U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

41–131PS 2008

THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY (EPA) LIBRARY CLOSURES: BETTER

ACCESS FOR A BROADER AUDIENCE?

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS AND

OVERSIGHT

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND

TECHNOLOGY

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MARCH 13, 2008

Serial No. 110–85

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.science.house.gov

(II)

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, Chairman

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California

MARK UDALL, Colorado

DAVID WU, Oregon

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois

NICK LAMPSON, Texas

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona

JERRY MCNERNEY, California

LAURA RICHARDSON, California

PAUL KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey

JIM MATHESON, Utah

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana

BARON P. HILL, Indiana

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona

CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR.,

Wisconsin

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas

DANA ROHRABACHER, California

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri

JO BONNER, Alabama

TOM FEENEY, Florida

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS AND OVERSIGHT

HON. BRAD MILLER, North Carolina, Chairman

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

BART GORDON, Tennessee

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR.,

Wisconsin

DANA ROHRABACHER, California

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

DAN PEARSON Subcommittee Staff Director

EDITH HOLLEMAN Subcommittee Counsel

JAMES PAUL Democratic Professional Staff Member

DOUGLAS S. PASTERNAK Democratic Professional Staff Member

KEN JACOBSON Democratic Professional Staff Member

BART FORSYTH Republican Counsel

TOM HAMMOND Republican Professional Staff Member

STACEY STEEP Research Assistant

(III)

C O N T E N T S

March 13, 2008

Page

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 2

Hearing Charter ...................................................................................................... 3

Opening Statements

Prepared Statement by Representative Bart Gordon, Chairman, Committee

on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ............................. 22

Statement by Representative Ralph M. Hall, Ranking Minority Member,

Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ......... 20

Statement by Representative Brad Miller, Chairman, Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House

of Representatives ................................................................................................ 17

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 19

Prepared Statement by Representative F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., Ranking

Minority Member, Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ................. 20

Prepared Statement by Representative Jerry F. Costello, Member, Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, Committee on Science and

Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ....................................................... 22

Prepared Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Member, Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, Committee on Science and

Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ....................................................... 23

Statement by Representative Paul C. Broun, Member, Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, Committee on Science and Technology, U.S.

House of Representatives .................................................................................... 21

Witnesses:

Mr. John B. Stephenson, Director, Natural Resources and Environment, Government Accountability Office

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 28

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 30

Biography .......................................................................................................... 39

Mr. Charles Orzehoskie, President, National Council of EPA Locals #238,

American Federation of Government Employees

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 39

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 41

Dr. Francesca T. Grifo, Senior Scientist, Union of Concerned Scientists; Director, Scientific Integrity Program

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 49

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 51

Biography .......................................................................................................... 54

Mr. James R. Rettig, President-elect, American Library Association; University Librarian, University of Richmond

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 55

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 56

Biography .......................................................................................................... 59

Page

IV

Ms. Molly A. O’Neill, Assistant Administrator for Environmental Information,

The Office of Environmental Information (OEI); Chief Information Officer

(CIO), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 60

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 62

Discussion

Access to EPA Library Services .......................................................................... 64

Availability of Library Materials ........................................................................ 64

More on Access to EPA Library Services ........................................................... 65

When Did EPA Develop Library Commonality Procedures and Outreach? .... 66

EPA Actions Since the Senate Hearings ............................................................ 68

EPA Report to Congress ...................................................................................... 69

Effect of Library Closings on EPA Employees ................................................... 70

Progress Report on Digitization .......................................................................... 71

More on EPA’s Report to Congress ..................................................................... 72

Is EPA Briefing Stakeholders on the Report? ................................................... 73

Effect of Librarian Loss on EPA Employees ...................................................... 74

Is EPA Reaching Out to Communities With Library Closures? ...................... 75

More on the EPA Report to Congress ................................................................. 75

Reopening EPA Libraries .................................................................................... 76

Appendix 1: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

Mr. John B. Stephenson, Director, Natural Resources and Environment, Government Accountability Office ............................................................................. 80

Ms. Molly A. O’Neill, Assistant Administrator for Environmental Information,

The Office of Environmental Information (OEI); Chief Information Officer

(CIO), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency .................................................. 83

Appendix 2: Additional Material for the Record

Exhibit #1, EPA Office of Environmental Information Report, ‘‘Business Case

for Information Services: EPA’s Regional Libraries and Centers’’ (January

2004) ...................................................................................................................... 88

Exhibit #2, EPA Library Network Workgroup Report, ‘‘EPA Library Network:

Challenges for FY 2007 and Beyond’’ (November 22, 2005) ............................. 112

