXT HCOM2 PsN: HCOM2
26

ture, to look at, over a 10-year period, the projected costs of the

program, both in completing current NPL sites as well as looking

at other key components of the program.

Certainly, EPA has been cooperating fully with RFF in that endeavor.

We look forward to seeing the results of that work.

Mr. OXLEY. When do you expect to see those results?

Mr. SHAPIRO. My understanding is that it will go to Congress.

RFF is projecting that they will have a draft report available by

the end of this year.

Mr. OXLEY. So you are asking for a billion and a half dollars for

the program despite the fact that the EPA has consistently said

that 92 percent of the sites were undergoing clean-up construction?

It just seemed, from our perspective in a budgetary perspective,

somewhat of a disconnect, where EPA is talking about 92 percent

in the pipeline being completed.

The program is obviously being ramped down, which I think is

a positive thing.

Yet, it continues to ask for a billion and a half dollars in the face

of what appears to be a rather effective ramp- down.

Mr. SHAPIRO. Again, even to achieve our goal of 900 construction

completions by the year 2002, the $1.45 billion, funding that the

President has asked for, we believe is absolutely critical in order

to maintain ongoing work at sites that are under construction but

have more work to be done as well, as to begin this year, or rather

2001, work on additional sites that we will need to bring into completion in order to achieve those results.

So, our success to date and our projected success in the future

in terms of bringing that 92 percent fully into construction completion depends very significantly on our ability to get the $1.45 billion that the President has asked for.

Mr. OXLEY. My time is expired. Let me now recognize Co-Chair—

the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Bilirakis.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Shapiro, first, let

me just say Mr. Markey, who gave his opening statement and left,

very eloquently shared with us some of the successes, if you will,

or credits, of the work of the EPA over the years.

I think we all certainly subscribe to that and feel EPA has done

an awful lot of good things.

I would also say that, you know, we act laws up here, and quite

often we eventually see them in practice.

As a result of these, we had a chemical site—and I am sorry Mr.

Fields is not here, but I assume you are familiar with it.

I actually saw and am seeing constantly EPA in action, and I

want to first say that they have been terrifically cooperative.

It has just been great to work with them, and I am really

pleased, in general.

But—There is always a ‘‘but,’’ isn’t there? As you may know, they

made certain recommendations in terms of clean- up.

It took getting the ombudsman down there to town meetings—

a third one probably coming up—to determine that, in fact, they

did not take into consideration the geology of the area.

27

Or, at least, they didn’t adequately take into consideration the

geology of the area—the geophysics, if you will, of the area, that

sort of thing—an awful lot of sinkholes, you know, in that area.

I guess what I am saying is, rather than get to the details of all

of that—because we have spent an awful lot of time together, and

I am pleased to say that all parties seem to be willing to get together to kind of work out a new clean-up type of a process.

But, the role of the ombudsman—I was a member of the committee when we had the Clean Air Act.

You know, it was all cranked in there, and I guess that it is more

of a word than anything else to all of us.

But, I have seen that role. You know, I am concerned. I said in

my opening statement I am concerned that there seems to be

maybe a reduction of funding toward that end.

I want to hear from you, and maybe from Mr. Perciasepe—which

would be coming, I assume, from the Administrator herself—what

you all consider the role of the ombudsman and what you think the

future of the ombudsman’s role would be, and what your intent

might be regarding that role.

Mr. SHAPIRO. Thank you. Again, I don’t necessary want to get

into the details of the Stouffer Chemicals site.

There are a lot of different points of view there, and I know you

have certainly spent a lot of time yourself personally at the hearings and with the ombudsman.

Speaking more generally about the ombudsman function, it is

certainly one that the Agency views as important especially in the

Superfund program and other hazardous waste programs because

of the intense interest that communities have in these sites, and

because of the fact that often there are legitimate differences in

point of view.

Citizens feel like they need an independent outlet for voicing

some of their concerns and pursuing evaluation of the Agency’s actions.

So, the current Assistant Administrator, Tim Fields, as well as

his predecessors, have maintained this important ombudsman function.

That function reports to the Assistant Administrator and is funded out of the funds that are appropriated for operation of OSWER

programs.

There is no separate line item for the ombudsman, but, frankly,

for the ombudsman and any staff that are supporting the ombudsman activities, it comes out of the budget that we use to operate

the Assistant Administrator’s office.

There has been no reduction in that in the President’s proposal.

Certainly, our intent is to continue funding the ombudsman’s activities at least at the level that we currently have them.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Do you have those figures handy?

Mr. SHAPIRO. I don’t have a separate break-out.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. You know what that means, of course?

Mr. SHAPIRO. But, we can certainly get an estimate. Right now,

that would involve the salary for the ombudsman, and one individual that spends most of his time working with the ombudsman.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Can you furnish us in writing the information regarding that?

28

I had other things here, but we have taken up the entire 5 minutes.

But, please furnish that information to us. I would like to know

basically, not only the dollars specifically, but maybe extended out

to the future in terms of the future role of the ombudsman, because

I introduced legislation to make sure that that position will stay

forward.

I would hope that EPA would support that. Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

[The following was received for the record:]

OSWER funds the National Ombudsman activities out of funds used to operate

the Assistant Administrators’s office. Funding for the past 2 years is shown below:

FY99

($000)

FY00

($000)

Payroll .............................................................................................................................................. $194.3 $203.5

Travel ............................................................................................................................................... $30.5 $30.5

Grants/Contracts .............................................................................................................................. $29.8 $62.4

Other ................................................................................................................................................ $5.0 $5.0

Total ................................................................................................................................................. $259.6 $301.4

It is OSWERs intention to continue funding the National Ombudsman function

at the same level it has been funded in the past.

Mr. OXLEY. The time of the gentleman has expired. The gentleman from the Upper Peninsula.

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Director of the Office of Management and Budget has concluded that the Republican

budget passed last week would cut next year’s budget for most nonDefense programs by an average of 9 percent.

His letter identifies some of the devastating impacts on programs

like Head Start, school repairs, and the hiring of new public school

teachers.

However, today, I would like to ask each member of the panel

to explain the impact of the Republican budget on the Environmental Protection Agency overall, and some of the important public

health programs administered by the EPA.

I don’t know who would want to start.

Mr. PERCIASEPE. We will start with the Chief Financial Officer

on the general budget question.

Mr. RYAN. Yes, sir. If I could simply give a sense of scale for

what this would mean briefly, in general, and then you can direct

questions, as you mentioned, to individual members for specifics.

As we understand it, this 9 percent impact would apply to EPA.

Of course, that hasn’t been determined yet with precision.

But, it would amount to about $680 million. If we were to look

at just, as a sense of scale as to what that means, that is—as I

don’t have to tell members of the committee—about half of everything we have for Superfund.

It would be 60 percent of what the grants we do for States and

tribes in air and water programs.

It really is slightly more than what we have for all of our science

and technology budget.

It would pretty much be a devastating blow. Obviously, we don’t

know how a new Administrator would take these cuts with precision.

29

We do know that we wouldn’t think that anyone would logically

take it from one place, but I offer these up just for a sense of scale.

But, even if you were to proportionately spread it out, it would

be a tremendous hit.

If you just take a tenth of it—that $68 million—that would pretty much wipe out our leaking underground storage tank funding,

for example, for a year.

So, it would be a very devastating hit. It would be very, very difficult for us to absorb.

We’ve got major damage to the environmental work that is ongoing, that other members of the panel are better able to describe

than I am.

But, it is not hard to imagine that you can manage that magnitude of a cut in 1 year without stopping doing something significant.

You have to make a significant decision of what you would cut.

Mr. STUPAK. Would other panel members give us some examples

of what other programs—Has the Department or Agency begun to

draw up any kind of plans to administer such a cut?

Mr. RYAN. No, we haven’t started to do that yet. I think people

have looked into their budgets and have asked the question: what

would it mean in terms of a 9 percent cut to my budget.

But, we haven’t started a formal process, because it has been our

experience that these numbers jump around.

We would await the final number before we did a formal, fullblown look at this.

Mr. STUPAK. You indicated a new Administrator would not prob- ably take $680 million out of one program, if there is a program

that big that you have that is half of Superfund, I believe you said,

but take it across other areas.

We have had a lot of discussions in the health and environment

in this past year on Brownfields and drinking water research,

drinking water revolving loan funds.

You mentioned leaking underground storage tanks, one that I

have worked on throughout.

But, there are lead poisoning programs we have talked about.

How would it impact those types of programs, the Brownfields,

which seems to be real popular on both sides of the aisle?

How would it affect a program like that? Can anyone comment

on it?

Mr. RYAN. I think Mr. Shapiro may want to take it for, say, the

9 percent cut to Superfund.

Mr. SHAPIRO. Yes. I think, if one assumed a flat 9 percent Superfund and Brownfields programs, the kind of impacts we would anticipate, for example, would be that, we would virtually have to

eliminate any new construction activities starting up.

We would certainly have a backlog of sites available to begin construction in 2001.

In addition, a cut of that magnitude would probably force us to

scale back ongoing clean-up activities at sites where we have already commenced construction by a significant number.

If one, again, translated that into the Brownfields program, the

$92 million that is in the President’s budget, reduced that by $9

million, would equate, for example, to scaling back the number of

30

communities that could benefit from revolving loan fund funding by

about 20 communities.

So, it would have a very substantial impact on our ability to

move forward to protect citizens around these contaminated sites.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Fox.

Mr. FOX. On the water front, a cut of this magnitude would have

a fairly significant impact on our ability to provide safe drinking

water to all Americans.

If budget cuts of that type are passed, we would have to probably

cut on the order of $75 million in our drinking water loan funds

to small communities throughout the country.

That could affect loans for up to 40 communities, perhaps more.

We give a good deal of resources to the States to help them implement the drinking water programs.

That, too, would be cut substantially outside of the drinking

water fund.

A number of our clean water programs, of course, would also be

very significantly cut, affecting clean-up activities in places like

Chesapeake Bay, Long Island Sound, or the Great Lakes.

It would be a very significant impact.

Mr. OXLEY. The gentleman’s time has expired.

Mr. STUPAK. There is no place to absorb it if you cut these programs. That is what we are hearing?

Mr. FOX. Again, based on what future decisions we made, they

would be very difficult decisions.

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you for your patience. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. OXLEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. The chairman informed the members that we have two votes on the floor.

We have about 8 minutes, or so. I would like to recognize the

gentleman from Kentucky for 5 minutes.

Then, we will stand in recess until after the votes. The gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you. Mr. Shapiro, how many Superfund

sites are there in the U.S.?

Mr. SHAPIRO. In terms of sites that are on the national priorities’

list, including those that have been removed from the list after

work has been completed, there are 1432 sites.

Mr. WHITFIELD. How many of those are operated by the government or the government is responsible for them?

Mr. SHAPIRO. I believe there are about 170 Federal facilities.

Mr. WHITFIELD. One of those facilities is in Paducah, Kentucky,

the gaseous diffusion plant, which has been operated by DoE for

many years prior to privatization.

What is the relationship between DoE and EPA on Superfund

sites, like the gaseous diffusion plant in Paducah?

Mr. SHAPIRO. It is the responsibility of the Federal agency to do

the clean-up with EPA overseeing their operations and selecting

the remedy in consultation with the Federal agency.

However, the funding for the clean-up itself comes out of that

Federal agency’s budget.

Mr. WHITFIELD. So the $1.45 billion that you are requesting in

discretionary funds for Superfund would not be used to clean up

any government site?

31

Mr. SHAPIRO. It would be used to cover our oversight costs in

terms of working on the technical aspects of the remedy and ensuring that the remedy is being implemented.

But, the actual physical cost of remediation would not be covered

in that, that is correct.

Mr. WHITFIELD. But it is ultimately EPA’s responsibility. They

oversee DoE. Is that correct?

Mr. SHAPIRO. It is correct that we oversee DoE. It is DoE’s responsibility to clean up the site, a responsibility that we will enforce.

But, it is certainly their responsibility to do the clean-up.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Do you have any authority over them?

Mr. SHAPIRO. Yes, we do.

Mr. WHITFIELD. What sort of authority do you have? Can you

fine them?

Mr. SHAPIRO. Yes, we can.

Mr. WHITFIELD. What is the maximum fine that you would be

able to find a government agency?

Mr. SHAPIRO. Steve Herman can answer that.

Mr. HERMAN. Congressman Whitfield, what we do is we often

have a compliance agreement with the other Federal agency, which

sets out a schedule of the activities that are supposed to take place.

If they miss those, often they are provided stipulated penalties

for missing those deadlines.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Do you have a compliance agreement with DoE

on the Paducah site?

Mr. HERMAN. I believe we do.

Mr. WHITFIELD. You know, there’s been over $400 million spent

on the Paducah site.

There are still 57,000 barrels of hexafluoride. There’s Drum

Mountain, there are aquifers that have been contaminated.

The Washington Post, on the front page, has written ten articles

about the Paducah site.

It seems to me that someone is not getting the job done there,

and, you know, we talk about being concerned about people—the

air they breathe, the water they drink, which is vitally important,

obviously.

And EPA has made great progress in the area of clean air and

clean water.

But, we have hundreds of employees at Federal sites around the

country who were exposed unknowingly to radiated material.

The communities have suffered, and these sites are not being

cleaned up.

There is no evidence that there is any priority in cleaning them

up.

Mr. HERMAN. The primary priority in the instance you are mentioning is with the Energy Department.

We have been working in various ways with them to try and get

the clean-up that you want and we want done.

What I would be glad to do is get together with you and your

staff and show you exactly what we have done at Paducah, what

the issues are, and then certainly hear any suggestions you have

on how we could do our job better.

32

Mr. WHITFIELD. I will take you up on that, because all the press—They talk about the $400 million being spent.

I know that subcontractors are out there supposedly responsible

for cleaning it up.

But, ultimately, EPA has the legal authority to oversee this and

make sure it is done.

So, I thank you for that offer, and I will be in touch with you,

and I would look forward to doing that.

Mr. HERMAN. I look forward to it, also.

Mr. OXLEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. The committee

will stand in recess for approximately 15 to 20 minutes.

[Brief recess.]

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Let’s get started. Mr. Green to inquire.

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask this

question of Mr. Herman, if I could.

After my opening statement, I will follow up with the questions.

Mr. Chairman, also, if we don’t have within our 5 minutes, because I understand there is not a second round, if we would be able

to submit the questions to the panelists for answers or written answer in the future, we could request that.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. I am just not accustomed to that.

Mr. GREEN. If we could if we don’t finish our questions we have

in the 5 minutes, if we could submit questions.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Customarily, we do that, yes.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Excuse me just 1 minute. Would the gentleman

yield for one moment?

Mr. GREEN. Briefly.

Mr. WHITFIELD. It was my understanding, Mr. Chairman, that

we were going to have an opportunity for a second round.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. I haven’t discussed it with Mr. Oxley, but I believe that would be a good idea.

Mr. WHITFIELD. I know that, walking over there, he said that

would be fine.

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Herman, the Longhorn pipeline I talked about

earlier is the most thoroughly tested and studied refinery product

pipeline ever to come into service in the Lower 48.

Since Longhorn filed for the pipeline conversion in 1997, two

other previous crude service pipelines are up and running, pipelines that were converted from crude to refined products without

the mitigation measures Longhorn is proposing to implement.

I think you are aware that the environmental assessment was

supposed to be completed last September and is still not completed.

The original settlement provided a final EA decision would be

out by September 11 last year.

It turns out the draft EA was not released until October, and the

EPA still has not made a final decision.

Won’t you tell me, in my office and our committee, when we hope

to wrap this up and if we can expect the process to be completed?

Mr. HERMAN. Congressman Green, I will be glad to address that

question.

The environmental assessment, as you know, was done pursuant

to an agreement after a lawsuit had been filed.

The court ruled that we had to do an EIS. The process is that

the environmental assessment is done.

33

A finding of no significant impact was put out, and that was put

out for public comment.

Mr. GREEN. Excuse me. The court didn’t rule you had to do an

environmental impact statement.

Mr. HERMAN. You’re absolutely correct.

Mr. GREEN. Because that is what you said, and I wanted to make

sure the record was correct.

Mr. HERMAN. Let me make myself clear. The court didn’t say

that we had to do an environmental impact statement. What the

law says and what the court says is you do an environmental assessment.

Then, it is determined whether you make a finding of no significant impact and you go ahead with the project, or whether the environmental assessment and the comments raise such questions

that you should do an environmental impact statement.

The status that we and the Transportation Department are at

now is making a determination of whether an EIS is necessary.

The environmental assessment was put out for comment, and, as

you know, 6000 comments were received on both sides of the question.

Mr. GREEN. I attended one of the hearings.

Mr. HERMAN. I understood, from Greg Cook, our Regional Administrator, saw you and spoke to you at that hearing.

I know that our staff is working through these. They are very

sensitive to the issue you raised about the timeframe.

What I can pledge to you is that they are trying to bring this to

a conclusion as quickly as possible.

They want to be sure to do it right, because, as I think we all

know, there will be litigation.

It is very important that every ‘‘i’’ be dotted and ‘‘t’’ be crossed,

and that they address all of the comments.

I am aware of the steps that you said that the pipeline has

taken.

I am not intimately aware with all the comments and the substance of the comments with regard to the objections and everything.

But, I do know that this is a very high priority in the region. The

Justice Department has been involved, and they are working very

hard on it.

Mr. GREEN. The 6000 comments were based on having attended

the hearing, particularly one in Austin, Texas, that was delayed

from December because of the location.

A lot of those comments were duplicative, and they were basically the same concern—the folks who really don’t want a pipeline

that is already there to be used for product instead of crude oil. Is

that correct?

Mr. HERMAN. I am not sure. I do know that, in some cases, we

do get standard comments, and, you know, we are aware of that

dynamic.

Mr. GREEN. Because of the background on this, I would hope and

encourage as quick a decision as possible, because it probably will

be in the courthouse, no matter if you do an EIS, because it is not

just because of the environmental concerns that it is being delayed.

34

It is because of competitive refiners in New Mexico obviously

want to keep a market at El Paso, Texas, and they don’t want to

share it. But, I appreciate your comments today.

Mr. HERMAN. I will relate your comments to my colleagues.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. The gentleman’s time is just about to expire. Not

quite yet.

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, I have an MTBE question for Mr.

Perciasepe, but, if we are going to have a second round, I’ll be glad

to yield back my time and wait for my second round.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. I appreciate that. Dr. Coburn, time to inquire.

Mr. COBURN. First of all, let me thank the gentleman from Florida for allowing me to go out of order.

Mr. Perciasepe, you testified that you have 7 years of proven success.

That very well may be the case, but I want to tell you, in Oklahoma, you don’t have 7 years of proven success.

I want to talk about Tar Creek, and Mr. Fields, I think, is aware

of that program.

Before I ask the questions, I want to outline, so that everybody

knows what’s going on, we have an identical project in Joplin as

to Tar Creek in Ottawa County in Oklahoma.

You all are the supervising agent running that clean-up program.

It costs twice in Oklahoma what it costs to do the same thing in

Joplin. There is a criminal investigation going on right now.

We have involved the FBI in it. Now, I understand that the

Army’s Criminal Investigation Division is in it, because you are

using the Corps to contract.

My question, actually, probably should go to Mr. Fields, unless

you would rather take it yourself.

No. 1, if this is the proven success of the EPA’s management,

why is it that, No. 1, it is behind schedule, No. 2, it costs twice

what it should, and, No. 3, there’s a cost-plus program that bonuses have been paid on even though the home sites——

Most of the people are totally dissatisfied with what the EPA has

done in the clean-up.

No. 4 is the fraud that has gone on, which my office has notified

the EPA of, but they continue to pay the contractor.

I would like to know how the EPA can justify that they, in fact—

that is a proven success record in Oklahoma, when in fact there is

nothing but collusion and proven bribery by now, which we have

already given to the FBI, in the contractor—and the Corps is included in that—and how can you say that this is a proven record

of success?

Mr. FIELDS. Congressman, I would agree with you that we have

some major problems at Tar Creek.

The FBI has been involved. The EPA Office of Inspector General

has been involved.

Mr. COBURN. Could I interrupt just for a minute? I want to tell

you how good your Inspector General is.

They called our office to get the information but never came to

get it.

We have documents this high, which your Inspector General has

never come to get.

Mr. FIELDS. I don’t know the background.

35

Mr. COBURN. There is no background.

Mr. FIELDS. They are working with the FBI. They may have gotten the information from the FBI.

There is a joint effort going on with the Inspector General, the

FBI, and other State investigatory agencies on this issue.

I don’t know what the sources of the FBI, IG, is using, but we

agree there’s some major problems there.

The clean-up is half done. It is going to cost a projected $60 million to get that done.

We think that the Superfund program, overall, has made substantial improvement. This is the site that we have problems in.

We want to complete this job. Now we are projecting by summer

of 2001.

I agree with you that there are significant issues with the Corps

of Engineers contractors.

We are trying to resolve that, and we have—On the average, it

has taken us now 8 years to get clean-ups done.

A lot of time and money has been saved, but I agree with you

that some serious issues have been addressed at Tar Creek.

Criminal activity, obviously, will be referred to the appropriate

authorities, and, if there are criminal activities, there will be prosecution.

But, in the meantime, we are trying to work with the Corps of

Engineers, who is our agent in this case, to get them to get their

contractors back on board so we can do an effective job in getting

this Tar Creek clean-up done by next summer.

Mr. COBURN. I understand you are going to continue to use the

same contractor that has, No. 1, been paid twice for doing half the

remediation down there, plus a cost-plus and the oversight.

EPA is primarily responsible for this, is that not correct?

Mr. FIELDS. EPA has overall responsibility. The Corps of Engineers is carrying it out.

We have not yet concluded, Congressman, whether or not we are

going to utilize all the same contractor personnel or firms to do the

remaining work.

That issue is being assessed now. We’ll have to make some judgment as to whether we change contractors and personnel involved

in the clean-up, because, as you know, we stopped work on February 25 of this year because of the FBI and IG investigations

going on about the criminal activities.

Mr. COBURN. Let me ask, is not the goal of these clean-ups part

of the measurement of the success of the contractor, whether, in

fact, the citizens who have been involved and disrupted are satisfied?

Mr. FIELDS. I agree. Public satisfaction is a major factor, sure.

Mr. COBURN. As a matter of fact, it is part of this contract.

Mr. FIELDS. Yes.

Mr. COBURN. It is written into the contract.

Mr. FIELDS. I assure you I know this has not been a good experience for any of us on either side—either within the government or

outside EPA.

This is an outlier. It is not typical behavior or activity at a

Superfund site.

36

We are as much concerned as you are. We are giving this very

high-priority attention, both in Washington and in our EPA office

in Dallas.

Mr. COBURN. Let me reclaim my time to make sure—Your office,

the EPA Region 6, was notified by me over 18 months ago.

This was brought to the EPA Administrators in Region 6 attention that there was a problem here.

I don’t doubt that there are other areas that are doing well. I

know in Joplin you have done a wonderful job.

I am not critical of the whole thing. What I am saying is what

needs to be addressed in this budget is how does this happen, that,

one, even 18 months later is still going on until February 25 when

my office has notified you that you have major problems.

At the same time, we notified you that we knew there was corruption in the process.

So, my question then would be—and then I will finish, Mr.

Chairman—what steps has EPA taken to oversee the contracts that

they do grant to make sure that their intermediaries, the Corps,

are actually carrying those out?

Mr. BILIRAKIS. A short response and follow it up, maybe, with

something in writing.

Mr. FIELDS. We will follow up in detail, but I assure you that

when your inquiry was referred to the Region activities occurred.

It is unfortunate that communication was not communicated

back to you or your staff as to the follow-up activities that led to

the shutdown on February 25 of this year.

But, I agree with you there should have been better communication, better coordination with you, and follow up to the information

that you have referred to the Region.

Mr. COBURN. I would just say that the only reason that the shutdown occurred is my office continued to force you to address this

issue.

There was no instigation on your part to do what you should

have been doing.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. The gentleman’s time has expired. Ms. Capps to

inquire.

Ms. CAPPS. Thank you for holding this hearing, Mr. Chairman.

I have been out of the loop a little while, so I am trusting that,

if this question has come up, that you’ll tell me, and then it will

save some time.

But, I represent a district on the California coast, where we have

some contaminated MTBE sites.

I am particularly concerned about the remediation and about the

lack of technology for remediation for MTBE, and the ability to

deal with what we already have and know about.

This committee has paid a lot of attention to the Clean Air Act,

and oxygenate requirements and renewable fuels are all important

concerns.

In the meantime, communities like Cambria on the central coast

of California with contaminated water supplies are suffering.

EPA’s Blue Ribbon Panel has recommended that the Agency accelerate laboratory and fuel research and pilot projects.

We in California have asked for an oxygenate waiver, because we

really do want to get rid of the MTBE.

37

I am concerned now with the budget constraints, and the increased requirements that we are asking of your Agency in the face

of a new MTBE, contaminated water supplies.

How, in the budget, can we hope to find resources for addressing

the threats from MTBE?

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Let me just say something in general and then

turn it over to my colleagues to be a little more specific on some

of the clean-up and research issues.

We had hearings here about the waiver and the need for California to reduce the amount of MTBE use.

We agree with that. We are working with the State to process

that.

We also want to work with the committee on legislation that will

help us all solve the problem.

But, in our existing budget, we do have some funds to be doing

some research on remediation.

I’ll let my colleagues, Norine Noonan, from the Office of Research

and Development, and Tim Fields, from the Emergency Response

and Solid Waste program, talk about it in terms of what is going

on now.

Mr. FIELDS. I’ll just start the remediation part. Norine will talk

about the research efforts on technology.

We obviously are very sensitive to the remediation problems

being caused by MTBE in your State.

We are working to make sure we get as many oversight dollars

as we can to the State and to the region to make sure that remediation can be done effectively.

We were assured that all the locations within the State—that

adequate oversight dollars for clean up are being provided.

We are carefully looking at our remediation efforts. We are cleaning up 21,000 underground storage-type releases a year.

We are particularly looking at whether or not the special threats

being posed by MTBE to make sure that our technology is going

to adequately remediate MTBE, recognizing, though, that additional study of appropriate options needs to be done.

So, Dr. Noonan can address that.

Ms. NOONAN. Thank you, Tim. Ms. Capps, we are conducting research in two areas of remediation.

One is ground water and soils remediation research, where we

are including in our studies field evaluations of both natural attenuation and bioreactor technology.

We are also evaluating two very promising technologies. We are

treating drinking water directly.

In addition to that, we have formed an interagency work group

along with the agencies in California to select the field site in California for the evaluation of field-ready remediation technologies.

These technologies will be evaluated based on a nationally competitive selection.

The site selection is nearly complete, and we expect to announce

that at any time.

So, we are indeed conducting research in a variety of technology

areas.

Ms. CAPPS. I applaud that, but I am concerned that we are now

asking for the complete removal of MTBE in California.

38

I think that is a pretty large request. I am wondering if you have

been able to attach a dollar amount to what that will be.

Certainly, it is not going to be limited to the State of California,

I am quite sure.

Then, again, how does this fit into the overall budget?

Mr. PERCIASEPE. I’ll try to answer your question in two parts.

One is the cost, perhaps, to gasoline if you do this, and a lot of

research or analysis on that has been done in California on the

phasing out of MTBE and the phasing in of replacement volume of

some kind to replace the volume.

The cost to the consumer at the gas pump to redoing the way we

make clean-burning gasoline will vary from one part of the country

to another part of the country.