Exhibit #3, EPA Office of Environmental Information ‘‘EPA FY 2007 Library

Plan: National Framework for the Headquarters and Regional Libraries’’

(August 15, 2006) ................................................................................................. 122

Exhibit #4, EPA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA)

Position Paper on the 2007 EPA Library Plan (August 23, 2006) ................... 140

Exhibit #5, Letter to GAO Comptroller General David Walker requesting

an investigation of the EPA Libraries Restructuring Plan from Chairmen

Gordon, Dingell, Waxman, and Oberstar (September 19, 2006) ...................... 145

Exhibit #6, Letter to EPA Administrator Johnson from Chairmen Gordon,

Dingell, and Waxman (November 30, 2006) ...................................................... 149

Exhibit #7, Letter to Chairman Gordon from Molly O’Neill, Assistant Administrator and Chief Information Officer, Office of Environmental Information,

EPA responding to November 30, 2006 (Exhibit #6) (January 12, 2007) ........ 151

Exhibit #8, The Arbitration decision between EPA and the American Federation of Government Employees, AFL–CIO; Council 238 ................................... 153

(1)

THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

(EPA) LIBRARY CLOSURES: BETTER ACCESS

FOR A BROADER AUDIENCE?

THURSDAY, MARCH 13, 2008

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS AND OVERSIGHT, COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:35 a.m., in Room

2318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Brad Miller [Chairman

of the Subcommittee] presiding.

2

3

HEARING CHARTER

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS AND OVERSIGHT

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) Library Closures: Better

Access for a Broader Audience?

THURSDAY, MARCH 13, 2008

9:30 A.M.–12:00 P.M. 2318 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING

Purpose

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) manages an extensive library system

designed to serve the specific needs of its research and regulatory scientists, its enforcement specialists and the interested public. Beginning in 2003, EPA managers

began a series of studies of how to consolidate and restructure their library system

to reduce costs among its 26 branches.

By the end of FY 2006, seven libraries were closed. The libraries closed included

three regional libraries (Dallas, Chicago, Kansas City), a technical library in Edison,

NJ, associated with the Region two library, a laboratory library in Region three located in Fort Meade, MD, and two libraries located in Washington, D.C. (the headquarters library and the chemical library managed by the Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances (OPPTS) ).

Because EPA did not complete work necessary to restructure its library network,

the collections previously housed in these libraries are still not fully accessible to

EPA employees and the public. On Thursday, March 13 at 9:30 a.m. in Rayburn

2318 the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight will hold a hearing on

EPA’s plan to consolidate and modernize its library network and the impacts of

their implementation of this plan on EPA employees and the public.

Witnesses:

The witnesses testifying at the hearing will be:

Mr. John Stephenson, Director Natural Resources and Environment, Government

Accountability Office;

Mr. Charles Orzehoskie, President, American Federation of Government Employees, Council 238;

Dr. Francesca Grifo, Senior Scientist and Director of the Scientific Integrity Program, Union of Concerned Scientists;

Mr. Jim Rettig, President-elect, American Library Association;

Ms. Molly O’Neill, Assistant Administrator for the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) and Chief Information Officer, Environmental Protection Agency.

Background

This matter has been of interest to the Committee since March 2006 when Jeff

Ruch, Executive Director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility

(PEER) testified before the Subcommittee on Environment, Technology and Standards about a proposed funding cut of $2 million dollars in the budget for EPA’s regional libraries was likely to lead to the closure of library facilities. In September

2006, Mr. Gordon was joined by Mr. Dingell and Mr. Waxman (Senator Boxer later

joined the request) in a letter to GAO requesting an investigation of EPA’s library

restructuring plan, its implementation, and its potential impacts on delivery of library services to EPA employees and the public (letter attached).

In November 2006, those same House Members, joined by Mr. Oberstar, wrote to

EPA Administrator Johnson asking that he suspend all activity designed to close

facilities or dispose of materials until Congress could be heard on its preferences for

EPA’s library system. Early in 2007, Administrator Johnson agreed to do so. In the

4

1 ‘‘EPA Library Network Procedure: Library Materials Dispersion,’’ Issued by the EPA Chief

Information Officer pursuant to delegation 1–19 dated 07/07/05. 2 Business Case for Information Services: EPA’s Regional Libraries and Centers. Prepared by

Stratus Consulting for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, EPA 260–R–001, January 2004.

FY 2008 omnibus appropriation Congress included $1 million in additional funding

for EPA’s libraries to reopen the regional libraries that were closed and required the

Agency to provide a plan to restore library services within 90 days of the law’s enactment (signed on December 26, 2007).

A good primer on the restructuring effort can be found in the attached report by

CRS, this charter will briefly touch on five key questions which we hope to explore

in the hearing.

1. Did EPA Have a Plan for Maintaining Continuity of Library Services

When the Plan Was Implemented in 2006?

For several years, EPA managers have looked at alternative structures for delivering library services to their employees and the public. The collections in EPA’s libraries are extraordinarily specialized and, in some cases, absolutely unique. The

network as a whole is a unique library collection. EPA’s own information procedures

guidance on library materials dispersion reads in relevant part:

‘‘Although it may be tempting to dispose of library materials quickly, the loss

of important and unique materials could have serious future consequences if the

Agency cannot document scientific findings or enforcement actions.’’ 1

Used by both their science staff and their enforcement staff, the holdings in these

libraries are essential to the work done at EPA. Librarians at the facilities also play

an integral role in helping staff locate the most responsive, richest materials for the

particular research, enforcement action, or litigation that EPA staff are pursuing.

While EPA initiated a review in 2003 that identified areas for improvement and

modernization of EPA’s library network, the follow-up work recommended in the

2004 report: Business Case for Information Services: EPA’s Regional Libraries and

Centers2 was not done before libraries were closed or limited in their service and

collections were dispersed and disposed of. The failure to do the required preparatory work suggests that no plan was guiding the library consolidation process.

Seven libraries were simply closed without the holdings being digitized, clearly

prioritized for future digitization or even always secured for future access. Nothing

about this effort appears to have been consistent with the guidance quoted above.

In fact, the regions appear to have been presented with draconian budget cuts and

then ‘‘allowed’’ to figure out how they would cope with those cuts with little or no

guidance or coordination from Washington. This situation was guaranteed to lead

to confusion and a collapse in service for many, many EPA employees.

2. Did EPA Realize Budget Savings Through Implementation of Their

Plan?

EPA has said repeatedly that they had to respond to a $2 million budget cut. This

budget reduction appears to have been a cut initiated by the Agency itself. There

is no line in the EPA’s budget submission to Congress or in the appropriations legislation or its accompanying report where the cut to services planned for FY 2007

(which began to unfold in September 2006) was revealed. Funding for the regional

libraries is included in the budget for the Office of Environmental Information

which is within a larger allocation for administrative functions of the Agency. The

Administration chose to fold into their budget less money for library services. It was

not a problem imposed upon the agency, and this budget decision runs contrary to

information in their earlier planning activities that suggested that additional resources would be required initially to move to a more electronically-based system

for delivering library services. EPA initiated library closings before Congress passed

EPA’s appropriation for FY 2007, which ultimately included a larger overall Agency

budget than was requested by the Administration, yet that did not slow the effort

by EPA to implement this reduced ‘‘budget.’’

As to budget savings, EPA also had no accounting mechanism in place to ensure

that savings would in fact be realized by closing libraries. The Agency claimed it

was committed to ensuring continued access to the materials in the libraries that

closed. In order to provide continued access to library materials and digitize unique

EPA documents, the collections would have to be sorted, identified and cataloged for

distribution to the new location. In terms of documents to be digitized, materials

would have to be identified, prioritized, digitized, and hosted on a computer with

5

3Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Position Paper on the 2007 EPA Library

Plan, 8/23/2006. 4 In the Matter of the Arbitration Between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and

American Federation of Government Employees, AFL–CIO, Council 238, FMCS Case No. 07–

50725, February 15, 2008, p. 66.

an effective interface to allow searching and retrieval. The prospect of virtual libraries is tempting, but it is not a cheap exercise.

The 2004 study on library restructuring laid out all the analyses that would have

to occur to result in a net benefit to the government. GAO found that none of that

research—including surveying library users about their needs, conducting a complete inventory of each library’s information resources, and fully evaluating alternative models for delivering library services—had taken place.

The Business Case report had laid out a high bar to get over for any plan aimed

at closing libraries and changing access: they found that for every dollar spent, anywhere from $2 to $5.70 came back to the Agency and the public in benefits. The

active involvement of librarians in searches for materials was the primary gain from

the library system as it existed. Librarians were found to both speed searches for

materials and improve the quality of materials identified for a specific purpose.

Digitizing collections alone would not fully capture those benefits—or necessarily

offset the costs of searches done absent expert knowledge of reference material contained in the collections.

3. Has EPA’s Effort to Digitize Library Holdings Resulted in Greater Access to Library Collections?

On its face, a claim that modernizing a library system through delivery of webbased or electronic library services is persuasive. It sounds like it should be cheaper

to maintain, cheaper to provide access and that it would result in expanded access

to library collections and services. However, in the case of EPA’s efforts, there is

little evidence that these presumed benefits have been realized or will be in the

near-term. Digitization of library materials does not require libraries to be closed,

yet EPA closed libraries before collections were properly inventoried and digitization

of materials appropriate for conversion to electronic media was completed.