California has their own program, and they have done their own

changes to it last December at the Air Resources Board.

I think they have made their own estimates, which my memory

says is a couple of cents a gallon.

If they don’t have the constraint of the oxygenate requirement

and have the time to do it on a national level, I think we would

see that, if you don’t create flexibility in how you continue to meet

the air quality objectives while you are phasing out one kind of additive, and you don’t have enough time to phase in the other one,

then the more quickly you try to do that the more the potential

price impact will be.

The more time you get to do it the less the impact would be.

So, that is one of the key issues, I think, we have to discuss since

we are trying to work with Congress to develop legislation. What

kind of timeframes for these things will work?

On the cost of remediation, again, it is going to be very site-specific.

A lot of the occurrence data we see across the country from

MTBE is at very low levels from ubiquitous leaking, not necessarily

an underground storage tank or a major rupture in a pipeline.

But, those sites obviously will need to be remediated, and, depending on how long ago the leak occurred, there will be an increased cost due to MTBE, because it will move farther than the

rest of the plume of the gasoline.

But, if it is caught quickly, the plume will be still closer together.

On the national level, particularly in lakes and rivers MTBE will

be gone within months, if not days, if you stop adding it, as long

as it’s an aerobic situation.

Mr. OXLEY. The gentlelady’s time has expired.

Ms. CAPPS. Could I ask for about 30 seconds more? One little

clean-up exists, and because it is the underground that I am concerned of.

You are saying a 9-percent budget reduction. How are you going

to address this in the House budget?

Mr. FIELDS. Well, we recognize, if the budget is reduced by 9 percent, it means we’ll have to make some choices about certain cleanups not being done.

That is going to impact. Some few thousand sites will not be able

to be overseen in terms of the clean-up dollars that would be lost

because of that kind of budget cut.

39

So, we obviously are very concerned about the impact of that, not

only in your site, but also other sites across the country.

Ms. CAPPS. So some communities will not be having clean water?

Mr. FIELDS. There will be a delay for some communities in them

being able to get remediation of their ground water, because we

will not be able to get around to some clean-ups this year in fiscal

year 2001 with that type of budget cut.

Mr. OXLEY [presiding]. The gentlelady’s time has expired. The

gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Upton.

Mr. UPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like, in my 5

minutes, to spend really on two items that I referenced in my opening statement.

Mr. Fox, I talked a little bit about a question about this new

Great Lakes initiative—the $50 million initiative.

As a Great Lakes member, it is terrific, but no one knows really

what it is.

It had, I think, one sentence in the President’s budget. There

weren’t a lot of details.

As I talked to my colleague, Vern Ehlers, who Chairs the Great

Lakes Task Force, there has been no consultation.

Tell me what this is going to do? Do you need legislation to do

this?

Mr. FOX. We included this provision in our budget to provide an

additional $50 million for Great Lakes clean-up.

These dollars will be focused at what we call areas of concern,

which are places that were highlighted as specifically problematic

in the Great Lakes agreement that was negotiated between the

U.S. and Canada.

The State of Michigan, in fact, there’s close to a dozen, I think,

areas of concern within the State of Michigan.

Mr. UPTON. The Kalamazoo River, I think, is one.

Mr. FOX. One of them. These moneys would be directed to State

and local governments to support clean-up activities in these areas.

The way we have envisioned this program is these funds would

be available to both State and local governments.

We would request that the Appropriations Committee include

sufficient language so that we can make these grants to both those

entities.

Mr. UPTON. Do you need authorization language to do this or

not?

Mr. FOX. Currently, we have ample authorizations to give the

moneys to the States.

There’s been a lot of good work being done there. If we want to

be able to give money to local governments, advice of counsel suggests that the specific authorization in that regard would be helpful.

Mr. UPTON. I know Mr. Ehlers and other members of the Michigan delegation on a bipartisan basis would be most willing to listen

and see what we can do to try and be helpful to clean up those waters.

Mr. Perciasepe, as I understand—I want to go back to this 1-

hour rule, which I know we have communicated about in writing.

It doesn’t make a lot of sense to me in terms of what happens.

40

We have a number of counties in Michigan. Then we moved to

an 8-hour standard. That was something, I know, that EPA and a

number of us were very supportive of.

Now, you have been forced to go back to 1 hour, which, as I understand it, is not your doing.

But, as I look at these counties, if—A number of years ago they

were out of compliance but now, in fact, they do meet the 1-hour

standard, because, in previous years, they’re out of compliance,

that is where you are putting them.

As we look at those counties, who a number of years ago in the

past did meet the 1-hour standard but now don’t meet it, they are

okay.

I mean, for us in Michigan, particularly western Michigan where

our air quality is really determined based on what comes across the

lakes—transient air, whether it be Chicago, Milwaukee, or Gary—

we know of counties in our State that you can literally take—and

I am talking about this with the Administrator—take every human

activity out of there—no roads, no businesses, no people, no charcoal fires—and they can’t meet the standard until Gary and Chicago and Milwaukee do.

Going back to the basic question, the logic of designating the

counties that, today, can meet the 1 hour but in the past didn’t,

and now you have non-attainment, doesn’t seem very fair.

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Let me try to go through what we are going to

hopefully be able to do.

Mr. UPTON. Particularly knowing what the penalties and ramifications are as businesses look to expand. That is something else.

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Exactly. I know you have talked to the Administrator, and I have spent some time with members from the central

part of the State, as well.

When we promulgated the new 8-hour standard before the court

remanded it to the agency, in what we viewed as a good government approach, we got rid of the old 1 hour standard in areas that

met it. That way they could focus on with what they might have

to do to meet the new standard.

So, we went through a process, and we revoked the 1-hour standard in thousands of counties around the country.

Under the normal process those counties would have done a

maintenance plan.

In your case, it may have been largely a transport plan that we

are working on with Wisconsin or Illinois.

Mr. UPTON. And it was of great help in those other States, too.

Mr. PERCIASEPE. And, then, as they attained the standard and

submitted maintenance plans, we would have redesignated them as

attainment.

The counties, I think, in question, in most of that part of Michigan, are in attainment.

Mr. UPTON. That’s right.

Mr. PERCIASEPE. To my knowledge, they are achieving the 1-hour

standard, but they never went through that redesignation process

in the past.

So, if we put the 1-hour standard back in those counties because

there is no standard now, the residual effect would be that they

would then assume the designation they had in the past.

41

What could happen would be the things that you outlined in your

question.

What we are trying to do—and this has been precipitated in part

by the inquiries from the delegation—we are setting up some more

meetings with the delegation to talk about it. We are trying to see

if there is a way to work that process so that we can resolve those

issues before anything happens in terms of any new requirements.

We’ve got some ideas that we’ll want to talk to the delegation

about.

But, we understand the issue.

We agree that we need to try to deal with the issue, and we have

some ideas on how to do so.

Mr. UPTON. I appreciate your willingness. My 5 minutes—The

clock is still moving pretty fast.

I thought I would catch my 7 o’clock plane tonight, as well.

Mr. OXLEY. Could the gentleman wrap up?

Mr. UPTON. The clock is a little fast. Maybe we can get together

in the next couple of weeks and not take the full subcommittee’s

time. I would appreciate that and look forward——

Mr. PERCIASEPE. We are definitely looking into ways to deal with

that issue.

Mr. UPTON. I yield back the balance of my hour.

Mr. OXLEY. Very good. Very effective, too. The gentleman from

Florida, Mr. Deutsch.

Mr. DEUTSCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to refocus the

hearing a little bit on the hearing topic, budget requests, and really

follow up on Mr. Stupak’s question, which I think is, in some

ways—should be the central question that we are asking about.

There are some members of the panel who did not have the opportunity to respond to Mr. Stupak’s question about the impact of

the Republican budget on EPA’s programs.

If we could discuss the impacts on the pesticide program, the Office of Research and Development and the Air Program——

Ms. WAYLAND. I would be happy to start, using Mr. Ryan’s caveat that, of course, the Administrator would ultimately make any

final decision on any budget cuts.

Let me just mention a few of the programs in my area of responsibility that I would be especially worried about.

One is the Food Quality Protection Act that has been mentioned

by several.

Mr. DEUTSCH. Can I just interject for a second? Basically, we are

talking about a 9-percent reduction.

So, assuming you had to reduce 9 percent, what would that

mean? I think that is really the question.

Ms. WAYLAND. The areas I would be concerned about that could

be affected by a 9-percent reduction would be the Food Quality Protection Act, where we have a statutory obligation to review some

9700 tolerances to ensure that they meet the new statutory standard to protect the health of consumers, and especially children.

I would be very concerned that we would not be able to meet our

statutory deadlines under a 9- or 10-percent cut.

Let me mention also endocrine disruptors, which has been mentioned by Mr. Brown this morning.

42

This is a brand-new program we are trying to get off the ground,

and I would be very concerned about additional delays that might

occur in that program if we were to take a 9- to 10-percent cut

there.

And, new pesticides—It was mentioned this morning by Mr. Bryant, before he left, that he was very concerned about the pace of

bringing new products on the market.

I think that we share his concern, and we would be most concerned if, in fact, we had to take a 9- or 10-percent cut that would

prevent us from keeping up with the pace of new products coming

on the market that are actually safer for American farmers and

safer for consumers.

With that, I will let Mr. Perciasepe speak.

Mr. PERCIASEPE. I think the programs that would be most under

concern in my area would be State grants. We have about $215 million in State grants. That’s only about a third of the $680 million that Mike mentioned earlier.

Also, we are asking for an increase in doing the MACT stand- ards, that I know is of concern to the committee, of around $6 million.

That’s around a 30 percent increase in the 2001 budget. That

would probably be a difficult thing to pull off with that kind of reduction.

Those are the things I would mention. Those are in the air toxics

standards.

Ms. NOONAN. For the Office of Research and Development, a 9- percent cut amounts to about $48 million of total funding for R&D

requested for 2001.

Let me just give you one example in the area of drinking water

research, an area that this committee has been particularly concerned about.

Drinking water research comprises almost 10 percent of my total

budget now.

A 9-percent cut to that budget would really walk us back significantly in our ability to support research on the contaminants that

this committee has been concerned about with regard to the Contaminant Candidate List, as well as severely limiting our ability to

identify and characterize pathogens that may pose increased risk

of infection and disease, particularly to susceptible sub-populations

like children.

It would also inhibit our work severely in water-borne infectious

diseases.

As this committee knows, the outbreak of cryptosporidium in

Milwaukee was responsible for the deaths of approximately 100

people. Since 1991, the percent of outbreaks attributable to

cryptosporidium has doubled, which means we must advance in

both detection methods and research to understand how to mitigate

pathogens in drinking water.

A 9-percent cut would walk us back significantly from that.

Mr. HERMAN. Mr. Deutsch, if I just might address some of the

problems this would cause in the Office of Enforcement and Compliance.

It depends again on how Congress did it, but the ultimate effect

would be that the environmental cop would be taken off the beat.

43

There would be few inspections, fewer criminal investigations,

and, overall, less enforcement.

There would also be less compliance assistance for small business.

A 9- or 10-percent cut across the board for inspections would

mean 1300 fewer inspections, 50 fewer criminal investigations, and

we have had some very significant ones in your State, I know.

It would mean more than 60 million pounds of pollutants still

being released into the air that could have been stopped.

Further, if the language—the Congressional language—contains

the same strictures—the same restrictions on our ability to move

money within our office—it totally undoes our effort to be able to

address certain tools at certain kinds of problems and certain kinds

of problems.

Mr. OXLEY. The gentleman’s time is expired.

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, if I might, just in closing, I would

hope—Now, I have now offered my colleagues on the other side of

the aisle the opportunity to defend those budget proposals.

Mr. OXLEY. We have seen the well-orchestrated 9-percent cut.

The question is 9 percent from what? We’ll be getting into that

shortly. The gentleman from California.

Mr. BILBRAY. Thank you. Editorial comments. Those of us in

California are very interested in EPA’s history of looking at food

supplements and health food, which was a very touchy subject, as

you know, for those of us on the West Coast.

Do anything, but don’t take our granola from us.

Bob, I would like to ask specifically, I have looked at the joint

announcement of the EPA and USDA last week.

After that, I reread the Blue Ribbon Report from EPA, which you

know I very strongly support, and which the Lung Association supports.

What I found in that report was a recommendation of a reduction

of MTBE use, maintaining air quality benefits and removing the 2

percent oxygen requirement.

However, I couldn’t find in this report any suggestion that reflected your announcement last week, that a new requirement for

renewable fuels should be established.

Is that requirement in this report at all?

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Could I turn your attention to page six in the

Executive Summary Recommendations where it talks about removing the oxygenate requirement.

It doesn’t get specific about that, but it says that the panel recognizes that Congress, when adopting the oxygenate requirement,

sought to advance several national policy goals, energy security

and diversity, agricultural policy, et cetera, that are beyond the

scope of our deliberations.

The panel recognized that, if Congress acts on the recommendation to remove the requirement, Congress will likely seek other legislative mechanisms to fulfill these other national policy interests.

What we did is we tried to interpret a suggestion to you in principle on how we might do that.

You are correct, although the panel did not make a specific recommendation on how to achieve those other objectives.

Mr. BILBRAY. And they did not recommend—Let me just say this.

44

If the EPA was writing down priorities, would the priorities be

economic, fuel independence, and then, third, public health clean

air? Would that be the priorities of the EPA?

Mr. PERCIASEPE. EPA’s priorities would be public health.

Mr. BILBRAY. The priorities that were articulated in the press release were economic, fuel independence, and then public health was

third.

So, this obviously didn’t reflect EPA’s priority list. It was somebody else’s priority list.

Mr. PERCIASEPE. I’m not following. What report?

Mr. BILBRAY. The announcement that was just made by the EPA

and USDA, just released last week—the joint press release by

the——

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Okay, last week.

Mr. BILBRAY. When I read it, I said this cannot be the priority

of the EPA.

It must be of somebody who is looking at other priorities rather

than public health as the primary——

Mr. PERCIASEPE. All the priorities that we would identify as

being central to the public health issues that you and I have spent

time discussing in this room are in those principles that were announced last week.

As you have already pointed out, they are derived significantly

from the Blue Ribbon Panel Report.

What we tried to present last week was a broader administration

view that takes into account these other issues, like energy security

and agricultural policy, and tried to give us an idea.

It is only one of the ideas in there of how you would deal with

that.

Mr. BILBRAY. So you’re saying that it is the administration’s position, not necessarily EPA’s, but the administration’s, that the farm

economy, the energy independence, takes 1 and 2, and that health

is No. 3 in the list from the administration’s point of view, but not

EPA’s?

Mr. PERCIASEPE. The first thing on the list is give us the authority to remove MTBE. That is the first thing on the list.

Mr. BILBRAY. The three priorities in the press release—and I’d

ask you to look at it—was the economic impact, fuel independence,

and then, and only then, the public health side of it.

I just thought that, if EPA signs off on this letter, they need to

take a look at the fact that is this USDA strategy that got priority

over EPA, because it didn’t reflect the EPA that I have worked

with for 25 years.

Mr. PERCIASEPE. We identified—and I don’t know what order it

was in the press release—but in the piece of paper that lays out

the principles, the first principle is give us the authority to remove

MTBE.

We do say that, in order to have a package to achieve all the

goals that Congress had in 1990 and to address the issues that the

Blue Ribbon Panel highlighted, although they didn’t make a specific recommendation on it, all of those things need to be done together.

Mr. BILBRAY. Now, we all agree that mandates in the past have

been pushed through, meaning well, but without the research to be

45

able to back it up, and which is now causing problems that we did

not perceive.

Now, Administrator Browner, on March 20, 2000, stated that she

was calling on Congress to take the unprecedented step to start

providing content levels for ethanol and other bio-fuels in gasoline.

Does the EPA, in fact, know through extensive research that ethanol is, ‘‘safe?’’

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Let me say that ethanol has been one of the

most studied alcohols around.

EPA would admit that anything that is designed to explode in a

car is going to have byproducts of combustion.

Whether you put MTBE in or alcohol, or benzene or toluene, or

whatever you put in, there will be something that comes out of the

tailpipe.

California’s own analysis of this and I’ll read directly from the

summary and conclusions of the Department of Environment’s report on ethanol and other substitutes.

I can certainly provide this for the record, but I would like to say

here on the record that there are no substantial differences in the

public health impacts of different non-MTBE fuel formulations,

which include several different ethanol formulations considered in

the scenarios for the year 2003 for the State of California.

Then, it goes on to talk about the water risk from MTBE.

So, comparing MTBE and non-MTBE health effects in terms of

the air emissions——

Mr. BILBRAY. That’s not what I am saying. We’re not talking

MTBE here.

We’re talking about EPA is now proposing to replace one old

mandate with a new mandate, and then says it is safe.

I am saying where is the data to prove, in every application that

you are going to be mandating, that ethanol is safe and is the

safest fuel, safest formula to use in that application?

Mr. OXLEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. The gentleman

may respond.

Mr. BILBRAY. I ask for unanimous consent for an additional

minute, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. OXLEY. We’ll have the gentleman respond and then move on.

Do you have a response?

Mr. PERCIASEPE. In addition to the State of California making

that finding that I just——

Mr. BILBRAY. They were making a finding of one application, and

that is comparing it to another product.

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Ethanol.

Mr. BILBRAY. But that is an application pertaining to water, and

other applications.

Do you agree there have been court cases and findings—and

California has gone to court, and they’ve won in court over the application of ethanol—different situations that were not considered

appropriate for public health? The courts adjudicated that.

I am just saying where is our data to say that a new mandate

will be safe, and be safe in the implementation?

Mr. PERCIASEPE. The other studies done by the Health Effects Institute and the State of California, as I mentioned——

46

There’s a wide range of literature on the health effects of ethanol.

The thing that I think would be of more concern to us is the byproducts of combustion of ethanol, things like acetaldehydes, and

things like that, that come out of the tailpipe.

The question, then, is when you put ethanol in and it reduces the

other toxics, which it does, what is the net effect?

Are the emissions from gasoline still able to meet the air quality

standards that we are suggesting we maintain?

The other important thing that we are suggesting is that we

start with where we are and move slowly into the future on growth

in the use of renewable fuels.

There is a lot of research and you also have to look at the net

effect on the emissions.

Mr. OXLEY. The gentleman’s time is expired.

Mr. BILBRAY. The Blue Ribbon Committee said that that mandate to the State of California was obstructing the clean fuel strategy rather than aiding it.

We still want to make sure that our clean air strategies are

based on the health, not economic stimulus.

Mr. OXLEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. The gentleman

from Kentucky, Mr. Whitfield.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Mr. Fields,

prior to your coming in, I had a discussion with Mr. Shapiro about

the gaseous diffusion plant at Paducah, which is a Superfund site.

I would just like to emphasize to you the point that Mr. Coburn

made.

I think that there must be some problems where EPA is overseeing the clean-up of Superfund sites for which the Federal Government is responsible for that.

We have had the FBI come in and take files out of there, as well.

We have the Washington Post writing about the Paducah plant

ten times in the last 6 months on the front page.

We have spent $400 million down there, and there is still little

evidence of any clean-up, with aquifers being contaminated, and so

forth.

I would urge you to review that. Mr. Herman was kind enough

to offer to meet with us to discuss this in more detail, which I

would like to do.

I would ask you is EPA legally prohibited from spending its appropriated funds to help in the clean-up of a Federal Superfund

site?

Mr. FIELDS. We can’t spend Superfund dollars, but we always

seek restoration through subsequent-year appropriations if we find

an emergency situation.

We have done that on occasion where we have done clean-ups on

park-land property.

We have spent several millions of dollars, and then we have gone

to the Department of Interior to get reimbursement.

I do want to say, on Paducah, the current plan this year, DoE

has a $50 million budget.

Secretary Richardson has requested more than $100 million for

Paducah in fiscal year 2000.

47

I agree with you. I don’t want to leave us at the previous discussion on this, but we recognize Paducah is a major problem.

The DoE recognizes that, and they realize the need to put much

more money into clean-up.

We on the EPA side obviously would prefer that the Federal

agency get the appropriate appropriation for clean-up out of their

own budgets. We would then obviously provide oversight.

Mr. WHITFIELD. I know you would prefer that, but can you spend

the money?

Mr. FIELDS. Yes, sir, we can do that.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Is it essential that you be reimbursed by the

agency?

Mr. FIELDS. It is critical for us right now. The Superfund budget in fiscal year 2000, as you know, got cut by $100 million.

The more money we spend on Federal activity, that is less for the

private sector. We obviously want DoE, DoD, to get good dollars.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Let me ask you, are you spending money from

the Superfund account on Brownfields projects?

Mr. FIELDS. Yes, sir, we are.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Are Brownfields projects defined as a Superfund

NPL site?

Mr. FIELDS. No, we spend Superfund dollars on things that are

not NPL sites.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Here is my point. We have on record around the

country at Federal sites employees of the Federal Government and

subcontractors who are coming down with serious illnesses, cancer,

and so forth.

We have aquifers being polluted, yet your Agency is spending

money for non-Superfund site clean-ups when you have these Federal sites around the country. You are talking about $109 million for fiscal year 2001, which I

applaud Mr. Richardson for. I was there when he made the announcement.

But, we spent $400 million down there, and you still cannot tell

that anything has been done.

Mr. FIELDS. I acknowledge there are major problems at Paducah,

but keep in mind the overall clean-up budget for the Federal Government is roughly $12 billion.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Do you think that your Agency should be spending money on Brownfield sites, which are not the danger to the

public that these Superfund sites are?

Mr. FIELDS. We think we have made an appropriate judgment

about how much we should spend.

States and local governments have come to us for requests. We

spend roughly 5 percent of the Superfund budget on Brownfields

each year.

We think that is an appropriate investment for the 450,000

Brownfield sites that States need to clean up under their voluntary

clean-up program as compared to the 95 percent of the Superfund

budget that goes to our NPL sites.

Mr. WHITFIELD. You and I disagree on that, because I can just

tell my community that, despite the contamination concerns, despite the contamination of the aquifers, that still that’s not that big

of a priority at this point in time.

48

Mr. FIELDS. Congressman, just one interjection. We have 300

people in EPA who are working actively overseeing Federal facility

clean-ups like Paducah paid for out of the Superfund budget.

So, there are people who are actively working on facilities across

the country overseeing clean-ups being done by DoE and others.

We think that is the appropriate role for EPA in Federal facilities.

Mr. WHITFIELD. When we have our meeting with Mr. Herman,

I don’t know how you are organized at the EPA, but would it be

appropriate——

Mr. FIELDS. I’ll be happy to join Mr. Herman.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you. One other question. There is a lot of

methamphetamine labs around the country.

Every time law enforcement officers find one, it has to be cleaned

up. It is my understanding that EPA has funds available in the

local government reimbursement program to assist local police departments with clean-up of those sites. Is that correct?

Mr. FIELDS. That is correct, Congressman.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Do you know how much money is in that fund?

Mr. FIELDS. I was told it is 2 percent of whatever our Superfund budget is. It is 2 percent of $1.4 billion this year that would be

available under that local government reimbursement fund.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Whose office would that come under?

Mr. FIELDS. That is under my office. My Office Director is here

with me on that program, yes.

We run that Superfund program that administers the local government reimbursement program.

Mr. WHITFIELD. The EPA has been having a lot of meetings with

States and environmental groups and the industry to find some

common ground and resolve issues as it relates to the New Source

Review regulations.

It is my understanding that some real progress has been made

there.

Yet, we keep hearing that the EPA may walk away from those

discussions and simply end them. Where are you all on that?

Mr. PERCIASEPE. We continue to have discussions with many different stakeholders about enhancements of the New Source Review

program.

Several months ago, what would commonly be called the complex

manufacturing group—these are a variety of different industry

groups—came and said they wanted to get into some more detail

on this.

We have had about four meetings with them.

We have not stopped. We have stopped having those meetings

while we assess where we are, and I am probably going to spend

some personal time doing a little motivational activity trying to get

people to start to see some common ground, but we are not going

to suspend them at this time, no.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. OXLEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. The Chair will

recognize himself for just some brief questions.

There has been a lot of talk about a 9-percent cut. Mr.

Perciasepe, the 9-percent figure that was a cut was from the President’s request, is that correct?

49

Mr. RYAN. It would obviously be against the next budget would

be the President’s request.

Mr. OXLEY. So would this alleged 9-percent cut from the President’s request——

Mr. RYAN. The way I understand OMB calculates it for this purpose was from the current budget to get the number that we talked

about.

Mr. OXLEY. The staff informs me that the Function 300 in the

budget basically gave, in the natural resources and environment

area in Function 300, a $200 million increase from a freeze level,

and that that was in the budget.

Ultimately, it is up to the appropriators, of course, to determine

how that is determined, is that correct?

Mr. RYAN. That’s correct, yes, sir.

Mr. OXLEY. Let me now turn to some questions for Mr. Fields.

Welcome back, Tim.

Mr. FIELDS. Good to be here, sir.

Mr. OXLEY. For the umpteenth time, I guess, I have a question

about fly ash.

After 19 years of study, an EPA report to Congress concluded

that regulation of fossil fuel combustion waste should generally remain exempt from Federal hazardous waste regulation.

In briefings earlier this year, EPA’s professional staff appeared

to voice a similar conclusion, yet we now hear reports about an

11th-hour reversal of that position, among others.

There is concern from the Governor of Ohio, Bob Taft, who has

sent me this letter dated March 30.

He has some concerns, ‘‘EPA’s move to regulate coal combustion

waste under Subtitle C of RCRA undermines the extensive efforts

of States, Ohio in particular, to increase the beneficial reuse of

these materials.’’

In other words, recycling, which I presume we all want to encourage.

My question is can 19 years of study and the recommendation of

the Agency’s technical staff and the existence of strong State regulatory programs simply be ignored?

Mr. FIELDS. We are not going to ignore any information on this

issue.

I want to make clear we have not made a determination. That

issue is still being discussed within the administration.

I want to make clear up front—make very clear—that, even if we

made a regulatory determination that some portion of coal ash

were to be regulated as a hazardous waste, nothing would change.

We would have to go through a subsequent rulemaking process,

which would take several years before anything would change.

But, also keep in mind that, when we issued the March, 1999

tentative conclusion in the report to Congress, we indicated that

that was open for comment.

Subsequent to March, 1999, we have gotten many comments

from a lot of people about this issue.

We are reviewing a lot of the information about what is going on

out there in practice.

50

Several things have changed over the last 12 months. We have

found, for example, that 43 percent of the industry has not lined

their waste disposal landfills that serves impoundments.

We received comments which provided additional information on

damage cases that have been caused by coal ash operations.

Also keep in mind that the March, 1999 report to Congress made

it clear that that tentative conclusion not to regulate any coal ash

did not apply to mine filling.

We have subsequently found, in looking at mine filling operations, that there is inadequate ground water monitoring in many

cases where the mine fill operations are occurring, and that that

is having impacts where ground water contamination has been documented, et cetera.

When the initial report to Congress went up in March, 1999, it

was a very close call.

It was not a slam-dunk by any imagination. We made clear that

we wanted to open this up for comment, receive input from a variety of sources, and we are doing that.

We are looking at all the information, that some States have very

good programs, and we are looking at those good practices as we

make those decisions about what should be our regulatory determination as to whether some part of coal ash ought to be regulated

under Subtitle C.

Even if we made such a determination, it is likely that those beneficial reuses for concrete and roadbeds and others——

Those would continue to not be considered a hazardous waste,

even if we concluded that some portion of this industry’s waste

should be regulated as a hazardous waste.