EPA still has not digitized all materials eligible for digitization and it is unclear

whether the products of this effort are appropriate for use by a library system. Materials were simply boxed up and stored or shipped to other EPA libraries; some materials were disposed of (including materials being tossed into dumpsters), and others were distributed to other public and private libraries. While employees who used

closed libraries have all been provided with guidance on how to work with libraries

that remain open somewhere in the system, it is still unclear whether collections

from the closed libraries are still accessible to employees. Public access to these materials has apparently not yet been restored.

4. Did Implementation of EPA’s Plan Ensure Continuity of Library Services to EPA Employees and the Public or Improve Library Services?

Library Services have been interrupted for both EPA employees and the public.

Not only have libraries been closed, but librarians with experience in managing the

individual collections are no longer with the Agency. As important as the loss of access to materials was the loss of qualified librarians to help employees and the public navigate the extensive, often technical, holdings in these libraries. The closure

of seven libraries had an absolute impact on the ability of EPA employees to do

their jobs. In August of 2007, the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

provided a position paper on the closure plan arguing that it would materially impact their ability to enforce the law.3

Another sign of the impact on employees was that it was substantial enough to

contribute to a Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service arbitrator to find ‘‘that

the changes effected by the Agency associated with the reorganization of its Library

Network did, in some profound ways, affect the working conditions of the Union’s

bargaining unit employees.’’ 4 Agency employees complained to their Union representatives as well as to the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and to the Public

Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) about these conditions.

EPA’s failure to conduct the follow-on work necessary to realize the benefits of

modernizing the delivery of library services resulted in a disruption of library service to EPA employees and the public. Service has not improved nor is the same level

of service being provided today as existed prior to the closure of the libraries. This

is especially true for service to the public. The 2004 study noted that: ‘‘EPA libraries

often act as the safety net, catching the most frustrated members of the public tryVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:40 Sep 28, 2008 Jkt 041131 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\I&O08\031308\41131 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
6

5 Business Case for Information Services: EPA’s Regional Libraries and Centers. Prepared by

Stratus Consulting for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, EPA 260–R–001, January 2004. Page 3.

ing to find information or assistance.’’ 5 The safety net has now been eliminated at

five locations and hours have been reduced at other EPA libraries.

5. What Is the Path Forward?

As mentioned above, Congress has appropriated funds to reopen closed libraries.

Note that the Region 5 library’s physical infrastructure was auctioned by the General Services Administration—$40,000 worth of shelves, desks and materials went

for $300. The EPA also is required to present Congress with their plan for the future. That plan is due later in March, but the Subcommittee hopes to learn what

steps EPA has taken to restore those libraries and get a firm commitment on when

the agency’s plan will be delivered to Congress.

GAO and the other witnesses at the hearing will also offer their recommendations

on the steps EPA should take to restore library services to their employees and the

public and to move forward with a modernization plan that truly delivers on EPA’s

stated goal of providing broader access to environmental information to a wider audience.

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

Chairman MILLER. Good morning. Welcome to this hearing this

morning: ‘‘The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Library

Closures: Better Access for a Broader Audience?’’

The EPA has built an absolutely unique library system. It contains collections of documents that are very specialized, and are

used to inform scientific advice, regulatory proposals, and enforcement of environmental laws. With 26 branches around the country,

the network, as it stood in the beginning of 2006, was an integrated whole, with regions possessing collections appropriate to

those regions, as well as a general collection of journals and books.

By the end of that year, however, the system was in disarray.

EPA headquarters had imposed an 80 percent budget cut on the regional library system, which resulted in the closings of the Chicago,

Dallas, and Kansas City libraries, and closed both the Headquarters Library and the Chemistry Library in Washington. The

materials of those libraries were boxed, stored, shipped, given

away, and in some cases, apparently, just thrown away.

Members of the public, EPA employees, Members of Congress,

were all concerned about the way the library closings developed,

and Congress had no real warning that it was coming. And neither

did the employees or the public, who rely upon the EPA’s library

system. Our Full Committee Chairman, Mr. Gordon, joined in a

GAO request, a Government Accountability Office request, with

Chairman Dingell and Chairman Waxman, as well as Senator

Boxer, and gave the GAO the task of examining the methods used

by the EPA for closing the libraries.

We will hear the testimony of the GAO today, but their findings

confirm that our concerns about the library closings were very well

founded. EPA managers had quietly begun considering how to consolidate the libraries and modernize their libraries in 2003. They

gave it a lot of thought. They developed a thoughtful plan to avoid

hobbling the EPA’s work or the public’s access, to develop a continuous availability of the information, with minimum disruption.