But, Mr. Chairman, let me make clear. A decision has not been

made.

We are having discussions right now within the administration

with a lot of different agencies—the Department of Energy, the Department of Interior, and others—about this issue as we speak.

We will weigh all the information, all the many comments we received since March, 1999, as well as our own independent analyses

we have done of State programs, in making an appropriate regulatory determination.

Mr. OXLEY. Thank you. My time has expired. Let me recognize

the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. DEUTSCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I ask questions,

I have a statement by Mr. Towns and Ms. Capps, who will submit

those into the record.

Mr. OXLEY. Without objection.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Edolphus Towns follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. EDOLPHUS TOWNS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. Chairman, I welcome our witnesses today to discuss the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) budget for the important environmental protection programs

which they administer. I strongly support this Committee’s oversight responsibilities, and welcome hearings such as this, but I am afraid that this hearing may be

just a little too late in the process. I would have preferred a hearing such on these

issues earlier in this session of Congress.

The President’s budget was submitted on February 7, 2000. The House of Representatives passed its budget and the EPA appropriations hearings concluded yesterday. It is my understanding that the Republican budget passed by the House of

51

Representatives two weeks ago would require significant cuts in domestic discretionary spending. According to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, ‘‘the resolution would cut next year’s budget for most non-defense programs by

an average of nine percent.’’ I am concerned that this could have serious impacts

on the EPA’s environmental protection programs, and I ask unanimous consent that

Mr. Lew’s letter of March 23, 2000, be inserted in the record at the appropriate

place.

I’m concerned about the impact the Republican budget may have on programs I

strongly support like the Brownfields program. This program is needed to cleanup

areas in urban communities such as the one I represent in Brooklyn, NY and return

them to viable uses. H.R. 1750, a bill I introduced which has over one hundred cosponsors, is an effort to ensure that the Brownfields program remains intact and

continues to cleanup urban communities such as the ones in Brooklyn.

Finally, Mr. Chairman I am pleased that the President’s budget funds this important program at $92 million. This program is extremely helpful and one that I

strongly support. I urge all members to resist efforts to cut EPA’s budget and restrict important environmental protection programs. I would like to additionally

urge all members to resist efforts, as have been seen in past years, to cut

Brownfields funding or place restrictions on revolving loan program grants.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Lois Capps follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. LOIS CAPPS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today’s hearing on EPA’s proposed budget

for Fiscal Year 2001. I would also like to thank our witnesses for coming today. I

appreciate all the work you do to protect public health and the environment, and

realize it is no easy task.

I am particularly concerned that under the Republican’s proposed across the

board budget cut of nine percent, EPA will unable to fulfill its mandate to protect

public health and the environment. For example, the Underground Storage Tank

Program will be cut at a time that EPA has requested more funding, and at a time

when funding is needed to address compliance with storage tank regulations. This

is particularly important to help prevent additional contamination to our nation’s

water supplies from MTBE.

I applaud EPA’s recently stated commitment to phase out MTBE, and hope the

Agency will move expeditiously on California’s request for a waiver from the oxygenate requirement. However, in light of the recent U.S. Geological Survey finding that

as many as 9,000 wells in 31 states across the nation may be contaminated from

MTBE, I would like to know if there are any specific plans in the works by EPA

to help communities remediate contaminated water supplies affected by MTBE leaking into groundwater. I hope the Agency will commit time and funding to combat

this problem. EPA’s own Blue Ribbon Panel recommended the acceleration of laboratory and field research, and pilot projects, for the development and implementation of cost-effective water supply treatment and remediation technology. Where in

the budget can we find money to implement these programs?

Another area of particular interest to me is implementation of the Food Quality

Protection Act (FQPA). Additional research funding is critical to ensure that our

farmers are given the necessary tools they need to protect their crops and supply

our nation with the food it needs at this critical phase when pesticide tolerances

are being reassessed.

I realize that EPA has a large responsibility to protect public health and the environment. I look forward to working with my colleagues to support the important

work of your Agency.

Mr. DEUTSCH. Also, I have a letter from the Director of the President’s Office of Management and Budget regarding how that 9-percent cutback number came, which I think clarifies the comments

that were made.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. I guess I’ll reserve on that until we take a look

at the letter. We haven’t seen it. I don’t know that there’d be any

problem on it.

52

Mr. DEUTSCH. Let me take this last round of questions and kind

of move to a local issue that I know, Mr. Fox, you have been very

involved in.

The EPA comments regarding Homestead Air Force Base, if you

can elaborate what EPA’s position is regarding the Air Force determination for the use of that base, I think that would be very helpful.

Mr. FOX. As you know, south Florida has a very unique, sensitive

environmental ecosystem.

The Air Force Base happens to be located between two national

parks, the Key Biscayne National Park and the Florida Everglades

National Park, so that any proposal for redevelopment of that Air

Force Base is something that we take very seriously and presents

the potential to have significant environmental issues.

The Federal Aviation Administration and the Air Force have

gone through a process of developing a proposed redevelopment

project for Homestead that includes the idea that it would become

a regional commercial airport.

EPA submitted formal comments on this environmental impact

statement this month.

Our comments raised, I think it is fair to describe it, serious objections with the proposal as it was laid out.

Potential noise issues, water quality issues among others, traffic

congestion, indirect impacts with growth and development are

among the issues that we have raised formally in our comments.

We have suggested that alternative proposals would be much

more mixed-use development that wouldn’t be focused on a commercial airport and might be more appropriate development for

that site.

I’d be happy to provide the committee with more specific detailed

comments on this if you’d like to have them for the record.

Mr. DEUTSCH. Let me just probe a little bit. Now that EPA has

made its comments, what legal authority do you have to prevent

those types of uses that you view as detrimental based on your

statutory authority?

Mr. FOX. That will be dependent on different aspects of the development project and where different regulatory opportunities

arise throughout the course of this development.

Typically, development projects need clean air permitting, clean

water permitting, and at some level we would ultimately have

some authority there.

But, at this point, our goal is really to work with a very complex

mix of Federal and State interests to try to find a solution that will

ultimately serve the people of south Florida and the environment

for years to come.

Mr. DEUTSCH. Could you also elaborate a little bit, as well.

Is there a formalized mechanism, because, at this point, obviously there are a number of different Federal agencies involved?

I know Secretary Babbitt has also spoken out directly on this. I

know that Secretary Daley has an impact through the Commerce

Department.

I think the Secretary of Defense, Secretary Cohen, has a direct

involvement, as well.

53

Is there a formalized mechanism where people are talking to

each other in terms of what ultimately will be an administrative

position regarding this?

Mr. FOX. My understanding is the answer to that is yes, it comes

through structures that were developed through the Base Closure

Act by Congress.

It is a local authority that I think, in this case, is run by MiamiDade County. That is the forum in which these discussions are ongoing.

Mr. DEUTSCH. But, from the administration side, is there a formalized mechanism that is going on right now?

Mr. FIELDS. Yes. As Mr. Fox said, the base closure process——

We have a base realignment and closure team that is composed

of State officials, EPA officials, and DoD officials.

We happen to be involved in property transfer. It has to be approved by EPA.

So, in terms of the appropriate reuse options at Homestead, we

have to be signatories that the appropriate transfer of property for

whatever use is going to be environmentally protected.

So, that is one mechanism, at least, under the base closure program.

Mr. DEUTSCH. Let me follow up just a little bit on what you just

said.

You have outlined, and I have correspondence through—it is

under your signature, but it is to Albert Lowas of the Air Force

Base Conversion Agency.

You have elaborated now in testimony some serious specific concerns that you have.

Again, I am not an expert in the BRAC process. Are you saying

that EPA has to formally approve the specific disposition?

Mr. FIELDS. Through that BRAC program, we have to be a signatory to the appropriate property transfer to assure that the environment is going to be protected. That is part of the role we play

there.

Mr. DEUTSCH. Let me ask you, under the present proposals, what

you seem to be saying is that those don’t meet your concerns.

Mr. FIELDS. I’ll let Mr. Fox answer that.

Mr. FOX. That is correct, but, again, I think our goal here is to

work with all the interests to see if we can find a solution that will

meet both the economic and environmental goals for the area.

Mr. DEUTSCH. Right, but, again, I just want to be really clear,

though, in your answer to that statement, what I have heard you

say—and I don’t want to put words in your mouth—you can repeat

them, maybe, more directly—the present proposal, which is really—which the county has selected as its option, that specific proposal does not meet standards where you feel EPA would sign what

is a legal requirement to transfer that property to Dade County for

that use?

Mr. FOX. What we have said is that the preferred option——

Mr. DEUTSCH. I understand that.

Mr. FOX. [continuing] raises significant environmental objections,

and we have articulated those at this time.

54

I think it raises very much, as you suggest, the question as to

whether or not we would ultimately find that we would disapprove

that.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. The gentleman’s time has expired.

Mr. DEUTSCH. The gentleman hasn’t really answered the questions.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. As long as we get to it quickly here.

Mr. DEUTSCH. You’re not going to say what you don’t want to

say, but, I mean, it is almost like a yes or no question is a lot easier.

If you can give me a yes or no answer, I’d appreciate it.

Based on that specific project, which is a project that you evaluated, I don’t think there is any question that the Collier option is

a more environmentally sensitive option in weighing it.

But, I guess I am really trying to pin you down, truthfully, which

is that, based on that specific proposal that is out there, are you

saying the EPA, as an Agency, will not sign a legally required document as part of the approval transfer process?

Mr. FOX. I truly mean to be respectful and not avoid the question.

But, this is very early in the process. This was the first document

that was put out.

I don’t think it would be appropriate for me right now to opine

one way or the other.

Mr. DEUTSCH. I understand that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. The gentleman’s time is expired. You know, the

9-percent reduction figure that has been bandied around here——

By the way, the gentleman requested this March 23 letter be entered as part of the record.

Without objection, that will be the case.

[The letter follows:]

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET

March 23, 2000

The Honorable J. DENNIS HASTERT

Speaker of the House of Representatives

Washington, D.C. 20515

DEAR MR. SPEAKER: I am writing to express the Administration’s deep concerns

about the budget resolution that the House will debate today. The resolution reported by the House Budget Committee would set the country’s overall fiscal policy

on the wrong path. If implemented, it would reverse much of the fiscal progress of

recent years and could endanger our hard-won budget surplus. It is a plan for fiscal

legislation that will make it extremely difficult to address priorities such as reducing our public debt, strengthening Social Security and Medicare, including providing

a prescription drug benefit, expanding health care coverage, and enacting targeted

tax relief. The resolution will also make it difficult to complete the FY2001 appropriations bills in a timely manner.

The budget resolution makes room for a fiscally irresponsible tax cut by shortchanging important priorities for the American people. As a result, Social Security,

Medicare, health coverage, and discretionary programs would all suffer under the

resolution reported by the Budget Committee. The resolution calls for policies that

would undermine the pledge to dedicate the entire Social Security Trust Fund annual surpluses to debt reduction. In short, the resolution calls for tax cuts and related additional debt service costs that would exceed both OMB and CBO on-budget

surplus projections over the next five years.

The resolution creates room for the tax cut through an unrealistic assumption

that Congress will be able to pass deep cuts in domestic discretionary spending. The

resolution would cut next year’s budget for most non-defense programs by an average of nine percent. These artificially low levels would be cut even lower over time

55

in order to pay for the resolution’s tax cut. Too often, past policymakers have used

questionable economic and budget assumptions to produce rosy scenarios and avoid

making tough but necessary budget choices. That approach to budgeting helped

produce the record deficits of the 1980s and early 1990s. This resolution should not

set as back on that course.

The results of these discretionary cuts would be devastating. Compared to the

President’s Budget, more than 1.1 million women, infants, and children would be

cut off from nutritional assistance through the WIC program. The FBI would have

to cut 900 agents. We would be unable to reach the President’s goals of serving

950,000 children in Head Start, providing urgent repairs for 5,000 schools, and hiring 49,000 public school teachers to reduce class size. We would be unable to keep

our national security commitments around the world.

Discretionary spending is not the only priority that would be crowded out by the

resolution’s fiscally irresponsible tax cut. The resolution does not adequately address

the critical issues of Social Security and Medicare. The committee-reported resolution includes no proposals to extend Social Security’s solvency. The reserve fund for

Medicare is inadequate to address Medicare’s solvency and modernize the program

with a prescription drug benefit. Moreover, the resolution fails to fund other important health initiatives, including the President’s proposals to expand access to

health coverage through Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). The President’s Budget framework would allocate $91 billion ($18

billion over five years) to the health coverage initiative.

The President’s budget proposed to reverse some of the mechanisms used last

year in the final appropriations bills. We made those proposals to restore normal

budgetary conventions in hopes of returning to more straightforward fiscal legislation that is free of gimmicks. The resolution rightly assumes the President’s proposal to reverse some of those timing shifts. Unfortunately, by relying on unrealistic

assumptions about discretionary spending, the budget resolution risks once again

forcing the use of the same approach.

The Committee-reported resolution is fundamentally flawed and fails to provide

a balanced and workable economic plan. In the past, this approach has delayed,

rather than expedited, action on appropriations bills and other fiscal legislation.

In contrast, the alternative that Representative Spratt will offer on behalf of the

Democratic leadership is a more responsible budget that improves on the Republican resolution in a number of important aspects. It assumes a more responsible

aggregate level of non-defense discretionary spending that would be available to

fund education, law enforcement, the environment, and other critical needs. It includes a targeted tax cut that will not put our surplus at risk. The Spratt alternative also includes important health initiatives, such as expanding access to health

coverage, extending Medicare’s solvency, and providing a prescription drug benefit.

I hope you will revise the Committee-reported resolution to address the Administration’s concerns and pass a bipartisan budget resolution that will make it possible

to complete this year’s work in a timely manner while producing effective results

for the American people. I look forward to working with you towards that end.

Sincerely,

JACOB J. LEW

Director

Mr. BILIRAKIS. I will refer to this letter in my questioning—the

letter as identified by Mr. Deutsch, from Jacob J. Lew, the Director

of OMB.

The resolution creates for the tax cut, or anyhow—The resolution

would cut next year’s budget for most non-Defense programs by an

average of 9 percent.

It does not say EPA is cut by 9 percent. There is nothing in this

to that effect.

I wanted to get that clear, because, you know, it is an opportunity by members to demagogue again, as quite often unfortunately happens here.

I don’t know what the EPA budget would be, whether it would

be 9 percent reduction.

But, again, we are talking about reduction from the President’s

request, not a reduction from prior years, because our understanding is it to have been an increase in the Republican budget.

56

Mr. Perciasepe, I understand you indicated that the administration was requesting an increase in air toxics.

But, on page I-45, is it, of your budget document, zero dollars is

requested for air toxic standards.

Second, although—and I have already covered this, but I’ll do it

again—the 9-percent figures are bandied about, in fact, this is an

artificial figure based on a request and not an actual reduction

versus spending in 1999.

This request, by the way, that we are referring to, includes programs—and you all can counter this if you’d like—not specifically

authorized like $85 million for the Clean Air Trust, and over $2 billion in commitments for Better America Bonds.

The administration request also proposes reductions for air

toxics, science, and research; therefore, reductions in efforts to attain national air quality standards.

Isn’t it, really, a more accurate picture of your request is that

you have advocated some administrative priorities but that funding

for EPA has generally been going up the last few years?

Isn’t it true that it has been going up for the last few years?

Mr. PERCIASEPE. For EPA?

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Yes.

Mr. PERCIASEPE. There are significant Congressional earmarks

placed in our budget.

I will ask the Chief Financial Officer, but I think it was $400

million.

Mr. FOX. $470.

Mr. PERCIASEPE. $470 million was added to our budget that was

not geared to our specific programs in our 2000 budget.

On the air toxics, I am afraid that there was a mistake in the

submittal to you, and I apologize for that.

I have been given an errata sheet on what the actual

requests——

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Zero should not be zero?

Mr. PERCIASEPE. I apologize for that. I’ve just been told that

there has been a mistake in that.

I will provide for the record the correct numbers.

[The following was received for the record:]

The following numbers replace those in the Key Program Summary for Air Toxics.

FY 99

Enacted

FY 00

Enacted

FY 01

President’s

Budget

Air Toxics Federal Standards .................................................................................. 24,637.9 19,380.6 27,312.3

Air Toxics Characterization ..................................................................................... 9,088.2 8,452,9 9,503.7

Air Toxics Implementation ...................................................................................... 10,561.6 11,517.6 14,511.3

Clean Air Partnership Fund .................................................................................... 0.0 0.0 25,700.0

Mr. BILIRAKIS. The air toxics research, of course, you reduced

your request in that connection.

The Air Toxics Federal Standards is where they had the mistaken zero.

Mr. PERCIASEPE. That’s correct. The number I have——

Mr. BILIRAKIS. So there’s give-and-takes insofar as your budget

is concerned, too.

57

The point, I guess, is that there has not been, in the budget that

is passed by the Congress, a 9-percent reduction for the EPA dollars.

There is a 9-percent, apparently, reduction overall for non-Defense spending as per the letter that Mr. Deutsch placed in the

record. How that will affect EPA——

Mr. RYAN. You stated it correctly the way Mr. Deutsch characterized it: they are saying it is 9 percent on average.

You are quite correct. The Appropriations Committee can determine how they want to do that any way they choose.

But, we have to prudently look at what 9 percent would mean

if we got our share, which is what we have done.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Well, you do have to prudently, but you certainly

shouldn’t be taking the position that there will a 9-percent—a definite 9-percent reduction.

Again, if there is a 9-percent reduction—which, hopefully, there

will not be—it is a reduction from the President’s request, which

includes some of these programs which apparently have gotten it

authorized. Maybe that might be open to discussion.

Mr. Fields, thank you for coming back all the way over to this

side of the Capitol.

Mr. Shapiro stood in your shoes. I did say to him, as I did to all

the others, how much I appreciated the cooperation of the EPA

with regard to the Stouffer site down in Tarpon Springs, Florida.

You would be surprised that I would bring that up, but I also

went into the ombudsman.

Can you tell me is there an intent to reduce or eliminate the role

of the EPA ombudsman?

Mr. FIELDS. Absolutely not, Congressman. We support the ombudsman function.

The function sunset in 1989. We have continued that as a permanent EPA function.

Every one of the last three Assistant Administrators has continued that ombudsman function without exception, Republican and

Democrat.

I assure you that we strongly endorse and believe that there is

a need for an ombudsman function within the EPA.

I know you have actively participated in public meetings with

our ombudsman down in Florida.

We appreciate your involvement in the situation at Stouffer, and

I assure you there is no intent to eliminate that function from EPA.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. And you speak for EPA when you say that?

Mr. FIELDS. I am speaking for EPA when I say that.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. You know, I became familiar with that role, and,

again, as I said earlier, we can pass this legislation but we quite

often don’t see it actually in operation.

In that case, I was able to see it in operation. All right. Mr.

Strickland.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Perciasepe, you

state in your testimony that, ‘‘Congress earmarked from EPA’s

budget some $470 million for more than 320 special projects in individual Congressional districts last year.’’

You further state that the EPA will not be carrying forward last

year’s earmarks and will continue this year to oppose earmarks.

58

In addition, I understand that this year’s EPA budget would dramatically reduce funding for rural water technical assistance.

I represent part of southern Ohio that is rural. Last year, the

EPA’s State and tribal assistance grants included about $1.4 million in funding to initiate a large project designed to eliminate arsenic in the drinking-water supply of several communities in my

district.

This project is estimated to cost over $20 million. The counties

of Vinton and Jackson in southern Ohio are a part of Appalachia

and currently have unemployment rates of 17 percent and 8 percent, respectively.

They do not have $20 million to clean up the arsenic in their

drinking water.

Given the fact that these rural counties in southern Ohio suffer

from arsenic-laced drinking water, they do not have $20 million

readily available for this kind of project.

The EPA budget severely cuts rural water technical assistance.

The EPA will not carry this project forward in fiscal year 2001,

and EPA will not support earmarks for fiscal year 2001.

I finally got to my question. Where do these communities, or

communities like this, get funding to move these investments forward, because what is happening is life-threatening?

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Mr. Strickland, I’ll let Chuck Fox, Assistant Administrator for the Water Program, answer your question.

Mr. FOX. About 4 years ago, this committee reauthorized the

Safe Drinking Water Act and created a State revolving loan fund

program, which we have gotten up and running, and has proven

to be a very successful program in helping communities finance

drinking water improvements around the country.

In fact, this month, we are estimating that the thousandth loan

to a community has been provided under this law that was only

passed 4 years ago.

There’s already been over $2 billion worth of activity here.

It is good news to me. Seventy-five percent of the loans in this

account are actually going to small systems under 10,000, which in

many cases are those communities that have the greatest need.

These are loan programs. They are typically reduced loans at

below-market rates. They are not grants.

But, it is a way of helping some of the communities around the

country.

Mr. STRICKLAND. I understand there is an increase of about $5

million in this revolving fund.

But, a community where there is 17 percent unemployment and

where people are drinking today, if they have no other source for

clean drinking water, arsenic, where there have been numerous

cancers identified that are probably related to this problem, can

you tell me today that there is going to be sufficient funding for

this community and for other communities to solve these kinds of

problems?

Mr. FOX. I wish I could, but I can’t. The short answer is that,

in this country, we have an enormous gap of infrastructure needs

around the country, both wastewater and drinking water.

59

Our most recent needs survey on the drinking-water side sug- gests over $100 billion worth of investment that is going to have

to happen in this country over the next 20 years.

The contribution this committee authorized represented a very

significant increase in the Federal contribution.

Historically, it is a share that is paid by the State and local governments, particularly local governments.

This is a very significant need that we face as a Nation.

Mr. STRICKLAND. I certainly don’t want to be argumentative, and

I don’t want to be disrespectful to you.

But, I have been elected, and those of us who sit up here have

been elected.

It troubles me somewhat that the earmarked projects seem to be

held in disdain when many of us represent situations in our district where we have no other choice but to seek earmarks for problems that are of such significance.

Having said that, I am going to continue to seek an earmark for

this very, very serious problem.

A last question, if I could, Mr. Chairman. I think I have a little

time left.

Mr. Perciasepe, as you know, I testified before the Senate Committee in Cincinnati, Ohio, regarding the New Source Review issue.

I stated then and I’ll state now that, without sufficient dialog

from the interested parties or stakeholders, I have little confidence

that a workable solution can be reached.

At the time of the hearing, I understood that EPA was conducting stakeholder meetings.

However, I recently have been informed—and if I am wrong,

please correct me—but I have been informed that EPA has suspended further discussions with industry stakeholder groups.

Could you tell me if that is true or not true?

Mr. PERCIASEPE. I think the word ‘‘suspended’’ is probably the

wrong word.

We have been having dialog with a number of different kinds of

industry groups, from utilities to what would commonly be called

complex manufacturing—paper mills, oil refineries, industries of

that nature.

We have had a series of meetings with them, and we are sort of

assessing where we are with those discussions.

Then, I will be following up some of them to see if we can find

some points to move forward.

I think we have made some progress. We are going to need to

push a little harder on all sides to do this.

So, suspension, I think, is too hard a word, but we are in a couple-week period here where we are trying to assess where we are

and where the opportunities are to continue.

The simple answer is no, we haven’t suspended.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Chairman, can I ask one really quick question?

At the Cincinnati hearing, I submitted testimony on the IBEW.

I would be interested in knowing if you can tell me quickly which

stakeholder groups have been involved in the discussions, and in

particular whether or not labor has been included, as the Senators

suggested that they ought to be.

60

Mr. PERCIASEPE. I don’t have a published list with me today of

all the different groups.

We could follow up with you, or I could supply them for the

record, Mr. Chairman.

But, I don’t know to what extent any particular labor group may

have been involved in the discussions or represented.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Will you furnish that information for the record?

Certainly Mr. Strickland is very interested.

[The following was received for the record:]

As with any group with an interest in NSR reform, labor groups have had the

opportunity to comment on the rulemaking by writing to the Agency, commenting

on proposed rules, attending public hearings, or participating in the numerous

stakeholder meetings that have been open to the public. The EPA maintains a docket for the NSR Reform rule (Docket No. A-90-37) which includes information about

the various meetings to discuss NSR Reform and includes any written comments received on the rule.

A review of the docket shows that unions, including the United Mine Workers,

The United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners, and the Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical and Energy (PACE) International Union, have either commented on

the proposed rule or have attended at least one of the stakeholder meetings. However, this docket is not a comprehensive record of everyone who attended every single public meeting, and some individuals in the record did not indicate whether they

were representing an organization, so it is likely that additional representatives

from unions have also attended some of the larger public meetings and made comments on the rule.

In addition to unions, the groups participating in stakeholder discussions so far

generally include (1) representatives from numerous industry groups such as the

Chemical Manufacturers’ Association, the American Petroleum Institute, the Edison

Electric Institute, over 100 other trade groups, individual corporations, and law

firms representing a broad cross-section of industrial sectors; (2) representatives

from dozens of state and local air pollution control agencies, as well as from regional

planning groups in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic States, and from STAPPA/

ALAPCO, a national association of state and local air pollution control agencies; (3)

representatives from about a dozen environmental or public interest groups including some umbrella groups like the Clean Air Task Force who represent additional

organizations; and (4) representatives from federal agencies including EPA, the Forest Service, the National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Department of Energy, and the Department of Defense.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. If the gentleman will yield time that he does not

have, just very quickly on the arsenic, we earmarked $4 million for

our arsenic research.

Has that taken place? I am hitchhiking upon your question.

Mr. FOX. We are perhaps talking about a few different earmarks

here, but the earmarks for arsenic we have are part of a very ambitious arsenic program.

We are, in fact, very soon going to be proposing a new drinking

water arsenic standard based on the research that’s been done.

We are a little bit late in terms of the statutory deadline, but I

suspect this new arsenic standard will be out in June.

Our current standard of 50 parts per billion is not protective of

public health, and this will be a new, more stringent standard

based on the results of the National Academy of Sciences as well

as some of our own research.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. So your answer is that you are using the dollars

allocated for arsenic research for that research, is that right?

Ms. NOONAN. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thanks. Mr. Bilbray.

Mr. BILBRAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chuck, let me address

an issue that does not specifically apply to this committee techVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:15 Sep 18, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 64026.TXT HCOM2 PsN: HCOM2
61

nically, that is, the International Boundary and Water Commission

project in south San Diego right on the Tijuana, Mexico border.

I know, traditionally, this would not be something you would be

doing, either, because it is a State Department project.

But, seeing that public health is the issue here, after 25 or 30

years of the EPA suing San Diego over the secondary sewage mandate in the Clean Water Act, the same EPA is operating or has

built a plant that does not operate at secondary to this day, but

seems to be able to go to secondary.

I have been informed that we need to have the cap raised by

Congress.

Has EPA included in their budget a request of this Congress that

the spending cap that was put on by previous Congresses—and we

will say 7 years ago?

Has EPA requested that this Congress remove the spending cap

and allow EPA to go to build to the secondary standard mandated

by the Clean Water Act?

Mr. FOX. We sent a letter to the Appropriations Committee and

this Congress requesting that they remove the cap.

It happened last year. It is not included in our budget, as a matter of your technical question, but it was a separate letter we sent

to the committee.

Mr. BILBRAY. But the problem is why wouldn’t you include it in

this budget, because it is essential to be able to implement a budgetary request, isn’t it?

Mr. FOX. As we were building this budget, Mr. Bilbray, as you

well know, I was having very detailed conversations with you and

some of your colleagues.

It was out of respect for that process that we did not include any

specific language in this budget at that time.

It is still our goal to have the Congress remove the cap so we can

get ahead with secondary treatment.

I think that is in the best interest of the people of this country

and the people of your district.

Mr. BILBRAY. Out of respect for the environment, are you planning on presenting Congress with the same letter this year that

you presented last year?

Mr. FOX. If you think that would be necessary, we certainly could

do that.

Frankly, I think the letter is out there. It stands. If you feel it

needs to be refreshed, we could certainly do it.

Mr. BILBRAY. Do you think is that an essential part of implementing EPA’s strategy when it applies to fulfilling the Clean

Water Act at the International Boundary and Water Commission

in San Diego?

Mr. FOX. We simply cannot go to secondary treatment at that

plant without Congress raising the cap.

We have enough money in the pipeline right now to continue on

some engineering work this year.

But, we ultimately can’t complete construction on it without Congress removing the cap.

Mr. BILBRAY. Thank you. Bob, let me get back to my favorite

subject.

62

I have read that page 6 of the Blue Ribbon Report. It doesn’t say

anything about introducing new mandates.

Now, before we get into that, let me ask you a question. In 1995,

a new Member of Congress was asked by the State of California

to carry a bill to eliminate the 2 percent mandate for that State.

Since then—Let’s just say this. Why do you think I introduced

the bill in 1996. I worked on it in 1995. Why do you think I introduced that?

Why do you think the State of California did? Was it because I

knew MTBE was a problem? That I knew it was going to become

such a controversial issue?

Mr. PERCIASEPE. I don’t know. You’ll have to tell me.

Mr. BILBRAY. How would I have known that MTBE was going to

be the controversial issue that it is now at that time?

Mr. PERCIASEPE. So you were proposing to do it, I am assuming,

from the way you asked the question, to remove the oxygenate requirement even before MTBE was an issue?

Mr. BILBRAY. The problem I am getting to—and this is what the

Blue Ribbon Committee is reinforcing—MTBE by itself is not the

problem.

The problem is a mandate that does not allow flexibility to address environmental problems, and I’d ask my colleague—both my

colleagues on the other side of the aisle to really look at this, because we get——

EPA now is being diverted over to talking about MTBE, rather

than talking about a mistake that was made in 1990, that those

of us in the environmental health community knew was a mistake

by 1992.

By 1994, we had developed alternative fuel prototypes, and in

1995 and 1996 we were asking for the permission to implement

those alternatives.

I am asking you are you willing to recognize what the Blue Ribbon Committee said, and that is Congress should act as quickly as

possible to remove the mandate so the flexibility can respond to environmental concerns?

Mr. PERCIASEPE. We agree that the 2 percent oxygenate mandate

should be removed.

Mr. BILBRAY. But you propose to replace it with a new mandate.

Mr. PERCIASEPE. A different mandate.

Mr. BILBRAY. You understand my concern? We are running into

the same problem, and I hope my colleagues understand.

That problem is you start mandating that certain substances are

used, and, when problems come up with those substances, you have

eliminated the need.

It has been 5 years that I have been trying to get Congress to

recognize this problem.

Now, you are going to introduce a new mandate. Is it going to

take another 6 years or 7 years to correct the problem that may

occur there?

Why can’t we as a people and as a strategy set a tough standard

and say now, go clean up the environment, and do it based on the

outcome, not based on a mandated implementation?

Certain products get used, but, if those products are environmentally damaging, you look around and say it is a mandate.

63

I want to say this to my colleagues. This is the frustration I have

here.

Are you sure that your new mandate will not create new environmental problems?

Mr. PERCIASEPE. If you take MTBE out, you are going to have

to put something in.

Now, you can make the list of all the possibilities. Remember,

this is gasoline.

Every one of the possibilities that you have to fill that volume

of liquid that we’ll have to fill will have some potential problem.

Which one may have the least, or at least a neutral potential?

That is what we are trying to do, but we are not suggesting that

ethanol be the replacement in the Clean-Burning Gasoline program.

We are talking about preserving the amount of renewable fuels

we currently have in the Nation’s fuel supply, which is about 1.2

percent of it, give or take a tenth of a percent, and that it grows

slowly over a 10-year period.

Mr. BILBRAY. So, in other words, you are talking from the energy

independence point of view and the FDA’s point of view? It is not

part of the public-health strategy?

Mr. PERCIASEPE. We have a couple of recommendations in that

package about the clean-burning gasoline component of it.

One is to remove the oxygenate standard to create more flexibility to meet the clean air performance standards that you are

talking about, and, two, to give us the authority to remove particular—in this case, MTBE—constituents to give us the unambiguous authority to be able to deal with other welfare issues that

come up when you use these.

Mr. BILBRAY. I think you used a great word, the welfare issue.

The question is is the Clean Air Act—Mr. Chairman, I’m sorry

about this, but the issue is this—there’s conflicting priorities, and

I ask my colleagues to look at this.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. You have done that, Brian. Please summarize.

Mr. BILBRAY. I would summarize the fact that this is the conflict

we get welfare to try to address energy independence, but you have

put it into an energy——

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Welfare is the term in the Clean Air Act that

this committee uses for issues other than air, like ground water.

Mr. BILBRAY. I have no problem with that. My problem is that

we are getting people trying to implement other agendas within a

public-health law.

When you do that, you cause conflicts with your intended purpose, which is public health.

That is what we run into. I yield back my time.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Engel.

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to talk about one

of my frustrations.

It is a different subject, but I am equally frustrated, and there

are some similarities, I am afraid.

In my district, we have a problem regarding water filtration.

The filtration plant was mandated for the Croton Reservoir a

decade ago, and I have been working very hard to try to find alternatives to building this $6 billion plant—water filtration plant—

64

which I call a boondoggle, that will disrupt the community, and I

think ultimately lead to more pollution in our water.

What frustrates me that I believe there are alternatives to filtration.

EPA won’t look at them. There is a 1999 GAO report that

showed the EPA requested far less than the authorized amount of

money for research and development on filtration alternatives.

I am dismayed, frankly, that the EPA is not fully utilizing the

available resources to develop this technology.

I would like to know what amount of money is being utilized to

develop filtration alternative measures this year and what is the

status of this technology.

Can the EPA be doing more to develop filtration alternatives, because what happens is communities are barred by law from reopening the situation.

We have had improvements in technology over the past 10 or 15

years.

There might be alternatives to filtration, but we are barred from

even looking at those alternatives.

All we get, frankly, from your Agency, is that we must build this

boondoggle.

What is happening in New York, there is—The New York State

Department of Environmental Conservation is now considering

raising the level of phosphorous allowed in water stored at the

Croton Reservoir.

The DEC argues that the Bronx filtration plant will effectively

remove the additional pollutants.

It makes no sense to me the logic of let’s pollute the water, let’s raise the levels of acceptable pollutants, and then spend $6 billion

to build a filtration plant.

I want to know why is it not logical to say we need the ability

to maintain clean water, not to raise pollutant levels to justify this

questionable decision to build the filtration plant in the Bronx,

New York, where I represent.

I am wondering, Ms. Noonan or Mr. Fox, or, if someone can just

enlighten me, because I am very frustrated with it—for clean

water.

I have a wonderful environmental record well into the 1990’s,

and I am not a person who says not in my community, build it in

someone else’s community.

But, it seems to me, if you have alternatives, why wouldn’t we

want to even look at those alternatives?

Why would we want to maintain the kind of bureaucratic approach of, no, this is a mandate; it must happen. There may be alternatives. We’re not going to look at them, and we are not even

going to request the authorized amounts of money for research and

development of filtration alternatives that we have.

Mr. FOX. I appreciate your frustration, but, if I could just talk

a little bit about the filtration issue, and then Dr. Noonan can talk

briefly about the research.

Filtration, frankly, is the basic mechanism for providing clean

water to all Americans.

We are all dependent on filtered water here in Washington, D.C.

when we take a glass of water.

65

There has been common understanding in the public-health community for years that we want to provide what we call multiple

barriers of public-health protection in the drinking water system,

meaning that, if you could take pollution out of the water in the

first place, that is a good thing to do, even in the case where you

are filtering your water, as well, since we had a series of filtration

requirements that came online throughout the late 1980’s and

early 1990’s and were reaffirmed in the Safe Drinking Water Act

amendments.

We have done, I think, incredibly well across the country.

There are a total of 10,000-plus drinking water systems that are

required to filter because they are getting their water from surface

water supplies like the Potomac.

Over 9000 of those have filtration in place. There were 145 systems that we made very specific scientific determinations, that they

did not need a filter based on very high-quality-source water and

repeated sampling that proved that they were, in fact, safe.

Today in this country there are all but two systems that do not—

are not meeting the filtration requirements as required under our

regulation out of these 10,000.

One of them is the Croton system, and the other is the Boston

system.

The rest of New York’s water supply, as you know well, has

maintained filtration avoidance because they have such high-quality water.

The Croton watershed, as you know, is a very urbanized, increasingly developed watershed that has the potential of introducing a

significant amount of pollutants into the watershed.

There has been sampling suggesting that, in some cases, filtration is necessary.

We have reached a consent agreement with the city of New York

to provide filtration for that supply.

I think the consent agreement requires construction and completion of all this by the year 2006 or 2007.

Mr. ENGEL. If there are technical advances in filtration alternatives which have been developed over the past 10 years, why

wouldn’t we look at that?

Do you feel that there have been advances in filtration alternatives?

I mean, if water was determined to require filtration a decade

ago, and since that time we have made advances, why wouldn’t we

want to look at that?

Let me just do a second part. I have some legislation which

would allow public water systems to reapply after a 12-month period to the State in order to ascertain if the filtration plant is still

needed.

My bill allows the new technologies to be considered in determining whether a filtration plant is needed or if environmentally

friendly filtration alternatives that provide clean drinking water

can be implemented instead.

Mr. FOX. We have some concerns with this legislation, again,

coming back to the fundamental premise that the filtration provides the basic level of protection to all Americans who are drinking water.

66

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Fox, with all due respect, the gentleman’s

time has expired, but I would certainly allow a very significant response to this question, not an encyclopedia, I guess, is what I am

saying.

Mr. FOX. I will be very quick. We have some concerns with your

legislation.

We believe, in general, we have made significant progress in this

country with filtration.

The Croton system, in particular, when we had the last hurricanes come up the East Coast, was shut down for many weeks because of problems with high turbidity.

This is not a system that typically would meet our test for avoiding filtration.

Ms. NOONAN. Mr. Chairman, may I ask for the privilege of clarifying the gentleman’s question.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. If you can do it briefly, yes.

Ms. NOONAN. In fact, we are working on alternative filtration

technologies.

We have worked on them prior to now, and we continue to work

on them, both membrane filtration and biofiltration.

We have in-house work in our laboratories that is taking place.

It is a small effort, because we have a large water research plate

full of issues.

Let me just mention that, in general, alternative filtration systems waste a significant amount of source water.

They do tend to be expensive to maintain and operate on a costper-gallon basis.

In a priority-setting mode, we have to make choices about the

kinds of investments we make in drinking water.

Given that, we have maintained a small effort in evaluation of

alternative filtration technologies within our drinking water program.

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, if I could just have 10 seconds for a

response.

I want to just repeat that the September, 1999 GAO report illustrated the EPA requested far less than the authorized amounts of

money for research and development in filtration alternatives.

That is very dismaying that you are not fully utilizing the available resources to develop this technology.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. We have tried to make those points a number of

times, Mr. Engel.

All right, our timing—By the way, I just wanted to, as we close

here—The staff has consulted, at my request, with the CRS.

The CRS—Regarding last week’s budget resolution, the CRS informs us that, based on their analysis, the House passed a $700

million increase for Function 300 Natural Resources, which is a 3.8

percent increase.

Just for the record, again, I would ask you, and I know you

would be available, to respond to any written questions.

Without objection, members’ opening statements will be made a

part of the record.

Any additional material may be submitted to the record for 3

days.

67

Robert, thanks very much for your patience and your perseverance. It was a good hearing.

[Whereupon, at 1:15 p.m., Thursday, March 30, 2000, the hearing was adjourned.]

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

August 31, 2000

The Honorable MICHAEL BILIRAKIS

Chairman

Subcommittee on Health and Environment

Committee on Commerce

U.S. House of Representatives

Washington, D.C. 20515

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Enclosed please find a complete set of our responses to the

follow-up questions for the record following the March 30, 2000 hearing on the Environmental Protection Agency’s FY 2000 Budget which were received on May 5, 2000.

As you know, we have already provided responses in two previous installments on

June 13 and July 20, 2000.

I thank you for the opportunity to respond, and hope that EPA’s input will prove

valuable to the Committee.

Sincerely,

DIANE E. THOMPSON

Associate Administrator

Enclosures

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE; SUBCOMMITTEES ON FINANCE AND HAZARDOUS

MATERIALS, AND HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT 3/30/00 HEARING

According to the Administration’s budget submission for Fiscal Year 2001, an additional $106 million is requested for its clean air goal. However, much of this increase may be attributable to the Clean Air Partnership Fund, for which $85 million

is requested.

Question 1A: Please provide all draft criteria or guidance concerning how the

Fund would be organized and administered.

Attached below is the full text of the document entitled ‘‘U.S. EPA Clean Air Partnership Fund: Draft Program Design Framework,’’ which has been publically disseminated for discussion. In it, such program design organizational and administrative questions such as selection criteria, eligible grant recipients and the grant evaluation and selection process are discussed in draft form.

As noted in the document, official ‘‘guidance’’ for the Fund will be developed and

issued according to a timetable whose specific dates will be finalized at some point

after the completion of the appropriations process.

U.S. EPA CLEAN AIR PARTNERSHIP FUND DRAFT PROGRAM DESIGN FRAMEWORK

Introduction

This Clean Air Partnership Fund draft program design framework is being prepared and distributed to solicit suggestions from all parties. Please contact Keith

Mason (202-564-1678) in EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation with comments or questions. A final Clean Air Partnership Fund program design will be contained in the

solicitation for proposals and accompanying guidance that will be developed and distributed at a later date.

Statutory Authority

• The CAPF will operate as an EPA grant program under Section 103 of the Clean

Air Act which authorizes EPA to issue demonstration grants.

Eligible Grant Recipients

The Fund will provide grants to local, state and tribal governments, and to multigovernmental organizations, specifically:

• Government agencies and organizations at the state, city, and county levels

• Tribal government agencies and organizations

• Regional and multi-governmental organizations whose members are from state,

city, county and tribal agencies

68

Selection Criteria for Project/Program Evaluation

EPA will use the following criteria in the evaluation of CAPF grant proposals:

• Reduce multiple air pollutants. Projects or programs should reduce or prevent

more than one kind of air pollutant. All classes and types of air pollutants are

eligible including: NOX, SOX, SO22, PM, VOCs, CO, lead, air toxics, ozone-depleting substances and greenhouse gases.

• Demonstrate innovative programs or technologies which reduce or prevent

multiple air pollutants.

• Result in significant leveraging of Federal (CAPF) funds by:

• providing a minimum level of matching funds directly from the grant recipient (match % to be determined)

• providing additional leveraging, as appropriate to the project or program,

through one or more of the following mechanisms:

—revolving loan funds;

—bond guarantees;

—tax incentives;

—supplemental matching funds;

—funding from private sources; and/or

—others to be proposed by applicant and approved by EPA

• Transferability. Project should demonstrate the potential to replicate results

and create benefits in other areas of the country.

Additional criteria will also be developed that address the role of partners and

public participation. Criteria may also be developed that are specific to the types

or categories of projects that are eligible, as appropriate, as part of the final Solicitation of Proposals and Guidance.

Eligible Projects & Programs

The CAPF will provide an initial source of funding for many types of demonstration projects or programs that include but are not limited to the following:

• air pollution control technologies or processes;

• air pollution prevention technologies or processes;

• retrofits or improvements that increase the energy efficiency and reduce associated air pollution of

—commercial, industrial, municipal or residential buildings and facilities;

—transportation systems or fleets;

—industrial processes; or

—existing pollution control technologies or systems

• power technologies using low or no-emitting resources as cleaner energy sources,

such as renewable energy;

• financial mechanisms or other types of strategies that enable an eligible grant recipient to implement a number of demonstration projects.

Apportioning the CAPF

• By size of grant—to make the CAPF accessible to as many entities as possible,

different amounts of funding are apportioned to different sizes of programs or

projects as follows:

Grant size Amt of pool Size range No. of grants % of

total

Large ........................................................................................ $20 million $2.5-$5.0M each 4-8 25%

Medium ..................................................................................... $45 million $1.0-$5.0M each 10-45 50%

Small ........................................................................................ $20 million <$1.0M each 20-100 25%

• By EPA’s strategic air goals—EPA will review the set of final award decisions to

ensure alignment with the Agency’s air goals, focusing at least 2⁄3 of the Fund

on projects/programs that address criteria pollutants and 1⁄3 of the Fund on

projects/programs that address air toxics and all projects/programs required to

demonstrate significant co-benefit reductions of other categories of air pollutants such as greenhouse gases.

Project/Program Timeframe

• Projects or programs should minimize the time from proposal to project start up.

• Projects or programs should be implemented within 1-3 years after the grant is

awarded.

69

Grant Evaluation & Selection Process

EPA will use a two-tiered process to evaluate proposals and select final grant

awards.

• Tier 1 provides an initial screen of a project/program synopsis to see how well

they meet a limited set of necessary selection criteria

• Tier 2 provides a more in-depth evaluation of full proposals across all selection

criteria for projects/programs that qualify based on the Tier 1 process.

EPA’s two-tier process for the CAPF comprises the following steps:

• EPA selects evaluation panels

• EPA sets parameters for Tier 1 and Tier 2 evaluations

• All applicants submit a 3-5 page synopsis of their proposals

• Panels evaluate proposal synopses using a pre-determined methodology

• Applicants that qualify based on Tier 1 evaluations develop and submit a full proposal

• EPA panels perform Tier 2 evaluations

• Final award decisions are made

Design Process & Timetable

Clean Air Partnership Fund Program Development Steps Approximate

Time Frame

Approximate

Target Date

Gather information and stakeholder ideas & input ....................................................................... 4-6 months 2/00-8/00

Develop draft program design options ........................................................................................... 2-5 months 4/00-9/00

Evaluate options & further develop guidance ................................................................................ 2-5 months 8/00-1/01

Issue Solicitation of Proposals and Guidance, and provide outreach and training about guidance to states, locals and tribes ............................................................................................... .................... 2/01-4/01

CAPF Grant Proposal Calendar

Grant Project/Program Synopses Due ............................................................................................................ summer ’01

Full Grant Proposals Due ............................................................................................................................... fall ’01

Final Selections Made .................................................................................................................................... winter ’01/’02

Question 1B: It seems that EPA is proposing, under this Fund, that EPA will decide who will or will not receive grants, based on broad criteria like ‘‘multiple air

pollution problems’ and facilitation of meaningful public involvement.’’ Please tell us

what effort you have made to align such criteria with existing statutory goals contained in the Clean Air Act.

Answer 1B: As defined in the document referenced in 1A above (and attached

below), EPA will ‘‘review the set of final award decisions to ensure alignment with

the Agency’s air goals, focusing at least 2⁄3 of the Fund on innovative projects/programs that address criteria pollutants and 1⁄3 of the Fund on projects/programs that

address air toxics and all projects/programs required to demonstrate significant cobenefit reductions of other categories of air pollutants such as greenhouse gases.’’

Question 1C: What data or ranking scale will you use to judge relative risks that

will be addressed by each proposal?

Answer 1C: Exact details such as what data will be required to be included in

actual proposals and how will that data be evaluated will be part of the final Solicitation of Proposals issued after the completion of the appropriations process. One

of the selection criteria will be the demonstrated success of the proposals in reducing or preventing more than one kind of air pollutant. It is expected that proposals

will quantify (in a specific manner to be determined) the reductions of emissions

that the demonstrations will achieve and how those reductions result in improvement to air quality-related human health and ecological impacts.

Question 1D: How do you propose such Funds be allocated among the states? By

a formula? Some other criteria, such as need?

Answer 1D: As specified in the ‘‘Draft Program Design Framework,’’ the Fund will

provide grants to local, state and tribal governments, and to multi-governmental organizations, specifically:

• Government agencies and organizations at the state, city, and county levels

• Tribal government agencies and organizations

• Regional and multi-governmental organizations whose members are from state,

city, county and tribal agencies.

At this point, it is expected that all proposals will be evaluated on their individual

merits in a national-based competitive process and that there will not be any

70

predesignated allocations of resources to specific states, counties, tribes, cities or

multi-governmental organizations.

Question 2A: I noted that Chairman Bliley requested EPA, in a letter dated

March 21, 2000, to provide FTE figures and expenditures for MTBE research. However, I could not find a line item for such research in Acting Chief Financial Officer

Michael Ryan’s March 28, 2000 response to Chairman Bliley. How much does EPA

propose to spend on MTBE research in Fiscal Year 2001? Answer 2A: The MTBE research resources for FY 2001 total $1.1 million.

Question 2B: Please provide the Committee with details on all FY 2001 MTBE research efforts, including the identity of the principle investigations, when each research project was initiated, when it is due to be completed and what scientific and

technical questions each project will explore.

Answer 2B: The FY 2001 MTBE research efforts are as follows:

30. Monitored Natural Attenuation of MTBE under Varying Geological Conditions

Principle Investigator: John T. Wilson & John Haines

Initiated: FY98

Estimated completion: FY01

What scientific and technical questions will the project explore?

The project addresses the question of the extent and rate of the natural biodegradation of MTBE under several different geochemical conditions for which different terminal electron accepting processes predominate. The project results, which

are based on coordinated laboratory and field work, will be of use in developing

guidance on the extent to which monitored natural attenuation can, or cannot, be

incorporated into the remedial actions taken at leaking underground storage tanks

sites where MTBE is present. The final report for this project is expected to be completed by the end of the second quarter of FY01. In FY01, EPA plans to initiate

research on the natural attenuation of other oxygenates that are proposed as replacements for MTBE.

2. MTBE Treatment by Adsorption/Oxidation

Principle Investigator: Scott Huling & Teri Richardson

Initiated: FY99

Estimated Completion: FY02

What scientific and technical questions will the project explore?

The project addresses the problem of providing cost-effective treatment options for

groundwater that is contaminated with MTBE. This project is specifically addressing the possibility of a recently developed process that relies on the use of granular

activated carbon (GAC) that has been treated with iron to adsorb MTBE from contaminated water and then use hydrogen peroxide to cause Fenton’s reaction which

simultaneously regenerates the GAC and oxidizes the adsorbed MTBE. This process

was developed by EPA researchers and currently EPA has a patent application

pending. The project will develop potential cost data as well as evaluating the technical feasibility of applying this process to groundwater contaminated with MTBE.

3. MTBE Treatment by Advanced Oxidation

Principle Investigator: Thomas Speth

Initiated: FY99

Estimated Completion: FY02

What scientific and technical questions will the project explore?

The project addresses the problem of providing cost-effective treatment options for

drinking water that is contaminated with MTBE. It explores the conditions necessary to strip MTBE from drinking water supplies and the advanced oxidation

technologies necessary to destroy the released MTBE. The project will examine relationships between operating conditions and MTBE removal performance, and the

conversion efficiency of the associated advanced oxidation technologies capable of

treating MTBE in the offgas

4. Ex-situ Treatment of MTBE Contaminated Groundwater

Principle Investigator: Al Venosa

Initiated: FY98

Estimated Completion: FY02

What scientific and technical questions will the project explore?

The project addresses the problem of providing cost-effective techniques to biodegrade MTBE using membrane reactors.

5. Technical Support to the Regions on MTBE Issues

Principle Investigator: Patricia Erickson

Initiated: FY01

Estimated Completion: Continuing

What scientific and technical questions will the project explore?

The projects will provide site-specific technical support in identifying and implementing MTBE treatment strategies.

71

6. MTBE Toxicological Reviews

Principle Investigator: Michael Davis & Jane Caldwell

Initiated: FY00

Estimated Completion: FY01

What scientific and technical questions will the project explore?

The project will develop MTBE oral reference dose (RfD) and cancer unit risk toxicological reviews for Agency consensus review.

7. Alternative Tier II Health Effects

Principle Investigator: Michael Davis & Jane Caldwell

Initiated: FY01

Estimated Completion: FY02

What scientific and technical questions will the project explore?

The project will analyze Alternative Tier II health effects testing data for Clean

Air Act 211(b) mandate. The project includes baseline gasoline and gasoline with

MTBE, TAME, ETBE and EtOH.

Question 3: What is the EPA spending in FY 2001 and what does the proposed

budget for FY 2001 allocate for programs concerning the ozone and particulate matter (PM) standards which were promulgated in 1997 and are now currently under

litigation? What does the FY 2001 budget allocate for all PM research programs?

How much is proposed in FY 2001 for PM monitoring? Answer 3: The Office of Air and Radiation budget includes $2.0 million for PM, and $0.7 million for ozone. The resources will be used to develop guidance documents and analytical tools to provide infrastructure that will be needed when the

litigation of these standards is resolved. The State and local agency grant program

(STAG grants) for FY2001 includes $42.5 million for the revised PM monitoring network and $1.25 million for IMPROVE (Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual

Environments) regional haze/visibility monitoring.

Guided by the recommendations of the National Research Council (NRC), the FY

2001 budget for Particulate Matter research by the Office of Research and Development (ORD) is $65.3 million. The EPA’s ORD also provides approximately $2 million

(included above) directed toward continuing PM monitoring work at the Supersites.

The Supersites are intensive monitoring projects that study components and sources

of PM. They are coordinated with other research activities being planned to study

the health effects associated with exposure to these pollutants.

Question 4: Please provide the Committee with a written explanation of how

spending for PM research and monitoring will inform EPA’s next review of the PM

standard which would be required under the 5 year cycle outline in the Clean Air

Act, to be promulgated in mid-2002?

Answer 4: Research and monitoring funded in FY 2001 will increase our understanding of particulate matter (PM) health effects and exposure for the review of

the criteria and standards scheduled for completion by 2007. The key dates for the

current review of the standards are mid-2001, when the criteria document and staff

paper should be complete. In addition, in late 2001 to 2002, the Agency will be soliciting public comments, including any significant new scientific developments arising

from research being conducted and published by that time. All of the air quality

monitoring data collected in 1999 and much of that collected in 2000 will be included in air quality analyses for the Staff Paper and the later stages of the decision-making process.

Newly-funded research, accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal by mid

to late 2000 can be considered for inclusion in the criteria document and staff paper.

Generally, research initiated in FY 2001 cannot be expected to produce results in

time to be considered in the new scientific findings included in these documents.

However, if any highly significant new findings result from this research in 2001,

they could be provisionally considered during the public comment period. Some of

the new work is targeted at more cost-effective implementation of PM standards.

Results of the 2001 funded research in this area will be of use and of potentially

significant value to industry, States, and EPA in 2003-2005, in areas such as modeling tools and source characterization used by the States in their State Implementation Plans (SIPS). As previously mentioned, the findings of all of the newly-funded

research will play an important role in the subsequent review of the PM National

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in 2007 and subsequent years.

PM research spending in FY 2001 will be consistent with the recommendations

of the National Research Council Committee on Research Priorities for Airborne

Particulate Matter. The research will address questions related to the biological

mechanisms of toxicity, characterize factors affecting susceptibility, identify components and characteristics of PM associated with toxicity, improve understanding of

sources and actual human exposures to PM, and understand the role of PM and gaseous copollutants in affecting human health. As research in these areas is completed

72

the peer reviewed results will be incorporated into the Air Quality Criteria Document and also support State Implementation Planning.