But then, when it came time to consolidate the system, those

managers, EPA managers, just ignored all of that careful planning,

and simply shut the libraries, or told the libraries your budget is

now 20 percent of what it was before. Deal with it.

There was no effort to reach out to the staff, to learn what they

needed from the libraries, and how to serve the EPA employees’

continued work, that the EPA managers did not try to establish

priorities in library holdings, or to digitize those holdings before

boxing them up, so that they would remain continuously available

to the EPA and to the public. They made no effort to do a cost-benefit analysis of various ways to organize the library system, and

when it came to decisions to close libraries, EPA headquarters

made no effort to provide guidance or assure integration within the

system. Again, headquarters simply announced a $2 million cut,

leaving $500,000, a half a million, across the regional system, and

just told the regions to figure out, figure it out. Your budget is 20

percent of what it was before. Deal with it.

Perhaps it is not surprising that the library system was as disrupted as it has been, that libraries have closed. What is pretty remarkable is the effort of EPA’s employees to keep the libraries

open, even if they have had to reduce hours and access.

18

The most generous interpretation of EPA’s conduct in closing the

libraries is incompetence, that EPA managers grossly mismanaged

the library system. Despite careful thinking and planning, in the

end, incompetence seems to have ruled the manner in which the

EPA budget cuts were administered.

Others see a more sinister motive. Because it is undoubtedly the

case that closing the libraries and limiting access to important information reduces the ability of EPA employees to protect the environment or the public health, it certainly hobbles the work, also,

of independent scientists who had relied upon the libraries. I am

not persuaded that there was actually a conscious motive behind

those actions of hobbling the work of the EPA and of independent

scientists, but it is an unavoidable and absolutely predictable consequence of what management did in 2006, and there is a well

known legal doctrine that you are held to the natural consequences

of your conduct, of your actions.

EPA managers took a library system that was working well, that

was the best in the world at what they did, that they knew was

important to what EPA did, that they knew was important to independent scientists, and they disrupted it so much that it will take

years and a lot of money to make things right, and some things

will never be made right.

So, where do we go from here? First, Congress directs, through

the 2008 Omnibus Appropriation, that the regional libraries that

have been closed should be reopened. I congratulate Senator Boxer

for her strong work to make that happen. And I want to know

what EPA is doing to follow that direction from Congress.

Second, the Agency should reopen its headquarters and chemical

libraries. Those are central assets that serve the Washington staff

of EPA, and the loss of those libraries is a tragedy. Third, EPA

managers need to return to the studies of 2004 and 2005 for how

to consolidate and manage and modernize the libraries. There

should certainly be no further closings until the holdings of the libraries have been effectively cataloged, evaluated, ranked in priority order, and digitized.

No library should be closed without a promise, should be closed

with a promise of eventual Internet or Intranet access, until the

search engines that would make it happen are proven to provide

the access that is promised. No library should be closed until methods are established to guarantee librarian support for the work of

the libraries, even, and for the EPA and for the scientists who depend upon those libraries, even if that work is done with virtual

materials.

Finally, no effort to restructure services should come without significant consultation and guidance from the staff of the Agency, the

concerned public, the scientists who depend upon those libraries,

and with Congress.

We are right in the Constitution, right there, just before Article

II, Article I. We are not meddling. We are part of the government.

We have an excellent panel of witnesses with us this morning.

I look forward to their testimony, your testimony, and your recommendations on how to rebuild and modernize the EPA’s network.

19

Now, I would like to recognize Mr. Hall, who is filling in today

for Mr. Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin. Mr. Hall, would you like to

make an opening statement?

[The prepared statement of Chairman Miller follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN BRAD MILLER

Good morning and welcome to today’s hearing on the Environmental Protection

Agency’s (EPA) management of its library system.

EPA has developed an absolutely unique library system. It contains collections of

documents that are very specialized and are used to inform scientific advice, regulatory proposals, and enforcement of environmental laws. With 26 branches across

the country, the network as it stood in early 2006, was an integrated whole with

regions possessing collections appropriate to the issues in those regions as well as

other journals and books.

By the end of 2006, that system stood in disarray. In the interim, EPA headquarters had imposed an almost 80 percent budget cut on the regional library system—which resulted in closings of the Chicago, Dallas and Kansas City libraries—

and had closed both the headquarters library and the chemistry library in Washington, D.C. The materials of those libraries were boxed, stored, shipped, given

away or simply thrown away.

Members of the public, EPA employees and Members of Congress were all concerned about the way the library closure process unfolded. Congress had no real

warning that this was coming—and as it turns out neither did employees or the

public. Our Full Committee Chairman, Mr. Gordon, was joined in a GAO request

by Chairmen Dingell and Waxman as well as Senator Boxer. GAO was tasked with

examining the methods used by EPA for closing the libraries. We will hear their

testimony today, but their findings confirm that our concerns were well founded.

EPA managers had quietly begun studying how to consolidate and modernize

their library system in 2003. They gave it a lot of thought. They developed a terrific

road map to how to do it in a 2004 report. Then, when it came time to consolidate

the system, those managers simply ignored all the careful planning they had engaged in and simply shuttered libraries. No effort had been made to reach out to

staff to learn what they needed and how to better serve them. No effort had been

made to prioritize library holdings and digitize those holdings, prior to boxing them

up, so that they would remain available to EPA and the public. No effort was made

to even do a careful cost-benefit analysis of various ways to reorganize the library

system. And when it came to decisions to close libraries, headquarters made no effort to provide guidance or assure integration across the system. Headquarters simply announced a $2 million cut—leaving just $500,000 across the regional system—

and left it to the regions to figure out what to do. Perhaps the surprise isn’t that

so many libraries closed, but that so many found the means to stay open—even if

they reduced their hours and access.

The best interpretation of this situation is that EPA managers appeared to grossly

mismanage their library system. Despite all the careful thinking and planning, in

the end, incompetence seems to have won the day. Others may see a more nefarious

motive in these actions, because it is undoubtedly the case that closing libraries and

limiting access to important information reduces the ability of EPA employees to act

to protect the environment or the public health. I am not persuaded that was the

motive behind these actions, but I do think it is an unavoidable and predictable consequence of the moves by management in 2006. They took a library system that was

working, and shook it up so that much of it is not working well and it may take

years and a lot of money to set things right again.

So where do we go from here?

First, Congress directed in the 2008 Omnibus Appropriation that the regional libraries that have been closed should be reopened. I want to particularly congratulate Senator Boxer for her strong work to accomplish this. I want to know what

steps EPA has taken to follow that guidance.

Second, the agency should reopen its headquarters and chemical libraries. These

are central assets that serve the Washington, D.C. staff of EPA and the public and

the loss of these libraries is a tragedy.

Third. EPA managers need to return to its studies of 2004 and 2005 and restart

their effort to enhance library services. No library should be closed until its holdings

have been effectively catalogued, prioritized and digitized. No library should be

closed with a promise of Internet or Intranet access, until the search engines are

proven to provide meaningful access. No libraries should be closed until methods are

20

established to guarantee librarian support for work, even if that work is done with

virtual materials.

Finally, no efforts to restructure services should come without significant consultation and guidance from the staff of the agency, the concerned public or Congress.

We have an excellent panel of witnesses with us this morning. I look forward to

your testimony and your recommendations on how to rebuild and modernize the

EPA library network.

Mr. HALL. I would like to, and I am going to.

With that opening statement from one of the renowned lawyers

who came to Congress with the reputation of being one of the really great lawyers in the whole area that he represented, he is kind

of a hard guy to take on, and I am not taking him on. I am not

here to push nor to pull. I am here, really, to be a Member sitting

here, to where we can get this committee going, and you do have

a good panel. I know some of them, and known them for some time,

but I am kind of, I have listened to you there, very capable output.

I thought about Tom Connelly, a judge, long-time judge later in

the Senate, he was about to sentence a man to death, and he reiterated all of the hard crimes he had done, and how horrible and

heinous it all was, and said now, do you have anything to say before I sentence you to die, and he said no, sir, the way you put it,

it seemed like I’m getting off pretty light. So, I don’t know if that

is the way this group feels or not, but Mr. Chairman, I don’t have

an opening statement.

I would like to ask unanimous consent for Mr. Sensenbrenner to

put a statement in the record. Without objection.

Chairman MILLER. Without objection.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sensenbrenner follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established its library network in

1971, one year after the Agency’s creation. Since that time, the network grew to 26

libraries, serving both EPA staff and the public. In 2004, EPA’s Office of Environmental Information (OEI) completed a cost-benefit analysis of EPA’s library services. OEI concluded that the libraries provided ‘‘substantial value’’ to the agency and

to the public, with a benefit-to-cost ratio ranging between 2:1 and 5.7:1. These benefits were based on time savings for EPA staff because of the benefits of assistance

from a professional librarian.

In FY2007, EPA began restructuring its libraries to transition from walk-in services to electronic dissemination. As part of the restructuring, EPA closed five of its

libraries and restricted access to eight more. In theory, EPA’s restructuring would

improve access to library materials by making them available electronically and reduce costs by eliminating the need for some of the physical structures. In practice,

however, the implementation of the plan appears to have restricted access without

providing any cost savings.