Question 5: EPA is about to propose new diesel sulfur regulations. How will EPA

propose to address both possible price increases and any effect on diesel supply

under its proposed regulations? In light of the current increases in price—has EPA

completed any specific study of price and supply issues?

Answer 5: EPA’s proposed emission standards for new heavy-duty vehicles and

diesel fuel sulfur control were announced on May 17, 2000 and published June 2,

2000 (65 Fed. Reg. 35430). The potential for price increases and the impacts on diesel fuel supply are two of the many issues that were discussed in the proposal and

on which we requested public comment. For example, the proposal includes a substantial discussion on a phase-in of the low sulfur diesel requirements as a way to

provide the oil industry with some additional flexibility in meeting the proposed sulfur reductions. We are continuing to evaluate these issues and options to address

them as we develop the final rule.

EPA is fully committed to working cooperatively with the diesel fuel industry to

ensure that any efforts to reduce harmful levels of sulfur in diesel fuel are done in

a reliable and cost-effective manner. EPA worked successfully last year in partnership with the auto and petroleum industries to develop a cost-effective rule for

tougher tailpipe emission standards for cars and low sulfur gasoline. We plan to

take the same collaborative approach with regard to reducing the sulfur content of

diesel fuel. By working cooperatively with the oil industry, environmental groups,

public health experts, and states and by taking full public comment, we will develop

a cost-effective standard that can be implemented without disruption of fuel supplies and that still fully protects public health and the environment.

Although EPA has not completed any specific study on fuel prices and supply, we

have investigated, with DoE, many issues related to recent high gasoline prices in

the midwest.

Question 6: Page I-14 and I-15 of the Fiscal Year 2001 budget document indicate

that EPA is ‘‘evaluating, and will continue to evaluate, clean air programs to determine how best to secure necessary public health protections while still respecting

the court’s decision (on the 8 hour ozone standard and new PM standard).’’

(A) Please provide the Committee with a more complete explanation of this statement. Please provide a specific definition of the difference between implementing

the standards and ‘‘securing necessary public health protections’’?

(B) What specific actions could constitute implementation versus what actions

would constitute securing public health protections?

Answer 6: EPA looks at each action related to the ozone standard on a case-bycase basis to determine whether, given the status of the litigation on the 8-hour

ozone standard, we can move forward. EPA’s approach to addressing the regional

transport of ozone in the eastern half of the country by controlling NOX emissions

is a good example of how EPA is securing necessary public health protections while

still respecting the court’s decision. When EPA initially issued requirements for

NOX reductions (i.e., issuing the NOX SIP Call and granting states’ section 126 petitions), EPA did so because it was necessary to attain both the pre-existing 1-hour

standard and the new 8-hour standard. After the court’s decision on the 8-hour

ozone standard, EPA announced that it would stay the rationale and requirements

for the NOX reductions that were based solely on the need to attain the new 8-hour

ozone standard. Although the NOX reduction requirements are based on the need

to attain the 1-hour ozone standard, they will also help areas have air quality that

meets or is nearer to the level of the 8-hour ozone standard, which will help protect

public health. Another example is EPA’s recently issued Tier 2 standards to control

motor vehicle emissions. They are necessary to meet the 1-hour ozone standard, but

they will also provide additional health benefits by helping areas reduce ozone pollution to levels that meet or are nearer to the level of the 8-hour ozone standard.

Providing information on an areas’ air quality is also consistent with the court’s

decision. The court specifically recognized that EPA has a statutory obligation to

designate areas with respect to whether they are attaining air quality standards,

and gave no indication that it was relieving EPA of that obligation for the 8-hour

ozone standard. Thus, EPA is in the process of working with the states to designate

areas as attainment or nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone standard because we believe it is important that people have information about the quality of the air they

breathe. Similarly, we are working with state and local governments in many areas

to provide information to the public about air quality through the use of the Air

Quality Index.

The court decision has not affected the activities related to the fine particulate

standard that were planned for this time period. Primarily, EPA had planned on

conducting the review of the fine particle standard, as required by statute, and

73

working with the states to establish the fine particulate monitoring network and to

collect data from it. Neither of these activities is affected by the court decision.

Question 7: The Clean Air Act requires EPA to promulgate all Maximum Achievable Control Technology Standards (MACT standards) for air toxics by this November.

(A) Can you tell me precisely how many MACT standards will not be promulgated

by the deadline contained in section 112(e)(1)(E) of the Clean Air Act?

Answer 7A: To date, we have promulgated 46 standards (covering 82 source categories) and proposed an additional 4 standards (covering 4 source categories). This

primarily includes standards which were in the 2, 4, and 7 year bins and each with

their own respective statutory deadline. The final deadline is November 15, 2000 for

the remaining standards in the 10 year bin. In total, there are 62 standards (covering 96 source categories) in the 10 year bin. We are working on these standards,

however, we will not have all of them completed by the statutory date. By November

15, 2000, we estimate that we will promulgate 3 MACT standards and propose 23

MACT standards. It is our plan to have all of the standards completed by May 15,

2002, the date of the section 112(j) MACT ‘‘hammer.’’ While we are looking at ways

to streamline the regulation development process so that we can meet the May 15,

2002 date, the amount of resources received in fiscal year 2001 will play a major

role in meeting this schedule.

Question 7B: Has EPA calculated the impact on public health of delaying these

MACT standards past the statutory deadline? If not, why not?

Answer 7B: EPA has not calculated the impact on public health by delaying the

MACT standards past the statutory deadline. Assuming that all MACT standards

are promulgated by the May 15, 2002 date, we will be no more than 18 months behind schedule. For many of the standards which have not been promulgated, we are

still gathering information on pollutants being emitted, amount of emissions, control

technology, and the ability to reduce emissions of these pollutants. Therefore, we

have not been able to do a health assessment associated with missing the statutory

deadline.

Question 8: Mr. Perciasepe indicated in the Administration’s statement that the FY 2001 budget proposed an additional $5 million for safe drinking water research

in Fiscal Year 2001. However, in information provided to the Committee, it was indicated that the Fiscal Year 2001 budget only requested a $3.2 million increase.

Please explain the discrepancy in these amounts.

Answer 8: The Agency’s policy is not to request funding in support of Congressional earmarks as part of the President’s Budget submission. In light of this policy,

the FY 2001 drinking water research request actually represents a $7.8 million increase over FY 2000 Enacted levels when FY 2000 Earmarks are not considered.

Included in the increase is an additional $5 million to support important research

on contaminants on the Contaminant Candidate List (CCL). This $5 million increase is over and above the FY 2000 Enacted level for this important area.

Question 9A: EPA has missed the statutory deadline of January 1, 2000 for proposing a new standard for arsenic. When does EPA expect to propose a new arsenic

standard?

Answer 9A: EPA proposed a new drinking water standard for arsenic in the Federal Register on June 22, 2000. The proposed rule will have a 90-day public comment period.

Question 9B: Since the 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments allowed for

a full year between the dates for proposal of a standard and promulgation of a final

standard, does EPA believe it will be able to sufficiently evaluate all the public comments it will receive and promulgate the new standard by January 1, 2001? If so,

what specific actions will EPA take to address this shortened schedule between proposal and a final rule?

Answer 9B: EPA has established a timetable to meet the January 1, 2001 deadline for a final rulemaking and has taken a number of steps to help expedite the

rulemaking process. The Agency has conducted extensive stakeholder outreach and

interaction on this proposed rulemaking over the past three years. We have preliminarily addressed a range of stakeholder views identified to date on the principal

issues of this rulemaking. We held five formal stakeholder meetings across the country for the purpose of discussing all aspects of the proposed rulemaking. In addition,

we participated in a series of technical workgroup meetings sponsored by the American Water Works Association (AWWA) designed to examine analytical methods, occurrence, treatment, and cost/benefit analyses (states, utilities and environmental

groups attended the AWWA meetings). We also worked with 22 small entity representatives, the Small Business Administration, and the Office of Management and

Budget through the Small Business Regulatory and Enforcement Flexibility Act

process. We also presented summaries of our rulemaking activities at national and

74

regional meetings of several of the major trade associations. Finally, several states

participated in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act consultation. The Agency expects that the public comment period will serve to amplify comments and points of

view that have been raised previously and considered, rather than new issues that

will require an extensive period of time to analyze.

Question 10A: The trade press has reported that EPA will propose a 5 part per

billion (ppb) standard for arsenic and take comment on a 3 ppb and 10 ppb standard. Whether or not this is what EPA intends to do, can you tell us the present

scientific basis for a 5 ppb standard?

Answer 10A: EPA is proposing a new drinking water standard of 5 ppb for arsenic

and taking comment on regulatory options of 3 ppb (the feasible level), 10 ppb, and

20 ppb. EPA is proposing a Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) of zero for

arsenic. Arsenic is the first drinking water regulation which will set a standard

higher than technically feasible (3 ppb) using the discretionary authority from the

1996 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act to adjust the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) if the benefits would not justify the costs.

The scientific information that was reviewed in considering a range of possible

MCL options was the health effects of arsenic (principally, the National Academy

of Sciences’s National Research Council report NAS/NRC), the occurrence of arsenic

nationwide, the analytical methods that may be used to measure low levels of arsenic, and the costs and benefits of complying with a new standard.

From a health perspective, EPA believes that arsenic in drinking water can cause

several types of cancer including skin, bladder, lung, and prostate cancer. Non-cancer effects include skin pigmentation and keratosis (thick skin growths), gastrointestinal, cardiovascular, hormonal (e.g., diabetes), hematological (e.g., anemia),

pulmonary, neurological, immunological, and reproductive/developmental function.

The NAS/NRC report concluded that the current MCL for arsenic is not sufficiently

protective and urged EPA to lower the MCL as soon as possible. The NRC report

indicated that the risk of death due to bladder cancer at the current MCL of 50 ppb

was 1 to 1.5 in 1,000 and that the risk of death from lung cancer from arsenic in

drinking water could be two to five times that of bladder cancer. However, the

Council also noted a number of significant uncertainties in the analyses underlying

these estimates. These considerations are of particular interest in examining possible arsenic in drinking water MCL options in the range suggested by this question.

Question 10B: GAO indicated in a September 1999 report that costs would rise

dramatically for a 5 ppb standard from $620 million to $2.1 billion under EPA estimates and from $1.5 billion to $4.2 billion under private industry estimates. Do you

have any updated cost estimates for 5 ppb standard? What are they?

Answer 10B: At the proposed level of 5 ppb for arsenic in drinking water, EPA

has projected the total costs of treatment, monitoring, reporting, record keeping, and

administration for the 6,600 community water systems needing to reduce arsenic to

be $379.0 million a year at 3 percent discount rates and $445 million a year at 7

percent discount rates. These estimates are much lower than the 1995 EPA estimates cited by GAO. The previous EPA estimate for a 5 ppb MCL was $620 million

a year using a 7 percent discount rate. The $2.1 billion estimate was for an MCL

option of 2 ppb, not 5 ppb.

The following table shows the total annualized costs of treatment, monitoring, reporting, record keeping, and administration for this rule at 3 and 7 percent discount

rates for all the MCL options included in the proposed rule.

Total National Annualized Costs of the Arsenic Rule

(Includes cost of treatment, monitoring, reporting, record keeping, and administration)

Regulatory Action Three Percent Discount Rate Seven Percent Discount Rate

Proposal of 5 μg/L .................................................................................. ∼$379 million ∼$445 million

Option of 3 μg/L ..................................................................................... ∼$645 million ∼$756 million

Option of 10 μg/L ................................................................................... ∼$166 million ∼$195 million

Option of 20 μg/L ................................................................................... ∼$65 million ∼$77 million

Question 10C: How many avoided fatal cancer cases would be attributable to a

5 ppb standard?

Answer 10C: It is extremely important to recognize that the proposed rule has

both quantifiable and non-quantifiable benefits. In other words, there are health

end points that we can calculate with a certain degree of confidence (e.g., avoidance

of some types of fatal cancer),but believe there are also significant benefits that are

75

more difficult to quantify (e.g.,avoided circulatory problems) that are important and

attributable to this rule. Reducing arsenic from 50 ppb to 5ppb protects an additional 22.5 million Americans and will prevent about 20 cases of bladder cancer per

year and approximately 5 bladder cancer deaths per year. EPA expects that arsenicrelated lung cancers (that could number as many as two to five times the number

of bladder cancers) and cardiovascular diseases will be reduced with a lower standard as well.

Question 10D: The trade press has reported that EPA will propose a 5 part per

billion (ppb) standard for arsenic and take comment on a 3 ppb and 10 ppb standard. Has EPA completed all the arsenic research which was designed as a ‘‘high priority’’ under the arsenic research plan?

Answer 10D: As shown in Table 10-1, EPA has completed or will soon complete

each of the high priority, short-term research projects in the Research Plan for Arsenic in Drinking Water. These studies represent a broad range of activities in the

areas of arsenic health effects, exposure, risk assessment and risk management.

Some of these studies have provided information that directly supports the current

standard development process, while others have made significant progress in addressing longer term research needs. The studies conducted by EPA investigators,

collaborators and grant recipients compliment the efforts of scientists worldwide to

improve our ability to assess and control the risks posed by exposure to arsenic in

drinking water.

Table 10-1. Short-Term, High Priority Research Projects in the Research Plan for Arsenic in

Drinking Water

Project Title Status

Effects Task 1a. Feasibility study on important health

endpoints (Utah).

Completed.

Effects Task 1b. Directed epidemiology study—ongoing

collaborations (China, Chile).

Collaborations underway, with results available beginning in

FY 2000

Effects Task 2a. Develop biomarkers (urinary metabolic

profiles).

Completed urinary biomarker study in Utah population, and

several studies of arsenic metabolites in animals. Linked

to long-term effort.

Effects Task 3a. Factors that affect human susceptibility Completed several studies of the effect of micronutrient status on arsenic metabolism and toxicity. Linked to longterm effort.

Exposure Task 1a. Evaluate analytical techniques for inorganic As(III) and As(V) speciation in water.Completed.

Exposure Task 1b. Evaluate sample preservation techniques for arsenic species.Research completed, manuscript in preparation.

Exposure Task 3a. Refine and evaluate an analytical

approach to separate As(III), As(V), MMA, DMA and

arsenobetaine in urine.

Research completed, manuscript in preparation.

Exposure Task 6a. Development of a national data base

on concentrations in water.

Completed.

Risk Assessment Task 1a. Mode of action workshop ... Completed

Risk Assessment Task 1b. Synthesis of existing and

new data to support arsenic risk assessment and risk

characterization.

Completed

Risk Management Task 1a. Conduct laboratory and

field tests on arsenic control technologies, including

As(III) oxidation.

Research completed, manuscript in preparation

Risk Management Task 3a. Conduct studies on the

arsenic characteristics of the residual material generated

by testing in RM 1a.

Research completed, manuscript in preparation

Question 11A: The proposed radon drinking water regulations proposes a primary

radon Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 300 picocuries per liter (pCi/L) and

an alternate standard of 4,000 picocuries per liter if a multi-media mitigation plan

is adopted. How many states plan to adopt a multi-media mitigation plan?

Answer 11A: EPA expects the majority of states will choose the multimedia option

as both the most cost-effective and protective of public health. Preliminary information from a variety of state sources indicates that, to date, about 35 states plan to

adopt multimedia mitigation (MMM) programs and the alternative MCL of 4000

pCi/L. States have the flexibility to select either the MCL or the MMM/alternative

MCL option, under the framework provided by the Safe Drinking Water Act and the

76

radon proposal. EPA has encouraged states to seriously consider adopting the MMM

option as the most effective approach to reducing radon public health risk.

Question 11B: What happens if a majority of states don’t adopt such multi-media

plans?

Answer 11B: According to the Safe Drinking Water Act’s provision on radon and

the proposed regulation, if a state chooses not to develop a multimedia mitigation

(MMM) program, then individual water systems in that state would be required to

either reduce radon in their system’s drinking water to the maximum contaminant

level (MCL) or could choose to develop individual, local MMM programs and reduce

levels in drinking water to the alternative MCL. The proposed rule provides specific

information and guidance for small systems that may choose to develop local MMM

programs. However, as noted above, we believe it is far more cost effective to develop and implement state-wide MMM programs, in which case the utilities in the

state would only be required to meet the less stringent alternative MCL.

The Administration’s statement concerning the Leaking Underground Storage

Tank (LUST) program made no mention of methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) contamination of drinking water supplies.

Question 12: Please provide the Committee with a specific breakdown of all proposed safe drinking water research for Fiscal Year 2001. Please include a description of each research project, where such research is being conducted, the principal

investigations for each research project, and the target date for completion of such

research. Please provide the same data for Fiscal Years 1999 and 2000.

Answer 12: Drinking water research projects conducted or supported by EPA with

FY 1999 and FY 2000 funds are described in Table 12-1. This table includes the

requested information on projects that are identified in the research plans for

Microbials/Disinfection By-Products (DBPs), Arsenic and the Contaminant Candidate List (draft). Drinking water research supported under the Agency’s extramural research grant program is included in this table in instances where formal

awards have been made to date.

Detailed project-level information associated with FY 2001 drinking water research will be formulated later this year as part of the Agency’s FY 2001 Operating

Plan development. However, the areas of research that will be emphasized in FY

2001 can be described. Implementation of the research requirements in Sec. 1458(ad) and Sec. 109 of Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) will require a broad range of

studies in the areas of health effects, exposure, risk assessment and risk management. This will include a special focus on chemicals and microbes on the Contaminant Candidate List (CCL), sensitive subpopulations, waterborne disease occurrence

studies, treatment technologies and distribution systems, and remaining issues for

DBPs and arsenic. Attachment12-1 provides a summary of these FY 2001 studies

in the context of the SDWA research provisions.

Question 13: The September 1999 GAO report which examined safe drinking

water research programs made a number of recommendations. What has EPA done

in the last six months to implement each recommendation? What specifically has

EPA done to improve the transparency of the budget development process and the

effectiveness of the system used to track safe drinking water research?

Answer 13: The Agency has made considerable progress in the last six months

to address the recommendations in the 1999 GAO report. The specific actions taken

by EPA are described below:

1. Transparency of the Budget Development Process

1-1. Identify the specific research that must be accomplished.

EPA has completed an internal review of the draft Contaminant Candidate List

(CCL) Research Plan that will soon be reviewed by the Science Advisory Board

(SAB). We have initiated the development of a Comprehensive Drinking Water Research Strategy that will describe research needs and priorities to support near and

long-term regulatory issues. Steps have also been taken to ensure that the drinking

water community will have ample opportunity to become informed about and provide input into the CCL Research Plan and Comprehensive Research Strategy. EPA

is in the process of establishing a research subcommittee under the National Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC). In addition, the Office of Research and Development (ORD) has initiated a series of quarterly meetings with representatives

from the drinking water community to discuss research plans, activities, and resource issues.

1-2. Establish time frames that indicate when the results must be available.

1-3. Estimate the resources that will be required to support the needed research.

1-4. Use these data to develop budget requests and inform stakeholders of what research will be conducted.

77

As part of the Agency’s annual planning and budget process, ORD works with

EPA’s Program and Regional Offices to allocate funds across various research programs. The starting point in this process is input from many sources, including:

• EPA’s Strategic Plan; • ORD’s Strategic Planning—ORD’s Strategic Plan and peer-reviewed Research

Plans; • Customer and User Needs—Input from EPA’s Program and Regional Offices and

Federal research partners; and • Outside Peer Advice—e.g., the NAS National Research Council, the EPA Science

Advisory Board.

This information is then used to develop annual research priorities through a

process that involves Research Coordination Teams (RCT). The RCTs include ORD,

Program, and Regional Office staff.

In addition, ORD has been working closely with the Office of Water (OW) over

the past six months to examine research needs, resource requirements and time

frames for when results must be available to support future regulatory activities.

These analyses have been conducted during recent research planning meetings for

FY 2001 and in the development of the CCL research plan. An internal CCL research implementation workgroup is in the process of being formed to ensure that

the actual time frames and sequencing of CCL research are appropriately established and reviewed periodically. This effort will provide a valuable source of information for stakeholders on EPA research activities, as will the upcoming meetings

with the drinking water community during the development of the Comprehensive

Research Strategy.

2. Tracking and Communication of Research

2-1. Improve the tracking of ongoing research in relation to existing research plans.

EPA is evaluating the feasibility of using a new information management system

for tracking drinking water research in relation to existing research plans. This

internet-based system will allow individuals from inside and outside the Agency to

easily access information on drinking water research projects and products. A pilot

of the drinking water tracking system will be available this summer. This pilot will

be used as a basis for evaluating the utility and feasibility of developing an expanded version that includes all drinking water research.

2-2. Improve the communication of the Agency’s progress so that ORD’s key customers, including the Office of Water and outside stakeholders, can obtain timely and

accurate reports on the status, timing, and funding of individual research projects.

ORD is committed to sharing information on its research activities with internal

and external customers in a timely and accurate manner. Opportunities are being

provided for stakeholders to be involved during the initial stages of the development

of new research plans and strategies (e.g., through the formation of an NDWAC research subcommittee). Furthermore, this involvement is expected to continue

through the research implementation phase as well. Information-sharing meetings

are being held with the drinking water community on a regular basis, and improvements are being made to the research tracking system. Collectively, these efforts

will allow stakeholders to become more informed about the status, timing and funding of ORD’s research activities.

Question 14: Last year, GAO testified that it could not determine whether EPA

was or was not conducting adequate research to implement the 1996 Safe Drinking

Water Amendments. What changes have been made by EPA to date which would

change this assessment by GAO?

Answer 14: The adequacy of the research to implement the 1996 SDWA Amendments can be assessed by a consideration of the comprehensiveness, responsiveness

and timeliness of the drinking water research program (see response to Question

#12), and by the steps that are being taken to improve the transparency of the planning and budget process and communicating the extent and detail of the research

(see response to Question #13). As the new CCL Research Plan and the Comprehensive Drinking Water Research Strategy are developed, and as the improvements described above are fully implemented, an assessment of the adequacy of the research

should be greatly facilitated.

Question 15: For a number of years, EPA has routinely set aside portions of the

funds Congress appropriates for state and local air grants (Section 105 of the Clean

Air Act) for activities that should be funded through EPA’s own budget. Examples

of activities that have been paid for with Section 105 grants in recent years include:

1) training activities that are an EPA responsibility and that used to be funded from

EPA’s budget; 2) an ongoing project to improve emissions inventories (the Emissions

Inventory Improvement Program); and, 3) from the current proposed budget, a

study on heavy-duty truck and bus idling and hoteling. Does EPA believe it is apVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:15 Sep 18, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 64026.TXT HCOM2 PsN: HCOM2
78

propriate to take money Congress has specifically earmarked for grants to State and

local air pollution control agencies and use it to pay for other activities? Prior to

this diversion, what analysis did EPA perform which indicated that such spending

provided more protection of human health and the environment?

Answer 15: It is EPA’s policy to target STAG funds only for the direct benefit of

the eligible agencies, to conduct essential activities at the most appropriate level of

jurisdiction, and to minimize national set-asides. Each year EPA consults with state

and local agencies on what STAG funds it targets for associated national program

support. Associated program support includes those activities which directly benefit

state and local agencies but for reasons of cost savings, administrative convenience,

or more effective intergovernmental coordination, are centrally administered by the

Agency. In FY 2000, these activities comprised about 6% of the total section 105 portion of the STAG appropriation.

In FY 2000, associated program support activity included: Agency administration

of an emissions allowance and trading system at the request of the states in the

ozone transport region; a grant for the operation of the Secretariat which represents

the national interests of the state and local air agency administrators at their request; support for the operation of the national visibility monitoring network which

would otherwise have to be undertaken by individual states; cost-saving central procurement of monitoring equipment and accessories at the request of the states; delivery of a full range of air quality training for the direct benefit of state and local

air agency professionals; and, under the joint direction of a joint State-EPA steering

committee, conduct of an emission inventory improvement program providing information fundamental to the preparation, implementation and assessment of effective

air pollution control strategies.

In specific response to the examples cited:

—Grant funds continue to be targeted to support the Air Pollution Training Institute since Congress first directed an earmark to EPA’s state grant funds in FY

1989 to underscore the importance of providing centralized training to help implement the Clean Air Act. A joint State-local/EPA steering committee helps direct the activities of the APTI and each year registers strong support for its continuation.

—A cornerstone of an effective air pollution control program is the development and

maintenance of a sound emission inventory. In 1993, EPA and the state and

local air agencies (through STAPPA-ALAPCO) jointly agreed to initiate a multiyear, comprehensive emission inventory improvement program designed to inform and improve the work of all agencies, and to do so using STAG resources.

The first phase of this effort was recently completed and EPA once again sought

state and local input on the merits of continuing this effort. At the winter 1999

STAPPA-ALAPCO meeting, state and local representatives again voted to continue this joint effort with EPA using STAG resources while focusing on a new

generation of emerging emission inventory issues (i.e., air toxics, fine particulates).

—In a similar effort, for the last two years EPA has sought competitive proposals

from state and local air agencies to fund projects which generate more reliable

local emission factor data from largely undefined mobile source categories. The

information is to be transferable to other state and local agencies and provides

valuable input for national emission models used by all agencies in their plan

implementation and control strategy development.

It is EPA’s view that the use of these funds is consistent with Congress’ intent

that STAG funds be used solely for the benefit of state and local agencies. These

activities are essential for the effective implementation of the Clean Air Act and the

benefits these activities provide might not otherwise be achieved if the funds were

directed differently.

Question 16A: What is the current amount in the LUST Trust Fund?

Answer 16A: As of September 30, 1999, the balance in the LUST Trust Fund was approximately $1.3 billion.

Question 16B: Did EPA request the annual available amount in the LUST Trust

Fund for FY 2001? If not, why not?

Answer 16B: No. EPA did not request the available balance in the LUST Trust

Fund. The President’s budget request reflects the need to balance environmental

priorities and to stay within budget targets.

Question 16C: How much of the LUST funds actually get to the States for cleanup?

Answer 16C: Approximately $58.1 million of EPA’s LUST Appropriation goes directly to the states in the form of cooperative agreements. States use the LUST

Trust Fund to pay for staff to oversee and enforce cleanups, to pay for cleanups

where the owner/operator is unknown, unwilling or unable, and in emergency situaVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:15 Sep 18, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 64026.TXT HCOM2 PsN: HCOM2
79

tions. About one-third of the LUST funds provided to states is used for site assessments and cleanups. Approximately 40 states have state UST cleanup funds which

raise and expend over $1 billion annually. This is the major source of site assessment and cleanup funds nationwide.

Question 16D: Please indicate how EPA currently prioritizes the expenditure of

LUST funds.

Answer 16D: Most (approximately 85%) of EPA’s LUST Trust Fund is provided

directly to states and for tribes. The remaining 15% of the LUST Trust Fund appropriation is used by EPA for a variety of activities. For example, EPA provides technical assistance and training to the states and tribes on many issues, including expedited site assessment, free product recovery, and innovative remediation technologies. EPA also uses its funding to fulfill its responsibility for implementing the

LUST program in Indian Country.

Question 17: In connection with a September 1990 GAO report requested by Rep.

Dingell on the implications of the WEPCO rule, EPA told GAO that, ‘‘WEPCO’s life

extension project is not typical of the majority of utilities’ life extension projects, and

concerns that the agency will broadly apply the ruling it applied to WEPCo’s project

are unfounded.’’ Has EPA’s policy changed toward these utility maintenance

projects?