The Union of Concerned Scientists found that 35.6 percent of surveyed EPA scientists (555 total) agreed with the statement: the ‘‘recent changes and closures in

the EPA library system have impaired my ability to do my job.’’ This sentiment was

much higher, nearly 50 percent, for scientists who practiced in areas where a physical library was actually closed.

In a report released at today’s hearing, titled EPA Needs to Ensue that Best Practices and Procedures are Followed When Making Further Changes to its Library Network, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that, not only has service

been interrupted, but also that EPA failed to document any costs savings. GAO

wrote:

EPA’s primary rationale for the library network reorganization was to generate

cost savings by creating a more coordinated library network and increasing the

electronic delivery of services. However, EPA did not fully follow procedures recommended in a 2004 EPA study of steps that should be taken to prepare for

21

a reorganization. In particular, EPA did not fully evaluate alternative models,

and associated costs and benefits, of library services.

Government Accountability Office, EPA Needs to Ensue that Best Practices and Procedures Are

Followed When Making Further Changes to Its Library Network, p. 1 (February, 2008).

EPA thus failed to follow its own guidance and failed to perform cost-benefit analysis before taking actions with the goal of reducing costs. GAO also found that EPA

hindered its transition by failing to develop a plan to communicate the reorganizations to the public and its staff. Finally, EPA may have violated federal property

management regulations for disposal or dispersal of library materials by failing to

make a written determination that property had ‘‘no value’’ before discarding it.

Without such a determination, regulations require that agencies report surplus

property to the General Services Administration. The end result of EPA’s hasty reorganization may have been reduced benefits at comparable costs.

I, of course, support any effort to provide superior service at a lower cost. EPA

has not, however, demonstrated either that service was not impaired or that costs

were in fact lowered. The motivation to reduce costs is not cost effective when coupled with hurried analysis and rushed execution. GAO has provided a detailed analysis of EPA’s reorganization. I urge EPA to properly conduct this cost-benefit analysis and ensure continued access to an important resource.

Mr. HALL. And I would like to have the right to let Judge Broun,

Dr. Broun, have my time, and I understand he just wants to put

one in the record.

Chairman MILLER. Also without objection.

Mr. BROUN. I want to thank the Chairman for holding this hearing, and yes, likewise, I am looking forward to the testimony of the

panel, and I also will just submit my opening statement for the

record, if that is agreeable with the Chairman. I ask unanimous

consent to be able to do so.

Chairman MILLER. Again, without objection.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Broun follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE PAUL C. BROUN

I want to thank the Chairman for holding this hearing and welcome our witnesses

here today.

EPA’s ability to protect public health and the environment is contingent on timely

access to accurate information. The existing library infrastructure plays a major role

in providing that information to not only EPA, but also the general public.

While the manner in which EPA scientists, outside scholars, advocacy groups, and

litigators receive information has changed over the last 20 years, the importance of

that information has not. Modern information technology has given access to many

more users than traditional brick and mortar libraries, but we must be cautious in

how we transition to new data formats.

One of the challenges EPA faces is access. Continuous, uninterrupted, and timely

access to EPA-unique documents by both EPA scientists and private citizens is critical to executing EPA’s charter of protecting the environment and the public. Additionally, access to information that is not unique to EPA such as journals, commercially available information, and other reference materials are still vitally important

to EPA scientists and the general public. Even though access to this information can

be obtained through other means such as interlibrary loan or Internet accessed

databases, rarely is it as timely or as efficient as having it on-site.

Another challenge EPA must address is how to keep professional research support

staff and librarians involved in the process. These key professionals will still be required to help users navigate the ever-growing collections of data, perhaps even

more so in our new digital age.

How to manage EPA’s library infrastructure investment and balance the competing concerns of access and efficiency is no easy task. EPA began the process of

transitioning to a more modern system in 2003 by doing all the right things. They

conducted a cost-benefit analysis and reviewed the program no less than four times

between 2004 and 2006. Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem as though EPA learned from

these reviews, or consulted with any outside experts such as the American Library

Association (ALA), internal unions, or outside users. Rather than carefully and methodically implementing a transition, they instead closed libraries in an abrupt attempt at cost savings. Earlier EPA reviews had pointed to the cost effectiveness of

22

the library infrastructure, but those reviews apparently did not influence their decision.

While EPA’s motivation to modernize the way it provides information to its employees and the general public should be commended, we in Congress have the responsibility to ensure that the process is done in a prudent manner that does not

adversely impact the end-users.