Answer 17: EPA has not changed its policy with respect to NSR applicability and

utilities. Moreover, the cited document does not support such a conclusion. By its

terms, the Clean Air Act modification provision applies to any physical change or

change in the method of operation at a source that results in an emissions increase.

EPA regulations, however, have always excluded ‘‘routine maintenance, repair, and

replacement’’ activities undertaken at an existing source from triggering the requirements of the major New Source Review (NSR)and New Source Performance

Standards (NSPS) programs. In discerning whether a change is routine repair,

maintenance or replacement, the source owner and permit reviewer should consider

the nature, extent, and purpose of the change, the frequency with which such a

change is performed, its cost, and other relevant factors. Both historically and currently EPA has consistently based its determination about whether a particular

maintenance activity is routine on the factors described. These factors were confirmed by the court in Wisconsin Electric Power Co. v. Reilly, 893 F.2d 901, 908-

09 (7th Cir. 1990).

The GAO report contains a number of statements that suggest that EPA did not

expect many utilities to trigger the NSPS or NSR modification rules. These statements reflect EPA’s understanding about whether NSR likely would be triggered by

electric utilities based upon information provided by industry at that time. These

statements do not reflect how broadly or narrowly the exclusion for routine activity

would be interpreted. In addition, it is important to note that the NSR regulations

provide broad leeway to avoid new source requirements for those sources undertaking even extensive, non-excluded physical or operational changes that, standing

alone, would result in significant emissions increases. This is readily accomplished

through appropriate permit conditions which ensure that the source’s post-change

emissions do not increase by a significant amount. In many circumstances, such

‘‘netting out’’ of review is a more cost-effective strategy than obtaining an NSR permit, and this strategy has been widely used for the last two decades in many industries.

It is the power plant undertaking a physical or operational change that is responsible for obtaining the necessary regulatory approvals from each agency that regulates it. State and Federal environmental agencies do not regularly review submissions to Public Utility Commissions, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, a

pipeline authority or a local zoning board; nor are those agencies charged with the

authority to require Clean Air Act permits. Unfortunately, it appears that few, if

any, power plants informed their respective permitting authority that the types of

physical or operational changes taking place at their facilities could increase emissions and therefore trigger NSR. Although EPA’s statements were reasonable based

on the information EPA had at the time, with more complete information, including

information made available by facilities requesting applicability determinations,

EPA’s statements might have been different given the facts associated with a particular project.

Question 18: EPA assumed a life span of 55 to 65 years (including refurbishment

activities) for utilities in the analysis it used to justify the 1990 Acid Rain program

to Congress. Does EPA agree or disagree with that statement?

Answer 18: In July 1990, EPA prepared a draft document analyzing the House

and Senate Clean Air Act legislation. This draft document, entitled ‘‘Comparison of

the Economic Impacts of the Acid Rain Provisions of Senate Bill (S.1630) and House

Bill (S.1630),’’ contains detailed base case assumptions that specify a fossil fuel fired

80

power plant life of 55 to 65 years (45 years for plants smaller than 50 MW). The

document does not indicate what assumptions, if any, were made regarding maintenance or refurbishment activities.

Question 19: The Superfund appropriation for the current fiscal year (FY 2000) is $1.4 billion, which goes for response, enforcement, management and support and

research. Using this obligational authority, the Agency has consistently indicated

that it will meet its goal of 85 construction completions for FY 2000. Is the Agency

on track to meet that projection, if not, why not?

Answer 19: The Agency remains firmly committed to meeting the target of 85 construction completions. However, Superfund construction project schedules can be affected by many factors including the following:

• Unforeseen Buried Hazardous Waste Discoveries • Weather-Related Delays • Property Access Issues • Construction Contract Disputes • Material Shipment Delays

As EPA directly manages only those cleanups that are ‘‘fund-lead’’, there are approximately 70% of Superfund cleanups managed by potentially responsible parties

(PRPs), as well as other Federal agencies and States which EPA has less control

over project completion.

Question 20: In 1993, EPA promulgated the Corrective Active Management

(CAMU) rule to exempt certain hazardous waste site cleanups from provisions of the

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act that would otherwise have imposed unreasonable requirements on them. Now, in response to a lawsuit from environmental

groups challenging the 1993 rule, EPA is proposing changes that would impose more

burdensome procedures on cleanup projects.

(A) Please describe any instances where the 1993 rule has been a problem for

cleanups, or has hurt public health or the environment?

Answer 20A: EPA has not conducted an analysis of instances where the 1993

CAMU rule has been a problem for cleanups or has hurt public health or the environment, but the Agency is not at this point aware of any such instances. EPA does,

however, believe that the settlement approach is appropriate, given the circumstances of the lawsuit. It will reduce the litigation cloud over the CAMU rule,

and should provide for approaches that are reasonable for the management of hazardous cleanup wastes in CAMUs and consistent with EPA’s remedial programs.

Question 20B: Chairman Oxley and Mr. Towns have introduced legislation to

make RCRA more flexible for State and Brownfields cleanups. In addition more

than 20 members of Congress wrote the Agency encouraging it not to reduce the

flexibility of the CAMU rule. As I understand it, the State agencies and the cleanup

contractors do not like this change. Has EPA done an assessment of how much this

change will cost at state and Federal cleanups, and if so, please provide that analysis?

Answer 20B: As part of the regulatory development process, EPA is currently developing an assessment of any incremental impacts that would be caused by the proposed amendments to the rule, including any estimated cost impacts to state and

Federal cleanups. This assessment will be summarized in the proposal and will be

available for public scrutiny in the rulemaking docket.

Question 21A: In 1997, EPA awarded 23 BCRLF pilots for more than $8 million ($350,000 each). In 1999, EPA awarded an additional 45 pilots, representing 65

communities for $30.6 million (each community was eligible for up to $500,000).

Now, EPA want to expand this program by awarding an additional 70 pilots.

Question 21A: How many loans have been made under the Brownfields Cleanup

and Revolving Loan Fund Program that EPA created in 1997? Please identify the

amount of each loan that has been made.

Answer 21A: Three loans have now been made by BCRLF pilots. Stamford, CT, has made 2 loans using the BCRLF. The first Stamford loan was for $250,000. The

second Stamford loan was for $160,000. Las Vegas, NV, made its first loan on November 17, 1999, for $50,000. The total of these three loans is $460,000.

Question 21B: How much money has been spent by the pilots on administrative

and other non-cleanup costs?

Answer 21B: EPA places a non-cleanup related restriction on the use of BCRLF

pilot funds that limits BCRLF pilots to the use of up to 15 percent of the total

award to cover a cooperative agreement recipient’s administrative costs.

Question 21C: How many properties have been cleaned up to date as a result of

the Brownfields Cleanup and Revolving Loan Fund Program?

Answer 21C: One property in Las Vegas has been cleaned up. Cleanup at the Pacific/Garden Street site in Stamford, Connecticut, is in progress. Cleanup under the

other Stamford loan will start soon.

81

Question 21D: Have any loans been made from the original 1997 pilots? Please

explain this number.

Answer 21D: None of the original 1997 pilots have made loans. Although EPA

awards the BCRLF through cooperative agreements, the day-to-day operations and

activities relating to loan applications are the responsibility of the BCRLF recipient.

Prior to making a loan, pilots must develop the infrastructure necessary to ensure

that loans will be in compliance with Comprehensive Environmental Response,

Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA); the National Contingency Plan (NCP);

and cross-cutting Federal authorities. Many of the original 23 BCRLF pilots awarded at the end of FY 1997 cite turnover in key city personnel, combined with the

newness of the program, as the basis for the delay. Additionally, the original 23 pilots were awarded prior to the development of EPA’s BCRLF Administrative Manual, which details the appropriate infrastructure to sustain, account, and report on

loans and cleanup.

In addition, EPA headquarters has sent a memorandum and letter to each EPA

Regional office. EPA has committed to working with BCRLF pilots to help them create viable programs in their communities. To that end, we have already held a

BCRLF Pilot-to-Pilot Session in Dallas, TX, immediately preceding the Brownfields

‘‘99 conference and are exploring options to make the program more flexible under

the existing statute and regulations. In addition, we have prepared a letter which

was sent by the regions to each of the 23 1997 pilots. The letter expresses EPA’s

concern with the apparent lack of progress that has been made in the initial round

of BCRLF pilots. The letter encourages each pilot to take prompt action to carry out

its responsibilities under cooperative agreement to operate a Brownfields Cleanup

Revolving Loan Fund (BCRLF). The letter also informs pilots that under the terms

of cooperative agreement, they are obligated to make loans within three years of the

date of the award, and may be subject to actions to terminate the agreement, among

other things, should the pilot fail to do so.

Question 22: Dr. Coburn asked several questions at the hearing with respect to

Tar Creek, a Superfund site of abandoned lead mines in a 40 square mile area of

Ottawa County, OK. EPA contracted with the Corps of Engineers, who then in turn

contracted with Morrison Knudsen (MK) to remediate Tar Creek. Over the course

of the project, this work caused significant new flooding, molding, and drainage

problems for some of the homes. In addition, I understand that a fraud investigation

by the Defense Criminal Investigative Service has been initiated.

Question 22A: Does EPA plan to fix the flooding and drainage problems that are

now damaging area homes?

Answer 22A: Yes, EPA has addressed and is continuing to address drainage problems incidental to the remedial action. The site has historically had flooding and

drainage problems. The communities surrounding the site are located in a flood

plain and have been, and continue to be, severely impacted during periods of heavy

rainfall (as was the case during record rainfalls in May and June 1999).

EPA has instituted several special actions because of the conditions that exist at

the site, such as a unique policy that deals with larger properties greater than

20,000 square feet that have complicated drainage patterns, a set of contingency

plans to deal with seasonal weather changes, and procedures to reduce damage to

homeowner’s utility connections.

EPA has also modified the composition of the backfill from topsoil only to a claytopsoil mix that, according the Corps of Engineers, would minimize uneven compaction, settling and drainage problems.

Flooding and drainage issues are also being addressed and studied from a regional perspective by the Governor’s Tar Creek Superfund Task Force’s ‘‘Drainage/

Flooding Subcommittee,’’ which was formed in January 2000. Flooding and drainage

is recognized as a regional problem for Ottawa County and the task force will make

recommendations to the Governor on these issues.

Question 22B: Does the Agency plan to expand the project using the contractor

that has been doing work to date?

Answer 22B: No. EPA’s prime contractor, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

(USACE), will complete their current contractual obligations (the remediation of

1,300 residential properties) with the EPA in June 2000. USACE has decided not

to extend the current contract to remediate 600 to 800 additional properties discovered after issuance of the Record of Decision for the Site.

EPA is currently preparing a Remedial Design Statement of Work (RD SOW) to

be issued to one of two contractors as part of the Response Action Contracts program. The RD SOW will enable the contractor to solicit new subcontractors to perform the remedial action work. Once funding is secured, EPA will issue a SOW for

the Remedial Action to complete the remaining residential soil cleanup.

82

Question 22C: Please describe any changes to its management and oversight of

this project that EPA intends to implement as a result of concerns that have been

identified.

Answer 22C: Since the Criminal Investigation, EPA has taken several management steps. EPA asked the Corps of Engineers to conduct an internal audit. The

results of the audit showed that the Corps of Engineers should closely monitor the

labor and equipment uses of its contractors. In response, the Corps of Engineers

provided a ‘‘contracting expert’’ in the field to minimize contractual ‘‘red tape’’ at the

site.

In addition, EPA conducted an ‘‘internal efficiency review’’ to reevaluate overall

project management. Two Remedial Project Managers (RPMs) have been assigned

responsibility for the management of the Site. One RPM is responsible for the residential lead cleanup (e.g., excavation of lead-contaminated soils and backfilling with

clean soils) and the other is responsible for all other activities associated with the

Site. This change will provide continuity to the construction phase of the project.

Prior to the internal review, three RPMs were rotating assignments on a weekly

basis to the site.

The RPMs from EPA Region 6 also met with RPMs from EPA Region 7 because

of their cleanup experience in Joplin, MO. Although many differences exist between

these sites, discussions were held regarding site procedures, equipment, and contractor personnel. One improvement at Tar Creek resulting from these discussions

was a better use of site equipment.

RPMs and EPA managers are also participating in quarterly stakeholder meetings and monthly meetings of the Governor’s Tar Creek Superfund Task Force in

order to stay informed of the issues of concern at the site.

EPA has also made several management changes in response to specific resident

concerns. Some of these concerns are summarized as follows:

• EPA met with the Ottawa County Commissioner to develop an agreement to repair county roads damaged by trucks hauling for the project; and • EPA managers from several offices met to review the progress of the performance

based contracting approach being used in the residential areas and suggested

ways to reduce contracting disagreements quickly.

Question 23A: Registration of new pesticides is important to ensure that farmers

and other users can continue to effectively control pests that threaten crops and

public health, especially since FQPA reviews have resulted in cancellations of uses

for several widely-used pest products. I understand that EPA plans to make registration decisions on 19 new pesticides this year, compared to 26 in 1999 and 27

in 1998, despite an 11% increase in the Registration Division’s budget as requested

by the Administration for FY 2000. (A) Why is productivity going down when funding is going up?

Answer 23A: Because the new chemical review process is 18 to 24 months, resource levels in one year affect the next year’s outputs. Therefore, increases in resources for pesticide registration activities can take up to two years to result in increased outputs.

However, it is important to note that productivity is dependent upon factors other

than funding. The additional human health and environmental protections mandated by FQPA has generally increased the time it takes to register new pesticides.

For example, case-by-case application of new, cutting-edge science policies, and increased outreach efforts to stakeholders, are factors that are challenging the Agency

as it attempts to process pesticide application expeditiously.

In addition, increased regulatory scrutiny of inert ingredients, and the requirement that EPA set tolerances for pesticides used under Section 18 (emergency exemption) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, have impacted

the registration program. EPA typically processes hundreds of Sections 18s per year,

with a turnaround time of two months or so.

Also, the number of some outputs are not within the Agency’s control. For example, the number of Section 18s processed are dependent on field conditions, which

change from year to year. Also, EPA’s Registration Division and Antimicrobials Division eliminated the amendments backlog in 1999. Now, those Divisions process

the number of amendments that come in each year. The amendment submission

rate has declined. As the backlog has been eliminated, fewer amendments are pending in queue for decision-making.

EPA agrees that the registration of new pesticides is important to ensure that

farmers and other users can effectively control pests and protect public health, and

will continue to work hard to ensure that new, alternative pesticides are readily

available.

Question 23B: EPA’s FY 2001 Budget Request contains a 14% increase for EPA’s

pesticide registration program. How many new pesticide registration decisions does

83

EPA expect to complete in FY 2001, and how many of those are for conventional

pesticides meeting EPA’s safety standards?

Answer 23B: EPA expects to complete registration decisions for a total of 24 pesticide products in 2001: 17 reduced-risk and biological pesticides, and 7 non-reducedrisk and antimicrobial pesticides.

Question 24: EPA’s August 1999 action resulting in the cancellation of certain

uses of azinphos methyl and methyl parathion, two products widely used as an insecticide by apple growers, has resulted in the creation of a significant quantity of

food in the food pipeline that contains residues from the canceled uses of those two

products. The continued presence of an official tolerance on those food crops provides protection to those foods from being designated as ‘‘adulterated.’’ Does the

Agency intend to leave these tolerances in place until the food pipeline clears of

these foods that contained legal residues prior to the EPA decision? How does EPA

intend to handle this matter and when does it anticipate making a decision?

Answer 24: FQPA requires that EPA revoke the tolerances on those crops with

canceled uses 180 days after the last day of legal use. EPA would take such action

only through notice and comment rulemaking, giving commenters an opportunity to

demonstrate a continuing need for the tolerance to cover imports.

After a tolerance has been revoked, legally treated food may continue to move

through the channels of trade under the so-called ‘‘safe harbor’’ provision. Section

408(l)(5) of FFDCA, established by FQPA, generally allows commodities bearing residues of a canceled pesticide to move through commerce, provided that the commodities were lawfully treated with the pesticide while the tolerance was still in effect

and the residue level on the commodity is no greater than that allowed under the

tolerance.

Consistent with our belief that Congress did not intend that the safe harbor provision provide market advantage to either foreign or domestic growers, EPA reads

FFDCA Section 408(l)(5) such that foreign growers must cease application at the

same time as domestic growers in order to qualify for safe harbor.

The Agency will shortly propose to revoke or amend the existing tolerances for

methyl parathion, and will seek comment on this proposal. The guidance supports

the general safe harbor position that if the food was legally treated, the food remains safe for its lifetime. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in a related

notice in the Federal Register will be announcing the availability of a proposed guidance document presenting FDA’s policy on its planned enforcement approach for

foods containing methyl parathion residues. This guidance will assist firms in understanding the types of showing under 408(1)(5) of the FFDCA (hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘channels of trade provision’’) that FDA may find satisfactory in accordance with its planned enforcement approach for such section.

Monitoring and enforcement of pesticide tolerances and exemptions are carried

out by the FDA and the USDA. This includes monitoring for pesticide residues in

or on commodities imported into the United States. We have worked closely with

both FDA and USDA in developing the proposed tolerance revocation notice.

Also, the Agency will publish a final rule very shortly revoking and lowering certain tolerances for azinphos methyl, including those for which there are no longer

registered uses, one for a crop that is no longer a significant animal feed item, and

one for which studies show no concentration in the processed commodity.

Question 25: One of the more significant issues EPA faces as it restricts uses of

widely used products based on the FQPA tolerance reassessment process is the extent to which there are available substitute products that provide equivalent or better efficacy, while presenting reduced health concerns. Because of the current backlog on pending registration requests, many new products may be years away from

being approved by EPA as substitute products. What is the Agency doing to address

the problem of the backlog?

Answer 25: To address the availability of substitutes needed as a result of tolerance reassessment decisions, EPA has made the review of reduced-risk and OP alternative pesticides one of its top registration priorities. Once received and classified, applications for these chemicals to the top of the registration queue. Based on

recent statistics, these reviews and decisions are completed in about half the time

they would have taken had the Agency not expedited the review.

We currently have about 45 new chemicals pending in-house. We expect to complete registration decisions on approximately 10 more of these chemicals this fiscal

year, leaving 35 for review. Another 13 to 14 should be completed during FY 2001,

leaving approximately 21 in-house. Of these, however, 2 are organophosphates and

one is a carbamate, and, therefore, they are unlikely to be registered in the near

term because of risk concerns for these chemical classes. Thus, only 18 new chemicals remain in backlog. A recent industry evaluation showed that over the past 15

84

years, the average review time for new active ingredient registrations has decreased

by over 80 percent since 1984.

The Registration Division’s FY 2000 Workplan, which shows the new chemical,

new uses, and inert ingredient decisions, can be found on the EPA internet site at:

http://www.epa.gov/opprd001/workplan/

Question 26: I understand that EPA is currently preparing to issue a revised risk

assessment under the FQPA tolerance reassessment process for a widely used termite control product—chlorpyrifos—that may result in the Agency taking action to

restrict its residential use. What is the status of EPA’s review of this termiticide

and when does the Agency expect to take action? What impact does EPA believe

this will have on the availability of effective products to combat termites in the residential markets?

Answer 26: EPA released the preliminary risk assessment for public comment for

chlorpyrifos on October 27, 1999. This preliminary assessment identified risks of

concern for residential uses. Over 4,000 comments were received. On June 8, 2000,

EPA released the revised risk assessment and announced an agreement with registrants to phase out/eliminate certain uses of chlorpyrifos. These actions are in accordance with the organophosphate pilot public participation process. EPA is soliciting public comments on further risk management options for this widely used pesticide.

The agreement will expeditiously address food uses posing the greatest risks to

children. It decreases the use of chlorpyrifos on apples, cancels the use on tomatoes,

and lowers allowable tolerance levels for apples and grapes. These actions will reduce acute dietary risk by 75 percent, effectively eliminating dietary risk concerns

for children and others.

The agreement will also cancel and phase out nearly all indoor and outdoor residential uses. It effectively eliminates the use of chlorpyrifos by homeowners, limiting use to certified, professional, or agricultural applicators. Those uses that pose

the most immediate risks to children, including home lawn, indoor crack and crevice

treatments, and whole house ‘‘post-construction’’ termiticide treatments, will be canceled first. Spot and local post-construction and pre-construction termiticide uses

will be phased out over the next several years. Besides chlorpyrifos, many other pesticides are available for termiticide use, including: permethrin, cypermethrin,

imidacloprid, fipronil, bifenthrin, esfenvalerate, deltamethrin, and cyfluthrin. These

can be used to prevent termite infestation and to rid structures of existing termite

infestations. Cost and efficacy may vary by structure type, soil type, and other environmental factors. In addition, several bait systems have been introduced in recent

years. The pesticides used in these baits include: sulfluramid, hexaflumeron,

diflubenzuron, and hydramethylnon. These systems can reduce overall insecticide

use and environmental impact as well as increase worker and homeowner safety.

Further, chlorpyrifos use in schools, parks, and other settings where children may

be exposed will be canceled. Only use in some limited commercial settings, like

warehouses, ship holds and railroad boxcars, may it continue. The agreement allows

several other non-agricultural uses to continue, with appropriate risk mitigation.

Golf course applications, for example, may continue with application rates reduced

by 75 percent. Low risk uses like containerized baits in child-resistant packaging,

and non-structural wood treatments such as treatments of utility poles and fenceposts, will not be affected by the agreement. It should be noted that one of EPA’s

top priorities is the expedited registration of substitutes to organophosphate pesticides.

Question 27A: Over the next five years over 200 companies, through a voluntary

commitment with EPA under the High Production Volume (HPV) Challenge program will be providing unprecedented amounts of data and health information to

the Agency on over 2000 chemicals. This program has the potential to inundate EPA

with more information than it has staff and resources to adequately manage.

(A) Given the longstanding information management concerns identified by GAO

over the past ten years at EPA, how does EPA plan to deal with the anticipated

flood of data, and given how long it has traditionally taken the Agency to analyze

such data, how does the Agency plan to analyze and make use of the information?

Answer 27A: Resources for the information management systems needed to handle the HPV data have been included in both the FY 2000 operating plan and the

President’s FY 2001 Budget Request. Assuming that the requested resources are

made available, we anticipate no problems in designing or modifying our data systems and data processing procedures to handle the increased workload.

The screening level human health and environmental effects information being

developed by industry sponsors under the High Production Volume (HPV) Challenge

Program will be provided to the Agency in robust summary format, a format developed for the HPV Challenge Program and accepted for international data sharing

85

by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in its HPV

Screening Information Data Set (SIDS) Program. This information will be posted to

the Internet for review and assessment by both Agency personnel and outside interested parties.

Once this basic hazard information is available on a chemical, it may be used to

provide a platform to begin to address the question, ‘‘how safe is this chemical?’’

EPA has existing risk assessment guidelines to prepare profiles on and prioritize

chemicals for risk assessment. It must be noted that the hazard information being

provided through the HPV Challenge Program is screening level data intended only

to support the initial stage of assessing chemical hazards. HPV data would not be

sufficient on its own for the preparation of formal risk assessments; additional hazard data (e.g., carcinogenicity; neuro-toxicity; etc.) and exposure data would be needed to conduct risk assessments. The resources requested for of the Chemical Rightto-Know Initiative will be fully encumbered in collecting, managing, and disseminating the limited hazard screening data and will not be used to develop formal risk

assessments on any HPV chemicals.

Using established risk assessment guidelines, EPA plans to use the toxicity data

to produce plain English chemical information profiles, Chemical Advisory notices,

website enhancements, and other information tools as appropriate on individual

chemicals of concern. EPA will work with the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and other agencies to distribute this information to workers, consumers, parents, teachers, community leaders, public interest groups, companies, and others. EPA intends to use the information and experience it has gained in other public safety and education projects to

create and distribute simple and understandable messages to the public.

In addition, by classifying chemicals as presenting high, medium, or low hazard

concerns, the Agency may be able to explain to the public the hazards of a chemical

in simple and practical terms. In the future, this could then be combined with exposure information (e.g., chemical use profiles and exposure scenarios relevant to the

specifics of individual chemicals) to assess, at a screening level, the potential risks

presented by the chemical to people or the environment in various defined circumstances—for example, to workers, to users of consumer products, or to the environment. The hazard of a chemical is generally seen as an ‘‘intrinsic’’ aspect of the

chemical, whereas uses and exposures can change and be ‘‘situational’’ depending

on the particulars of a given commercial application. For this reason, clear and concise hazard information may be useful outputs of HPV screening to the public.

Question 27B: What additional resources does the Agency anticipate setting aside

to conduct the data evaluations?

Answer 27B: EPA realigned $1.3 million of its FY 1999 Enacted Operating Plan

to initiate the Chemical Right-to-Know Initiative (CRtK). In FY 2000, the Operating

Plan for the CRtK Initiative is $11.1 million, with approximately $10 million directed at HPV chemicals and $1.1 million supporting the start-up of the program

to address chemicals of special concern to children. EPA’s FY 2001 President’s

Budget Request contains a $12.6 million request for the CRtK-HPV program. During the initial data collection phase of the HPV program, the bulk of these resources

must be dedicated to managing and reviewing the incoming data. Public outreach

efforts will include a dialogue with stakeholders to determine how they will use the

data in order to identify the most appropriate formats, tools, and vehicles for effective public hazard communication.

Question 28: For the public to have confidence in the results of the Endocrine

Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP), mandated by the Food Quality Protection Act

and the Safe Drinking Water Act, the screens and tests must be fully standardized

and validated. Last year, Congress approved $12.7 million for endocrine research.

EPA made some budget shifts, and the research account was reduced by about $5

million for FY 2000. What is EPA’s schedule for completing the validation and

standardization of the screens and tests in the proposed Endocrine Disruptor

Screening and Program? Is the Agency planning to propose a rule for the EDSP?

Answer 28: The scientific screens and tests proposed for the Endocrine Disruptor

Screening Program vary considerably in terms of their readiness for routine use in

regulatory programs. Because many of the endocrine disruptor screens and tests involve cutting-edge science, few of them have actually undergone the standardization

and validation requirements necessary for pesticide and chemical regulation. Many

of the tests proposed for the screening program have been used in research, but

have never been formally standardized or validated through inter-laboratory comparisons. Standardization and validation is essential to establish the relevance, reliability, and reproducibility of methods. Therefore, EPA will validate all test systems

to ensure that the tests are reliable and reproducible before implementing the testing phase of the program.

86

EPA formed a technical committee called the Endocrine Disruptor Standardization and Validation Task Force to provide the technical advice needed to develop,

standardize, and validate the screens and tests proposed for the Endocrine

Disruptor Screening Program. EPA is currently reconstituting the Task Force as an

advisory committee under the Federal Advisory Committee Act. This does not affect

the progress of the technical work, which is ongoing. EPA expects the advisory committee to resume its technical advisory functions in late Fall 2000.

Several years will be required to complete standardization and validation of the

entire Tier 1 Screening and Tier 2 Testing batteries. However, EPA is moving as

quickly as possible and anticipates implementing the screening program in phases,

with initial emphasis on the legislatively mandated components of the Tier 1

Screening battery. Several screening tests have already entered the validation process, and we expect all the Tier 1 screens and one of the Tier 2 tests to be validated

by 2003. The four remaining ecological tests require substantial development. One

will be validated by 2003, two by 2004, and the last by 2005.

The standardization and validation process is being conducted using the general

principles developed by the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation

of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM), as described in Validation and Regulatory Acceptance of Toxicological Test Methods (NIEHS 1997). However, there are also separate international standardization and validation efforts being conducted by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). As these future

tests are developed, EPA will examine their suitability for use and possible replacement of tests currently proposed for use in the screening and testing batteries.

Yes, the Agency is planning to propose a procedural rule for the EDSP. The rule

will address procedural issues as well as provide technical guidance associated with

screening. We anticipate proposing the rule and requesting public comments at least

one year prior to issuing orders for screening.

Question 29: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 required federal agencies to

reduce paperwork burdens on regulated businesses by 25% by 1998 from the 1995

baseline. EPA has long been a serious generator of massive paperwork burdens on

regulated businesses, so the PRA mandates were a strong Congressional signal that

the government needed to address excessive and unneeded paperwork requirements.

However, a March 2000 GAO audit concludes that EPA not only failed to meet the

1998 reduction goal, but over that period of time actually increased paperwork burden on businesses by 10 million burden hours to an annual total of 119 million burden hours of paperwork on American companies. What steps is EPA taking to come

into compliance with this law and when does EPA anticipate achieving compliance?

Answer 29: The Agency’s current burden reduction effort began January 1995,

with the goal of reducing burdens on the public by 25%. EPA’s burden at that time

was 104 million burden hours. The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) amendments,

enacted October 1, 1995, superceded this effort by requiring a government-wide reduction effort of 10% for FY 1996 and 1997, and 5% for years 1998 through 2001,

rather than Agency-specific reductions. Since the beginning of the burden reduction

effort on January 1, 1995, EPA has reduced burden about 32.0 million hours. However, these reductions were offset by 49 million hours of burden increases due to

recalculations and new regulations and programs, including Right to Know efforts.

To put these figures into perspective, the total government burden is 7 billion hours.

EPA’s FY 2000 paperwork burden projection is 125 million hours, or about 1.6% of

the government total.

The creation of EPA’s Office of Environmental Information has afforded opportunities for understanding and realizing burden reductions in the future. More specifically, we expect reductions from the various Electronic Reporting initiatives and the

Information Integration Initiative and most certainly from EPA’s Office of Solid

Waste’s burden reduction effort, where reductions of 3 million hours may be possible

by late 2001.

Question 30: Last year EPA issued its ‘‘Risk Screening Environmental Indicators’’

model, which ranks facilities in a relative, ‘‘risk-related’’ way, but which does not

attempt to estimate the actual risk that a facility poses. EPA says: ‘‘The result is

not a detailed or quantitative risk assessment.’’ In looking at this model, EPA’s

Science Advisory Board said ‘‘[the Agency has wisely recognized that the TRI indicators are ripe for intentional and unintentional misuse.’’ This recognition has resulted in the repeated declarations by EPA that the indicators are relative and

should not be used to measure risk. Now, however, Environmental Defense, has

taken the model and applied it so that it generates purported absolute estimates

of increased cancer risks from facilities. Why hasn’t EPA spoken out about this misuse of its model, and what does the Agency intend to do to make the public aware

of this misuse?

87

Answer 30: As a federal government agency, EPA neither publicly endorses nor

criticizes the analyses of our data and development of mathematical models, or subsequent reporting of our data and adaptation of EPA models by other organizations.

EPA’s version and release of the ‘‘Risk Screening Environmental Indicators’’ model

was accompanied by a description of the model’s limitations, consistent with our

peer-review protocols and strategic data quality goal to clearly and adequately describe the origins, quality, and limitations of the Agency’s data and analytical models whenever they are made publicly available. When EPA receives inquiries regarding other organizations’ use of our data, our policy is to refer them first to our description of the model and then to the appropriate organization to obtain their response on this issue.

Question 31: What is the status of the new Office of Environmental Information?

Can you please describe the principle role of the new office and how it will interface

with the traditional program offices?

Answer 31: In October 1999, EPA Administrator Carol M. Browner announced the

formation of the Office of Environmental Information (OEI). OEI was established to

meet the changing information needs of the public through the establishment of a

central program office which is responsible for information management, information policy development and technology stewardship. OEI plays a key role in supporting EPA’s mission to protect human health and the environment by integrating

quality environmental information to make it useful for informing decisions, improving information management, documenting performance, and measuring success.

In addition to working internally to improve the quality of information and developing the infrastructure to support it, OEI also works closely with external stakeholders and partners to establish and oversee information-related policies and procedures. Such groups include representatives from state, local and federal agencies,

tribes, the regulated community, interest groups, educators and the general public.

In order to accomplish the above objectives, OEI has set its FY 2000 priorities including a focus on these six areas: information integration; environmental information quality; fostering information based decisions; reducing burden; expanding

Americans’ right-to-know about their environment; and securing EPA’s information

infrastructure.

OEI will interface with the program offices through both workgroups and the

Quality Information Council (an internal planning and management body formed to

help EPA’s National Program Manager for Environmental Information) to plan, develop, and implement information policies.

Question 31(A): Will the new office (OEI) oversee the quality of data used by the

EPA programs in their regulatory and public right to know programs?

Answer 31(A): OEI has a number of responsibilities relating to data quality, including serving as the Agency lead for promoting quality assurance in the environmental programs. In this leadership role, OEI establishes the Agency policies for

planning, implementing, and assessing the environmental data used to support the

Agency’s programs and decisions. However, each EPA organization (there are more

than 40, including program offices, Regional offices, and research laboratories and

centers) is responsible for developing a system of documentation and controls for

documenting and evaluating the quality of the environmental data generated and

used to support its decisions. Each organization develops a plan that defines the decisions that will be supported by environmental data and the processes that will be

used to ensure that the data used are of the quality specified. OEI, through the

Quality Staff, reviews the organizations’ plans against the established policies to ensure that the policies are complete and consistent, and also evaluates the implementation of the policies and their effectiveness in providing environmental data of documented and appropriate quality.

OEI is also leading quality improvements in program data systems by using error

prevention and error correction mechanisms. Central Exchange, Electronic Reporting, the Facility Registry System, and the development of data standards, are all

ongoing activities that will directly impact the quality of EPA’s data. Central Exchange will provide electronic data exchange between the states, facilities, and EPA,

reducing errors from manual data entry and data transfer. The Facility Registry

System is a centrally managed database that will use rigorous verification procedures to produce high quality, accurate, and authoritative facility identification

records. Data standards simplify the use and analysis of data and help data managers identify incomplete or erroneous data fields. Additionally, under the direction

of the Quality Subcommittee of the Quality and Information Council, OEI is developing a Quality Strategic Plan that will define roles and responsibilities, establish

priorities, and outline implementation procedures for an Agency quality program.

88

Question 31(B): Will the program offices have to seek approval from the Office of

Environmental Information prior to putting up new data bases and information resources on the Internet website?

Answer 31(B): EPA’s program offices are not required to seek OEI approval for

posting information resources and data bases on the Agency’s Internet website. Recognizing that the appropriateness of the material and resources to be posted is best

judged by the originating program office, each EPA Program Office Director (and regional equivalent) is responsible for conducting their own internal review and quality assurance process to assure that materials destined for website transmittal are

timely, accurate, useful, and of appropriate content for posting on the Agency’s public access Web site.

At the same time, EPA recognizes the need for Agency-wide policies and procedures that guide the development and dissemination of new information products

in a consistent manner. These procedures may include formalized notification and

participation by stakeholders (i.e. state and local governments; tribal, community,

and environmental groups; industry trade associations, etc.) at different stages in

the development process. This issue of stakeholder involvement in the development

of significant Agency information products was a main topic of interest at the EPA/

State Stakeholders Forum on Public Information Policies, held last Fall. As a result,

to enhance our stakeholder outreach and feedback processes, the Office of Information Analysis and Access will develop and publish a periodic ‘‘Information Products

Bulletin.’’ This Bulletin is designed to inform interested stakeholders and the public

of upcoming significant information products and provide some opportunity for feedback into their development. A joint State/EPA Workgroup has been established to

define criteria for what information products will be included in the Bulletin as well

as determining the descriptive elements and timing frequency for publication of the

Bulletin which is expected to begin in March 2001. An ‘‘Interim Products Bulletin’’

of more limited scope and design will be released in August 2000 to provide some

preliminary assessment of upcoming product development.

Question 31C: Does the new office intend to establish an Agency-wide error correction process that will enable regulated parties and users that identify errors to ensure that those errors are readily corrected across the Agency’s information systems

in which they appear?

Answer 31C: The Office of Information Collection, within OEI, has established an

Integrated Error Correction Process for information in EPA data collections. The Integrated Error Correction Process is built upon established processes and networks

for the reporting and correction of data errors.

It consists of a Web-screen for error-reporting, an on-line tracking and reporting

system, an information flag to indicate a reported error, and extensive customer

support. Reported errors will be researched and corrected by data owners, whether

those data owners are from EPA Headquarters, Regions or states. Corrections will

appear in individual systems as these systems are refreshed. In the meantime, an

information flag will contain detailed information on the errors, and what the corrected value should be. On May 10, 2000 OIC initiated the IECP with the Facility

Information system in Envirofacts. OIC will continue to implement the system for

EPA’s other publically accessible systems throughout the summer and fall of this

year.

Question 32A: What types of data will EPA place in this new system (facility identifiers, geo-spatial data, compliance data, regulatory data, environmental quality

data)?

Answer 32A: One of the first steps in EPA’s integration efforts is to support a

state/EPA data exchange Network that will include all of the above-mentioned data.

As EPA, and its state partners, define the larger exchange Network, it is expected

that new, individual data systems, as well as those listed above, will gradually be

folded into the larger Network, in whatever form is most logical for the exchange

Networks’ architecture and goals.

Question 32B: What are the respective roles of the States and EPA in this new

system? Who will be principally responsible for data quality in I-3?

Answer 32B: EPA and its state partners will define and participate in the development and use of the national Network for environmental information exchange,

build and support the infrastructure needed to sustain the Network, and position

EPA and its partners to participate in the Network and the data exchange it will

facilitate.

The states and EPA are developing the national Network’s design and operation

principles and have included the following;

• An Agency is, by mutual consent between a state and EPA, explicitly recognized

as the steward for specific environmental information that will become part of

the Network.

89

• The steward agency manages its data, provides access to that data via the Network (together with an accurate description of the data and its context), and

is accountable for the data’s quality. • Recognized aggregators and re-distributors of stewarded data are accountable for

ensuring the faithfulness and currency of their local copies, using the steward

agencies official Network source data. • The Network employs a single set of common, negotiated, data exchange standards, and Internet protocols; it does not dictate or constrain internal agency systems, software, and other tools.

Question 32C: Will EPA be replicating data already held in States databases or

will I-3 link federal Web pages back to the original state-based sources for most environmental data? If so, what is the ‘‘value-added’’ of I-3, over an approach that does

not replicate state efforts but instead links EPA’s existing site to the States site?

Answer 32C: State interest in defining the elements of streamlined environmental

reporting and in working within multi-state institutions (i.e. ECOS, the National

Governors Association) is already apparent, as states explore areas where they can

consolidate and re-engineer data systems in order to streamline their business activities and share planning and regulatory information electronically. The Network,

and the technical and organizational detail of its operation will be defined by states

and EPA. What is envisioned is to use the technologies of the Internet by making

a small but critical set of technology decisions together and, second, to develop and

negotiate, through the partnership, the programmatic and operational agreements

needed to begin the Network.

It should be noted that EPA also must be capable of acting as an Information

Node on the National Exchange Network, both as an information receiver and an

information provider. A key element of this goal is the establishment of an enterprise portal to securely accept data from its partners without their having to directly interface with EPA program systems. From this portal, EPA must be capable

of transferring and transforming the information in its information systems. As an

information provider, EPA must be capable of sharing its vast information holdings

with others in a secure, responsible, and efficient manner, and thus will establish

other portals for the distribution of data to its partners and to the public, as well

as to internal EPA users

The ‘‘value-added’’ components of a national network will be standards-based,

highly interconnected, dynamic, flexible and secure, and operating with broad-based

voluntary participation of the individual states and EPA. The network will become

both a source of and pressure for more integrated and less burdensome programs

at all governmental levels and a vehicle to facilitate the streamlining of those programs.

Question 33A: How many States have adopted the set of data standards developed

under the Reinventing Environmental Information (REI) initiative?

Answer 33A: Under REI, EPA committed to establishing six key data standards

to improve the value of environmental information, in collaboration with our state

partners. The six key data standards were calendar representation of date, Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) and North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes, Facility Identification, Latitude/Longitude, Chemical Identification, and Biological Taxonomy. Of the six standards, four have been approved by

the Agency; Chemical Identification and Biological Taxonomy are scheduled to be

completed by September 30, 2000. Of the four approved standards, EPA is comfortable that all of the states are fully compliant with the standard for calendar representation of date. We are also comfortable that EPA and the states have conformed to the standard representations for SIC and NAICS codes. Efforts to ensure

that mapping between the two industrial classification codes is completed. On the

Facility Identification Data Standard, EPA has worked very closely with states on

the Data Standard model. The EPA standard is a federal implementation of the Facility Identification Template for States (FITS) developed through the support, cooperation, and analytic cooperation of 16 state agencies and EPA. FITS represents

a set of guidelines for managing facility based information. It reflects a fundamental

change in how states and EPA solve their information problems and a new recognition for the value of collaboration. The FITS guidelines do not specify a deadline,

but are intended to help states succeed at integrating Facility Site information and,

at the same time, align themselves to be compatible with the state/EPA facility

identification standard. EPA is just beginning to work with states on implementation of the Latitude/Longitude standard. After the Chemical Identification and Biological Taxonomy standards are approved, EPA will work with the states on implementation.

Question 33B: What, if any, reporting burden has EPA reduced for states or the

private sector as a result of its data integration?

90

Answer 33B: Burden hour reductions have not been quantified at this early stage

of implementation, since the effort thus far has been to establish an infrastructure.

Implementation focuses on developing and incorporating data standards and electronic reporting into 13 of EPA’s national information systems. Promulgation of all

necessary standards, policies, and protocols are projected to occur by the end of FY

2001. As each new data and reporting standard becomes ready for implementation,

each national system is projected to incorporate it by the end of FY 2003, either

through retrofitting existing systems or including the standard in system re-engineering efforts.

Question 33C: Last year the Agency looked very favorably on another initiative—

one to create an Environmental Data Registry. But what has happened to the effort

and the spending that we allocated towards its completion? Has EPA ever developed

a compendium of the data it already collects?

Answer 33C: The EPA has developed a web-based metadata registry, based on an

ISO 11179 standard, called the Environmental Data Registry. The Environmental

Data Registry is designed to be the single, comprehensive source of information

about EPA data. This metadata registry serves two purposes: (1) as a reference tool,

it catalogues existing Agency data resources and provides the information needed

to interpret the data; and (2) as a repository of standard data elements, it promotes

the development and use of standard data elements in Agency systems to enable

effective data sharing. The Environmental Data Registry serves to document the diversity of data formats across Agency systems through central storage of application

metadata, while converging on consistency through the availability of standard formats for data elements and commonly used domain values. The registry serves as

the foundation to the Agency’s standard setting process and an analytical tool to

identify standardization opportunities.

Currently, the EDR contains 5,155 data element records. Of these, more than

4,600 are ‘‘application’’ data elements that document attributes of data elements in

existing EPA information systems. Metadata documenting Agency information systems is being loaded on an ongoing basis. The application supports the efforts of

several Agency work groups that are developing standardized representations for

data elements used across the enterprise. The data registry is available through the

Agency’s website at www.epa.gov/edr.

Question 34A: Where is EPA’s report to Congress on how its policies affect the

viability of confidential business information claims as directed in the Senate report?

Answer 34A: EPA is currently in the process of examining its statutes, regulations, and policies to determine the extent to which they may affect the viability of

confidential business information (CBI) claims. We also plan to publish an advance

notice of proposed rulemaking in late spring that will seek public comment on possible CBI revisions. Subsequent to publication, the Agency will convene a public

meeting in early summer to solicit further stakeholder comment on its CBI regulations. As cited in Margaret Schneider’s letter to Chairman Bond (R-MO) and the

March quarterly appropriations report, we will be pleased to provide you with a report of our review of our existing statutes, regulations, and policies by June 1, 2000.

Question 34B: What actions has EPA taken to work with other agencies to develop

a decision-making process inside the government for resolving disagreements about

the balance between information disclosure and national security interests?

Answer 34B: EPA and the Department of Justice (DOJ) have recently (April 27,

2000) published a joint proposed rule-making. This proposal was the result of many

months of intense effort among DOJ, the Office of Management and Budget, and

EPA. This was a response to the August 1999 statute, the Chemical Safety Information, Site Security, and Fuels Regulatory Relief Act, which called for DOJ-EPA cooperation for setting requirements under Section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act; specifically the handling of risk management plans and off-site consequence analysis information under 112(r).

As part of EPA’s effort to improve security, EPA’s Office of Environmental Information is conducting an assessment through September 2000 to determine how EPA

offices are handling different types of sensitive information and to provide guidance

on the general level of protection that should be provided for each type of information. This analysis will provide a good foundation for internal and external discussions on whether and how to disclose particular types of information. The issue of

balancing information disclosure with the protection of public safety is not limited

to EPA, and could potentially affect a number of Federal agencies. EPA would be

interested in participating in an interagency process to discuss a government-wide

decision making process and criteria for addressing this issue.

91

Question 34C: What is the status of EPA’s efforts to work with experts to address

information accountability issues and assess the Administrative Procedures Act implications of EPA publication of environmental information?

Answer 34C: EPA is currently evaluating the appropriate approach to, and scope

of, a review of these issues, and will keep the Committee informed of our ongoing

efforts. In addition, there are numerous ways in which the Agency is focusing additional attention on the issue of stakeholder input to important information products.

EPA currently has established a joint workgroup with state partners to create a system for informing stakeholders about significant information products under development, including a means for stakeholders to review and comment on these. EPA

will include in this work an opportunity for expert and stakeholder comment on the

process and definitions. We expect to publish the first bulletin for comment under

this process in the second quarter of the next fiscal year.

The new Office of Environmental Information (OEI) was created to provide leadership across the Agency on major information policies. A key consideration about the

effectiveness of OEI is how it will guide other program offices.

Question 35A: The Office of Enforcement (OECA) has indicated that it may expand the Sector Facility Indexing Project. What role will OEI play in this decision?

Answer 35A: EPA announced earlier this Spring that Sector Facility Indexing

Project (SFIP) will be expanded to include a subset of federal facilities. This expansion will encourage greater accountability on the part of federal facilities, and will

allow the public to obtain important compliance and inspection information about

these facilities located in their communities.

EPA’s decision to expand SFIP is consistent with results of its evaluation of the

first year of SFIP operation. For the evaluation, which was completed in December

1999, the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) obtained input

from user groups both inside and outside the Agency, including staff of what is now

the Office of Environmental Information (OEI). In addition to OEI, OECA obtained

feedback from other Headquarters’ offices, EPA’s Regions, the States, industry, environmental groups, and trade associations.

The evaluation’s results were positive. Extensively used, SFIP has enhanced public access to and knowledge of facilities’ environmental performance. The project is

cited for improving multimedia facility profiling; providing useful data in a ‘‘userfriendly’’ website; improving data quality in underlying databases; and serving as

an incentive to achieve and maintain compliance. Moreover, the evaluation identified widespread interest for an expansion of SFIP to build upon the project’s success

and make it an even more valuable analytical tool. Many of the stakeholders contacted during the evaluation indicated that federal facilities would be an useful addition to the SFIP. As we move forward with SFIP, we will continue to consult with

and coordinate our efforts with all relevant stakeholders, including OEI.

Question 36A: What is the status of the CEIS, and how was the funding that was

poured into developing the Center in the past three years expended. Please describe

in detail how these expenditures were used and what results were produced from

this project?

Answer 36A: CEIS functions were merged with the new Office of Environmental

Information when OEI was officially launched in October, 1999. The CEIS expended

its funding to produce:

• Reports on each of the public meetings, focus groups, and surveys (including the

National Telephone Survey) that were conducted to evaluate the public’s needs

for environmental information; research on existing EPA data users, regional

stakeholders and the American public’s interest in seeking and using data and

information; the questions that the American public want EPA to answer about

their health and the environmental interests; and research and analysis of data

and information to be compiled and made accessible as ‘‘Environmental Profiles’’

via the CEIS web site. • A nationally-recognized web site (with customer service) providing one-stop, public

access to EPA air, water, waste management, drinking water safety, toxic release, and related data at the county, state and national levels (both in English

and Spanish). • An on-line ‘‘Environmental Atlas’’ containing over 250 maps and spatial data sets

of national, state and local environmental quality, status and trends.

• Internet linkages to other peer-reviewed and publicly available federal agency reports and publications covering environmental quality topics.

• Downloadable, search, and analytical tools to explore EPA data sets (e.g., TRI Explorer).

• Working to partner with states, tribes, community-based, and local governmental

organizations to develop background reports and issue papers leading to last

November’s ‘‘Information Management Forum’’ in Chicago.

92

• Assessments of the suitability of using data from various EPA databases for additional applications.

• Assessments of the suitability of using data from more than a dozen EPA databases for purposes other than which they were originally intended, but which

might provide the basis for decision-making.

• Coordinating outreach to both English and Spanish-speaking Americans with

EPA’s National Service Center for Environmental Publications, the federal depository library system, the Government Printing Office, public libraries, and

other educational organizations.

• An early assessment of data gaps to identify Agency needs to obtain additional

data and information (from the perspective of our state partners, stakeholders,

advisory groups and internal information resources managers).

Question 36B: When will EPA release the results from the CEIS survey on public

needs as well as similar work conducted under the EMPACT program?

Answer 36B: Peer-reviewed, technical reports of the results of the CEIS survey

and similar work conducted by the EMPACT program are available for review. We

do not plan to release these publicly because they are intended to be internal Agency planning documents. We do intend to incorporate the findings of these surveys

and related EMPACT work in our program planning and the Agency’s public access

strategy, which will be drafted in consultation with our stakeholders and released

for public comment this fall.

Question 36C: That analysis, if any, does EPA conduct on how the public uses the

large number of offerings on the EPA Web site?

Answer 36C: Public usage of EPA’s Internet Web site has increased dramatically

in the last year, from an average of 60 million hits in December 1999 to more than

93 million hits in April 2000. Our Web sites include more than 300,000 individual

pages of materials—covering the spectrum of information from regulatory guidance

to compliance assistance; consumer tips to children’s issues. Our analysis show us

that information about the Agency’s regulations and their impact on the regulated

community are among the most frequently requested items. Content that explains

regulatory requirements accompanied by technical or compliance assistance information is by far the most popular. While we cannot be certain exactly how this information is utilized, one can infer that the regulated community is using this information to better understand, and to more effectively comply, with our environmental regulations.

Beyond the regulated community there is a significant number of users who are

seeking information about a wide array of general environmental interests. Our

Internet Web site offers a feedback mechanism that allows users to ask questions

or offer comments about their needs and concerns. We rely on the comments that

they voluntarily send to us as a source of data on how they use our resources. Parents, teachers, and students say that they use our resources for school projects and

to protect their families when they are concerned that environmental conditions

might pose health risks in their communities—examples include joggers seeking information on ozone alerts; prospective home buyers seeking information on radon

testing; and homeowners looking for information on proper disposal of lead-based

paint. Researchers and educators use our Web site to stay on top of the latest scientific and technological advances. Many visitors comment on how they rely on our

Web site to find jobs, internships, technical assistance, policy guidance ,and funding

for their programs and projects. As the use of the Internet expands, we are also receiving comments from retirees who want information to help them decide where

to relocate; and from the financial community seeking information to rate a company’s environmental performance.

Question 37: Pursuant to the FY1999 Omnibus Appropriations Act, OMB has

amended Circular A-110 to provide public access to federally funded data through

FOIA requests. In March, a joint interim final rule was published in the Federal

Register codifying these changes in the agencies regulations. What progress has

EPA made in implementing these data access provisions, including the cost reimbursement mechanism to the grantees?

Answer 37: A Workgroup was established to develop the procedures to provide

public access to federally funded data. The Workgroup has developed a draft Notice

and Guidance for EPA Grantees and Applicants, including an Overview of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) process, and a list of Frequently Asked Questions.

The Notice explains how access would be achieved when a request is made under

the Amendment to OMB Circular A-110. The Notice will be posted on the EPA

Grants Information Home Page of the EPA Office of Administration and Resources

Management web site. The web site will be used to update information as we gain

experience with the implementation process. (See http://www.epa.gov/ogd/)

93

The FOIA Overview portion of the Notice and Guidance for EPA Grantees and

Applicants includes a discussion on both the costs to the EPA and the costs incurred

by the grantee institution, which will be accounted for separately. The grantee institution will provide the data and the cost of providing the data to EPA. EPA will

prepare and send the FOIA response and an invoice for charges incurred by EPA

and the grantee institution. The FOIA requester will be instructed to make separate

payments to EPA and the grantee institution.

Currently, the final draft Notice and Guidance for EPA Grantees and Applicants

is under review. We expect to complete the Notice and post it on the EPA web site

by the end of August, 2000.

Question 38: What is the status of the Agency’s ongoing and extensive review of

the Cancer Risk Assessment Guidelines? When does the Agency anticipate putting

out the revised guidelines, and what are the principal issues that have resulted in

the extensive review period?

Answer 38: Revisions to EPA’s 1986 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment

were proposed for comment on April 23, 1996 and initially reviewed by the Agency’s

Science Advisory Board (SAB) in February 1997. The SAB provided their initial

comments to the Agency in September 1997.

In January 1999, the SAB conducted a second review of several key sections of

the Proposed Guidelines which had been revised by the Agency to address the comments from the earlier SAB review and the public comments. On July 29, 1999,

EPA received the SAB’s recommendations on these revised sections.

Although the 1996 Guidelines generally addressed the issue of sensitive populations, specific guidance was not provided on assessing risks to children. The initial

SAB review and several public comments urged the Agency to provide more specific

guidance in this area. When the Guidelines were proposed in 1996, Executive Order

13045 had not been issued. In order to address the recommendations of the SAB

and the requirements of the Executive Order, the Guidelines have been revised to

provide specific guidance on assessing children’s risk. A third review by the SAB

was conducted in July 1999 which dealt with this new material. Final recommendations from the SAB are expected next month.

Currently, the Agency is revising the Proposed Guidelines to reflect the SAB recommendations from the January 1999 review and awaiting the recommendations

from the July 1999 review. It is anticipated that final revisions will be completed

this summer and the Guidelines will undergo interagency review and final Agency

clearance later this year.

Question 39: The Office of Research and Development conducted research in support of EPA rule-making activities and other activities relating to the implementation of various environmental laws. For example, ORD conducts research that is

necessary to promulgate new drinking water and clean air standards. Please provide

a breakdown of the research activities conducted by ORD under the Science and

Technology Account which relate to statutory obligations of the EPA program offices

regarding their regulatory activity or other activity to implement environmental

laws? Please include all activities whether they are specifically related to pending

regulations, guidance or any other work product relating to implementation of the

standard setting provisions of the Clean Air Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the

Toxic Substances Control Act, the Compensation and Liability Act, the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act, the Food Quality Protection Act, the Emergency

Planning and Community Right to Know Act and the Pollution Prevention Act.

Answer 39: As the question indicates, authority for EPA to conduct environmental

research, development, and demonstration activities is provided for in multiple statutes. Primary authority is provided in the Environmental Research, Development,

and Demonstration Authorization (ERDDA) Act. Although there have been efforts

to reauthorize ERDDA, the most recent version of the statute was passed in 1980

(Public Law 96-569). This version authorized resources to be appropriated for EPA

to conduct environmental research, development, and demonstration activities in the

following areas: air quality, water quality, water supply, solid waste, pesticides, radiation, toxic substances, and interdisciplinary programs (e.g., health and ecological

effects, monitoring and technical support). In addition, resources were authorized to

be appropriated for program management of the Office of Research and Development.

ERDDA (1980) referred to other environmental statutes that authorize EPA to

conduct environmental research, development, demonstration, and related activities.

These included the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water

Act, the Solid Waste Disposal Act, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and

Rodenticide Act, the Public Health Services Act, and the Toxic Substances Control

Act. In addition, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and

Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980 (Superfund) authorized EPA to conduct research,

94

development, and demonstration activities on hazardous wastes. Since 1980, many

of these environmental statutes have been either reauthorized and/or related legislation passed, e.g., the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1996 and the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996.

The table below indicates for each GPRA goal authorizing legislation for ORD’s

research activities in that goal. As described above, these authorities complement

those provided by ERDDA.

In addition, EPA provides very specific descriptions of its research by Goal as part

of its President’s Request to Congress.

Goal 1: Clean Air Research

• Clean Air Act (CAA) (42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q)

Goal 2: Clean and Safe Water Research

• Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) • Clean Water Act (CWA) • Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) • Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) • Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) • Clean Air Act Amendments (CAA) • Pollution Prevention Act (PPA)

Goal 3: Safe Food Research

• Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996 • Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) • Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) • Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA)

Goal 4: Safe Communities Research

• Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) • Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) • Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA)

Goal 5: Better Waste Management Research

• Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) • Oil Pollution Act (OPA) • Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA) • Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) • Clean Air Act Amendments (CAA)

Goal 6: Global Change Research

• U.S. Global Change Research Program Act of 1990 • United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change • National Climate Program Act (1997)

Goal 7: Right to Know Research

• Clean Air Act (CAA) and amendments • Clean Water Act (CWA) and amendments

• Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Act (ERDDA) of 1981

• Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA)

• Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)

• Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA)

• Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and amendments

• Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA)

• Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRKA) of 1986

Goal 8: Sound Science

• Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Act (ERDDA) of 1981

• Clean Water Act (CWA) Title I (33 U.S.C 1251-1271)

• Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) of 1988

• Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) of 1988

• Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996

• Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976

• Clean Air Act (CAA) and amendments

• Environmental Research, Development and Demonstration Act (ERDDA)

• Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)

• Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)

• Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996

• Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and amendments

• Resources Conservation and Recovery Act

95

• Pollution Prevention Act of 1990

Question 40: Many Federal and State environmental programs rely on EPA’s IRIS

(Integrated Risk Information System) database for making decisions. IRIS contains

summarized information about the risks posed by the various substances, including

safe levels of exposure. There are substantial problems with the currency and adequacy of the information in the database, and Congress directed the Agency to study

the problem in last year’s budget Report language.

Question 40A: What is the status of the Agency’s study of IRIS pursuant to the

Report language?

Answer 40A: In its FY 2000 Appropriations Committee Report Congress directed

EPA to ‘‘consult with the Science Advisory Board (SAB) on the design of a study that

will a) examine a representative sample of IRIS health assessments completed before

the IRIS Pilot Project, as well as a representative sample of assessments completed

under the project and b) assess the extent to which these assessments document the

range of uncertainty and variability of the data. The results of that study will be reviewed by the SAB and a copy of the study and the SAB’s report on the study sent

to the Congress within one year of enactment of this Act.’’ EPA consulted with the

SAB Nov. 29, 1999 and again on March 7, 2000 on an approach to this study. The

study is now underway. Selected experts from outside of the Agency are reviewing

a representative sample of IRIS assessments in depth, and will provide the Agency

with their evaluation this summer. Though not specifically addressing currency or

accuracy, the study will determine whether IRIS assessments developed using a

new process adequately presented and discussed the range of uncertainty and variability in the data used to develop the assessments.

Question 40B: What is the Agency doing to ensure that the IRIS database contains the best available scientific information about the substances contained in the

database? What resources has the Agency allocated to improving the IRIS database?

Answer 40B: Since 1995, EPA has taken several steps to ensure that the best

available scientific information is included in IRIS assessments. On an annual basis,

EPA announces the next set of chemicals to be considered in the IRIS program, either to update an older assessment, or to be added to the database. This announcement includes a request for all relevant information to be submitted to EPA for consideration in the assessments. In addition, all IRIS assessments go through an external peer review, which can include a public meeting permitting more notice of

relevant information. All scientific questions and responses generated through the

external reviews are available to the general public.

For the FY 2001 President’s Budget Request, EPA requested a total of $1.7 million under the R&D program to support the IRIS database. Some key areas of effort

in 2001 will include producing, updating, and maintaining health assessments on

IRIS, ensuring appropriate external peer review of IRIS summaries and support

documents, facilitating Agency consensus and resolving issues in a timely manner,

and maintaining a widely-accessible Internet version of IRIS, available at the local

level to support community-based environmental protection.

Question 41: EPA has requested $403.8 million for FY 2001, an 8% increase in

the enforcement budget than this year. This includes increases in compliance monitoring, and civil and criminal enforcement. For what specific programs is the Agency

seeking the increase, and how would the Agency intend to allocate such additional

funding? Can you further elaborate on the Agency’s enforcement priorities for FY

2001?

Answer 41: In FY 2001, the Agency is seeking an increase of $31.0 million for the

Deterrence Goal (Goal 9) over FY 2000. There are six EPA program offices requesting funds under the Credible Deterrence Goal. The Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) is requesting an increase of $24.6 million; the Office of

Administration and Resources Management (OARM) is requesting an increase of

$6.0 million; and, the remaining $0.4 million is requested by the other four program

offices, including: Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER), Office

of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO), Office of General Counsel (OGC), and Office

of Environmental Information (OEI).

OECA, +$24.6 Million ($21.1M in EPM, $0.9M in S&T, and $2.6M in Superfund)

Background Statement on EPM appropriation: From 1996 to 2001 OECA’s EPM

payroll needs have increased from $158 Million to $203 Million, an increase of $45

Million, while at the same time FTE’s have slightly decreased. While there has been

a minor decrease in workyears, there has been a significant decrease in the EPM extramural resources needed to support the work of the Federal workforce. In addition,

there have been new statutory mandates as well as a significant increase in the size

of the regulated universe during these years of economic prosperity for the nation.

96

Because OECA has not received sufficient increases to cover EPM payroll needs to

maintain the enforcement workforce, the EPM extramural budget during this same

period has decreased by $25 Million from $51 Million in 1996 to $26 Million in

2000, a decrease of nearly 50%. These extramural dollars provide the technical support for inspections and investigations, data management, and litigation support, including expert witnesses. It also includes the contract support providing technical expertise for review of the Environmental Impact Statements and Environmental Assessments required by NEPA and section 309 of the Clean Air Act.

What the FY 2001 request does, is provide adequate payroll funding for the existing workforce, restores some of the badly needed extramural resources, and provides

funding for some critical areas.

EPM increases of $21.1 Million from FY 2000 to FY 2001

+$11 million payroll for the existing workforce less our FTE reductions for next

year. This is needed to cover payroll increase and enrichment for OECA’s EPM

workforce of 2,203 FTE. Because we are an enforcement and compliance assurance

office involved in inspections and monitoring, civil and criminal investigations and

litigation, developing and implementing enforcement and compliance policy and

guidance, e.g., the self-audit policy, NEPA, much of what we do is inherently governmental and cannot be contracted out. Therefore, we have a large payroll increase

each year just to maintain our existing workforce. +$2.5M lead based paint for hiring approximately 35 Senior Environmental Employment (SEE) inspectors for the EPA Regions to inspect housing units for compliance with lead-based paint rules. This is part of the Agency’s children’s health initiative.

+$2.6M Integrated Information Initiative (formerly GEMS) development, a consolidated enforcement and compliance information management system to support

core program needs and provide integrated data necessary for risk-based strategies.

This is part of the Agency’s system needs and modernization efforts.

+$5 M Critical Base Funding restoration of extramural resources is needed to continue a healthy Federal environmental enforcement and compliance assurance program. Under our current funding levels not all necessary inspections will be done,

some significant violations will not be addressed, access to data necessary for targeting and evaluation is not available because of funding shortfalls, needed data and

information system enhancements are not being developed or implemented , and

support for the environmental justice program and NEPA implementation efforts

has been restricted. This increase will allow for restoration of some funding to these

critical areas.

Science and Technology (S&T) increases of $0.9 Million from FY 2000 to FY 2001

Increase covers payroll increases and enrichment for OECA’s S&T workforce of 78

FTE under Goal 9. In addition, dollars support the National Enforcement Investigations Center (NEIC), including $0.8 million which will help to complete the New Facility for NEIC to accreditable specifications and the move into it. This laboratory

is also supported by the Superfund appropriation.

Superfund increase of $2.6 Million from FY 2000 to FY 2001

Increase covers payroll increases and enrichment for OECA’s Superfund workforce

of 101 FTE under Goal 9. In addition, dollars support the criminal and civil enforcement efforts, including $0.2 million which will help to complete New Facility for the

National Enforcement Investigations Center (NEIC) to accreditable specifications

and the move into it. This laboratory is also supported by the Science and Technology appropriation.

OARM, +$6.0 Million

Most of this increase supports the Agency’s mandatory rental and lease agreements.

FY 2001 Priorities for the Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Program

In April, 1999 the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA)

issued the FY 2000/2001 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA Guidance which set

forth the goals, priorities, and major activities for the national enforcement and

compliance program over this two-year period. These priorities include: Clean Water

Act—Wet Weather; Safe Drinking Water Act—Microbial Rules; Clean Air Act—New

Source Review/Prevention of Significant Deterioration (NSR/PSD and Air Toxics;

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act—Permit Evaders; Petroleum Refinery Sector; and, Metal Services (Electroplating and Coating) Sector. These priorities are described in greater detail in the FY 2000/2001 MOA guidance, which can be found

at: http

97

Question 42A: What resources is the enforcement office requesting for EPA efforts

on compliance assistance and incentives for the regulated community?

Answer 42A: The Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) is requesting a total of $24.4 million for compliance assistance and centers; $5.7 million

for key program compliance incentive efforts; and a total of $3.3 million for Project

XL and the Common Sense Initiative.

Question 42B: What are the new targeted sector initiatives for voluntary self-disclosure and violation correction?

Answer 42B: The three attachments describe new initiatives developed under

EPA’s voluntary disclosure program. EPA develops some of its initiatives based on

trends if identifies during inspections, disclosures made under the Audit Policy, or

other opportunities that arise outside the context of long-term planning. Because of

that, it is possible that other initiatives may be developed in the short-term.

Question 43: In February 2000, EPA’s Inspector General completed an audit of

EPA’s Financial Statements for FY 1999. That means it reviewed the EPA Budget

and related financial statements, like the one before us today for FY 2001, and the

IG concluded that for FY 1999, the EPA financial statement contained ‘‘weaknesses

that resulted in the Agency being unable to provide complete, accurate and reliable

statements, footnotes and supplemental information by the agreed upon dates.’’ The

IG found that ‘‘the financial statements provided to us for the purpose of expressing

an opinion were incomplete and contained significant errors.’’ What is EPA doing

to rectify this unclean bill of financial health in order to ensure that these accounting errors won’t persist?

Answer 43: We intend to continue to work closely with the EPA OIG to obtain

a clean opinion on EPA’s Financial Statements. Toward the end of the audit, the

IG raised questions regarding single line items in two of our six financial statements. One of the questioned amounts was reflected in a footnote to our Statement

of Changes in Net Position and the other in our Statement of Financing. Because

these questions could not be resolved and audited before the March 1 statutory due

date for issuing the financial statement, the Agency received a qualified opinion.

There was no issue concerning losses or misappropriation of funds. Rather, the

issue was the sufficiency of documentary support for the two line items in question.

We have taken steps to address the questions raised by the IG. We worked with

our contractor to develop documentation to address IG’s questions on the Statement

of Net Position and engaged a general ledger expert from the Department of the

Treasury who confirmed our analysis of the amount questioned in our Statement

of Financing.

Finally, EPA recognizes that we need to improve our process for preparing the

financial statements and we are taking appropriate actions. We have engaged experts from the Treasury Department to review our books and provide additional

training to our staff on analytical techniques. Furthermore, we are taking steps to

improve our quality controls as well as strengthen our planning and coordination

with the auditors.

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

August 29, 2000

The Honorable SHERROD BROWN

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on Health and Environment

Committee on Commerce

U.S. House of Representatives

Washington, D.C. 20515

DEAR CONGRESSMAN BROWN: Enclosed please find a complete set of our responses

to the follow-up questions, for the record, following the March 30, 2000 hearing on

the Environmental Protection Agency’s FY 2001 Budget, which were received on

April 18, 2000. As you know, we have already provided responses to thirteen questions previously sent to you on June 14, 2000.

Thank you for the opportunity to respond, to your request. I hope that EPA’s

input will prove valuable to the Committee.

Sincerely,

DIANE E. THOMPSON

Associate Administrator

Enclosures

98

1The dose-response chapter mentioned in Question 1, has already undergone external peer

review as well as public review and comment. An external review draft has been prepared, incorporating peer review and public comments, as appropriate, for re-review by the SAB. This

draft dose-response chapter will be provided as background information for the peer reviewers

and the public in preparation for the upcoming July peer review meeting.

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE; SUBCOMMITTEES ON FINANCE AND HAZARDOUS

MATERIALS AND HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT 3/30/00 HEARING

Question 1. Scientists from the EPA, other Federal agencies, and the general scientific community have been conducting a comprehensive reassessment of dioxin exposure and human health effects since 1991. Assistant Administrator Noonan has

informed the Committee staff that the final three chapters of this important report

relating to Toxic Equivalence, Dose Response, and Risk Characterization will be released to the public during the first week of May 2000. Please confirm that this is

the release date for the remaining chapters of the dioxin reassessment and indicate

the nature and timing of the public review process.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) is processing toward completion of its reassessment of dioxin exposure and human health effects entitled, ‘‘Exposure and Human Health Reassessment of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-Dioxin

(TCDD) and Related Compounds’’ and the Agency expects that the completed reassessment will be publicly available by the end of the year. The following paragraphs

provide information on the processes and schedule to complete the dioxin reassessment including Federal interagency review, public review and comment, and external scientific peer review.

In May, preliminary drafts of the chapters needing further external review were

distributed to other Federal agencies for their review and comment. As part of this

interagency review, an interagency Working Group (WG) on Dioxin has been convened under the auspices of the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC).

On June 12, the Integrated Summary and Risk Characterization and the Toxic

Equivalence Factors (TEF) chapters were submitted to an external peer review and

the two draft documents were made available to the public for review and comment.

The Junel2 Federal Register notice announced: 1) a two-day peer review meeting

on July 25-26, which is open to the public as observers, 2) the availability of the

external review drafts, and 3) the beginning of the public comment period. This will

be a ‘‘rolling’’ public comment period; that is, the Agency will continue to take public

comments through the final step in the review process, the review by the Science

Advisory Board (SAB). This means one continuous comment period will be used to

cover both the peer review drafts and the later drafts to be submitted to the SAB.

The external review drafts will be available on the Internet (down-loadable file), on

CD ROM along with the previously reviewed and approved chapters, and in a limited number of paper copies.

Based on comments received from the interagency review, the peer review panel

and the rolling public comment period, the Integrated Summary and Risk Characterization and the TEF chapter, will be revised, as appropriate, and formally submitted to the SAIB for review. Also submitted to the SAB for review will be the revised Dose-Response Modeling chapter.1

The SAB meeting to review these three sections of the dioxin reassessment is

being planned for October. SAB meeting are open to the public and the SAB also

solicits public comment on the draft documents. Final SAB approval is needed to

produce a final EPA dioxin reassessment document for public release.

Question 2: In 1998, the EPA initiated a new program to assure that basic toxicity

data are publicly available for widely used industrial chemicals. One key component

of the High Production Volume (HPV) Chemical Data Initiative was the EPA’s commitment that it would issue mandatory test rules to close the gaps on chemicals

that were not voluntarily sponsored. Is it correct that the EPA rules were scheduled

to be finalized in December 1999, but the proposed rules are now at the Office of

Management and Budget? If so, please specify when the proposed rules were submitted to OMB and the date when you expect to issue the proposed rules.

Created in cooperation with industry, environmental groups, and other interested

parties, the primary component of the HPV Initiative that was initiated in 1998 is

the voluntary HPV Challenge Program. This voluntary program challenges industry

to make publicly available a complete set of baseline health and environmental effects data on U.S. HPV chemicals.

EPA has indicated that any data gaps not addressed as part of the voluntary HPV

Challenge Program, may be addressed by international efforts coordinated by the

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) to secure basic

toxicity information on HPV chemicals in use worldwide, including some of those on

99

the U.S. HPV chemicals list, or by rulemakings issued under the Toxic Substances

Control Act (TSCA).

Under the voluntary HPV Challenge Program, based on the industry commitments received by December 1, 1999, 2,080 chemicals—of the 2,800 U.S. HPV

chemicals originally identified—have been sponsored by 437 Companies and 155

Consortia either directly through the EPA voluntary HPV Challenge Program or indirectly through the International Council of Chemical Associations (ICCA)’s HPV

Initiative.

A proposed TSCA test rule covering certain HPV chemicals was submitted to the

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Order 12866

on September 7, 1999. Final revisions are expected to be completed shortly.

Question 3: With the economic prosperity of the country many states are operating

with a budget surplus. Please provide any information or knowledge in the possession of the EPA headquarters or regional offices that indicate whether the state environmental budgets and personnel resources (i.e., FTEs) for the RCRA program,

toxic waste cleanup program (i.e., state Superfund programs), and state voluntary

cleanup programs have increased, remain relatively constant, or have decreased

over the past four years (FY 1997-FY 2000). Where possible, please provide specific

funding levels and personnel levels for the above programs on a state-by-state basis.

EPA does not have specific information or data on state environmental budgets

and personnel. EPA does, however, give money to states through our core grants

programs. EPA’s funding of the state programs has remained relatively constant

over the past few years.

Question 4: Questions were raised at the hearing about the EPA Inspector General’s actions at the Tar Creek, Oklahoma site and alleged fraudulent activities by

the cleanup contractor at the site. Please provide the following information relating

to the history of the site, the status of cleanup actions, and the status of any investigation at the site.

Question 4a. Identify the major potentially responsible parties at the site and indicate their financial contribution to the cost of response actions at the site. Has

a judicial consent decree been entered or an administrative order issued for response actions at the site?

The major potentially responsible parties (PRPs) at the site are: Asarco Incorporated, Blue Tee Corporation, Childress Royalty Company, Gold Fields Mining Corporation, NL Industries Inc., and the St. Joe Minerals Corporation. A judicial consent decree regarding the first operable unit (ground water, surface water) was entered June 11, 1991. Under the consent decree, the PRPs listed above committed

to providing $1,273,00 towards the cost of response.

Another PRP, Eagle Pitcher Corp., settled with EPA regarding its Tar Creek costs

in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization.

The United States Department of the Interior (DOI) is also a PRP, based on the

control that it exerted over the mineral leases, acting on behalf of the Indian owners. DOI required that the waste rock (‘‘chat’’) remain on the leases. That is, the

lessees were not allowed to remove it. It was treated as a valuable commodity at

the site. DOI has not settled with EPA.

For the second operable unit (residential soil lead cleanup), no PRPs other than

DOI have been identified.

Question 4b. Have any of the major responsible parties at the site brought litigation against the EPA at the site? If so, please identify the major issues involved and

the outcome of the litigation.

There has been no litigation initiated against EPA by the PRPs at this site.

Question 4c: Identify the records of decision (RODS) that have been issued at the

site and the nature and scope of work covered by each ROD. Have all final RODs

been issued at the Tar Creek site? If not, please indicate when the final ROD will

be issued.

The first ROD to address operable unit (OU) #1 was issued on June 6, 1984, to

address surface water degradation of Tar Creek by the discharge of acid mine water

and the threat of contamination of the Roubidoux Aquifer which is the regional

water supply, by the downward migration of acid mine water from the overlying

Boone Aquifer through abandoned wells connecting the two aquifers. The OUI remedy included the following: diversion and diking of several major inflow areas; plugging 83 identified abandoned wells in the Roubidoux Aquifer and any other abandoned wells found connecting the Roubidoux; and a monitoring program for the

Roubidoux Aquifer and Tar Creek. The construction of the ROD remedy was completed in December 1986.

A second ROD covering operable unit #2 was issued on August 27, 1997, to address soil contamination in the residential areas of the Site. The OU2 remedy included the following: excavation of lead-contaminated soil above 500 mg/kg and reVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:15 Sep 18, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00105 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 64026.TXT HCOM2 PsN: HCOM2
100

placement of clean soil for residential properties; disposal of excavated soils on-site

in existing mining waste areas; use of institutional controls such as health education, indoor dust reduction, and blood lead monitoring; covering or replacement

of chat surfacing on traffic areas with road base material; constructing physical barriers to restrict access to mining waste areas; and improving the ground cover for

residential yards outside the mining area. The construction of the ROD remedy for

OU2 is expected to be completed by the end of 2001 if federal and state funding

is available.

All final RODs for the site have not been issued. The schedule for future RODs

is estimated as follows:

Tribal Pilot (includes industrial properties in Cardin) ............................................................. ROD 12/31/01 (Tribal-lead)

Beaver Creek (includes watershed) ........................................................................................... ROD 12/31/02 (Tribal-lead)

Non-residential Areas (includes chat piles, tailing ponds, and agricultural land) ................. ROD 12/31/03 (State-lead)

Question 4d. Identify the actual physical cleanup work that has been Finished at

the site and the cleanup activities that are underway.

In the 1980s, diversion and diking structures were constructed to prevent surface

water from flowing into the underground mines at three locations. A total of 83

abandoned Roubidoux wells were plugged. The well plugging work is ongoing as a

State-lead activity (using federal Superfund dollars). The State estimates that 15

additional wells may be plugged in the future.

In the Fall 1994, new studies began to evaluate mining waste as a source of contamination. Also in 1994, EPA acquired a summary of results of Indian Health Service testing, which indicated that approximately 35% of the Indian children tested

in the area had blood lead levels greater than 10 ug/dL, the level that is considered

elevated. In addition, the Oklahoma Department of Health screened children in the

mining area and found in the Picher-Cardin area that 21% of the children had elevated blood lead levels.

In 1995, EPA responded to these results and initiated a removal action to address

17 high access areas (e.g., schools, parks, day care, and similar areas where children

congregate) with surface soil contamination greater than or equal to 500 ppm lead

and/or 100 ppm cadmium. A second removal action was initiated in 1996 to address

lead contamination in soil greater than or equal to 1500 ppm at approximately 300

residential homes. The removal action was completed in the Summer 1997.

Residential soil cleanup began in 1997 at approximately 2,100 residential properties. The lead cleanup level is 500 ppm and the excavation depth is 18 inches. To

date, approximately 1,400 properties have been remediated (which includes the 300

homes addressed by a removal action). The remaining approximately 700 properties

are expected to be completed by the end of 2001, if federal and State funding is

available.

Between the years 1996 and 1997, independent studies indicated that the percentage of children with high blood lead levels were reduced by 53%. To date, the

Quapaw Tribe has been very supportive of EPA’s cleanup efforts.

Question 4e: Describe what cleanup work remains to be done and the expected

construction completion date of the Tar Creek site.

The remediation of the non-residential areas, including the Beaver Creek area

and the Tribal Pilot area, remain to be completed. The non-residential areas include

the extensive chat piles, tailings ponds, and other agricultural land. The site lead

for this action will be the State of Oklahoma. The Beaver Creek watershed and

Tribal Pilot industrial areas in Cardin are currently in the Remedial Investigation/

Feasibility Study (RI/FS) phase, and the lead for this action is the Quapaw Tribe.

Construction completion (all physical cleanup completed) at all non-residential

areas is estimated to be completed by September 2006, if federal and State funding

are available.

Question 4f: Describe the status of any cost recovery action against the potentially

responsible parties at the Tar Creek Site.

With respect to the viable mining companies that operated at Tar Creek, there

is no evidence linking the companies to operable unit 2 (OU2). The viable mining

companies, or their predecessors, have settled their liability with respect to operable

unit I (OU1), and they would argue that they have additionally settled their liability

with respect to OU2. EPA has told the viable mining companies that it does not

intend to pursue them with respect to OU2, based on information that we now have

in our possession. That information includes detailed maps of the waste ‘‘chat’’ piles

owned by the viable mining companies. None of these piles can be linked to OU2.

However, some of the piles may be the subject of later operable units. If that is the

case, the viable mining companies may be pursued at that time. DOI is aware that

we consider it a PRP for OU2 (and OU1); however, EPA has not yet taken action

against DOI.

101

Question 4g: State when the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers began managing response actions at the Tar Creek site and identify the private contractors who have

been retained by either the EPA or the Corps of Engineers to conduct the actual

response work.

The USACE began managing response actions (physical construction) in May

1996. For actual physical construction work, the USACE contracted with Morrison

Knudsen (NM) Corporation and EPA contracted with Reidel Environmental Services/Smith Environmental -Technologies.

Question 4h. Have any instances of financial fraud against the U.S. Government

been documented by either (1) the EPA Inspector General, (2) the Defense Criminal

Investigation Service, or (3) the Federal Bureau of Investigation? If so, please provide a summary of each specific instance of financial fraud against the U.S. Government or misappropriation of federal funds and the dollar amounts involved.

The Inspector General is investigating allegations of criminal wrongdoing related

to the Tar Creek, Oklahoma site. No evidentiary conclusions have been made and

the investigation is ongoing.

Question 4i. If there has been financial fraud or misappropriation of federal dollars, please indicate the status of any efforts to recoup the money from either the

Corps of Engineers or private contractors.

The Inspector General is investigating allegations of criminal wrongdoing related

to the Tar Creek, Oklahoma site. No evidentiary conclusions have been made and

the investigation is ongoing.

Question 4j. Has there been a case of ‘‘proven bribery’’ as alleged at the Subcommittee’s March 30 hearing?

The Inspector General is investigating allegations of criminal wrongdoing related

to the Tar Creek, Oklahoma site. No evidentiary conclusions have been made and

the investigation is ongoing.

Question 5: When Congress passed S.880 amending Section 112(r) of the Clean

Air Act last summer (P.L. 106-40 August 5, 1999) one of the important provisions

as part of the overall compromise was the required study by the Attorney General

of a sampling of covered stationary sources of vulnerability to criminal and terrorist

activity, current industry practices regarding site security and security of transportation of regulated substances (see Section 3). This is a mandatory duty and legal

requirement placed on the Attorney General. An interim report on this study is due

in August 2000, according to the law. Please indicate the amount of funding in the

Administration’s FY2001 budget to perform this interim study, when the interim

study was initiated and the date it is expected to be completed.

PL 106-40 assigned the responsibility for conducting this study to the Attorney

General. EPA’s budget does not include funding for the Attorney General’s study.

Question 6. Is EPA legally prohibited from spending its appropriated funds to help

in the cleanup of a Federal Superfund site?

CERCLA 111(e)(3) is clear in stating: ‘‘No money in the Fund shall be available

for remedial action, other than actions specified in subsection (c) of this section, with

respect to federally owned facilities. However, E.O. 12580, Section 9(i) permits

Superfund monies to be used ‘‘to pay for removal actions for releases or threatened

releases from’’ Federal facilities. However, these funds must be reimbursed to the

Fund by the Federal agency which owns the facility.