I want to commend GAO for their excellent work on the topic. I look forward to

the witness’s testimony today and pledge to work with EPA to make certain that

any changes to the library system do not negatively impact end-users that are

tasked with protecting our environment and public health.

Thank you Mr. Chairman. I yield back my time.

Chairman MILLER. And if there are any Members of the Committee, of the Subcommittee who are not here this morning, we will

also welcome statements that they may submit.

So, all that, without objection, is so ordered.

[The prepared statement of Chairman Gordon follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN BART GORDON

The Government Accountability Office’s report on EPA’s library network is a blueprint of how not to modernize and restructure a functioning organization.

When I requested this investigation with my colleagues back in September 2006,

I suspected EPA was moving too quickly to close libraries. I was skeptical that any

cost savings would be achieved through this exercise, or that the Agency was taking

proper care to ensure this unique library collection would remain intact and accessible. I hoped I was wrong.

A library is more than a collection of books and documents. It is an organized

body of knowledge that we continue to build upon as we expand our understanding

of the world we live in. It is a public institution that promotes democracy by providing everyone the opportunity to access and utilize the accumulated knowledge of

our society.

I believe libraries should move into the modern era of electronic communication

just as all our other public and private institutions are doing. If it is done right,

the creation of a web-based virtual library would expand access to information to

a much broader audience. I fully support such a goal. Unfortunately, the EPA library network is nowhere near that goal.

Simply stating and repeating the goal of ‘‘providing greater access for a broader

audience’’ does not accomplish it. Real work needed to be done by the Agency prior

to emptying library shelves or closing any library doors.

GAO’s report documents the Agency’s failure to do any of the work necessary to

ensure their stated goal for the modernization would be accomplished. EPA executed

a failed process for modernizing their library network. The only goal they accomplished was to reduce the number of libraries in the EPA network. This is not a

goal that serves the public or the Agency’s mission.

The Agency appears to have avoided talking to any group with expertise or interest in their libraries. The Agency did not consult experts inside or outside the government to determine best practices for establishing and maintaining an electronic

library. They also refused to meet with their own employees—an action that ultimately led to arbitration and a finding that the Agency violated its agreement with

their Unions. EPA made no attempt to reach out to the public, and they virtually

ignored Congress until they reluctantly agreed to a moratorium on further implementation of their flawed plan.

Until EPA has completed the work necessary to move to an electronic delivery of

library services, the closed libraries should be reopened. Documents should be retrieved and replaced and library services should be restored to the level they were

prior to the initiation of this flawed plan. The public and the EPA employees who

serve them deserve no less.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Costello follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE JERRY F. COSTELLO

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for overseeing this hearing today and

for your leadership of this subcommittee. The closure of the EPA libraries is one

that this committee, and many other Members of Congress, has been concerned

about for some time. The nature of the closures, the way in which they were carried

23

out and the effect on the Agency and its employees have caused a great deal of concern in both the science and library community.

I am concerned that the closure of the Region 5 EPA library has had a considerable impact on my home State of Illinois. I am interested in hearing more from our

panel on this issue, as I have heard reports of concerned scientists, librarians and

community members on the issue.

What I find particularly troubling about today’s subject matter is that the nature

in which these closures were implemented is consistent with the dismissive attitude

this Administration has taken towards Congressional oversight. The reports of potentially lost unique documents and hastily-sold furniture in order to save money

do not seem like part of a well-thought out plan.

I thank our witnesses for coming today and I look forward to hearing their

thoughts on this matter. I yield back.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to welcome today’s witnesses to this hearing of the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight: both the witness from the

Environmental Protection Agency as well as the witnesses from the Government Accountability Office and from stakeholder groups.

I appreciate that the E.P.A. manages an extensive library system designed to

serve the specific needs of its research and regulatory scientists and its enforcement

specialists.

The libraries also are a good resource for environmental data to the interested

public.

The issue at hand today is not a new one.

In March 2006, Mr. Jeff Ruch, the Executive Director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, testified before one of our subcommittees that a proposed funding cut of $2 million dollars for E.P.A.’s regional libraries would likely

lead to the closure of library facilities.

Surely enough, the cuts occurred, and libraries closed at the end of fiscal year

2006, including one library located in Dallas, Texas, which I represent.

Despite Congressional requests to the Government Accountability Office regarding

the effects of the E.P.A.’s library restructuring plan, seven libraries were closed

without the holdings being digitized or secured for future access.

While I can certainly support the Administration’s interest to spend taxpayer dollars wisely, it seems to me that we are taking a step backward in making environmental resource data unavailable by closing these libraries.

I will be interested to know what efforts have been made by the E.P.A. to make

the information available to the public.

In addition, I will be glad to hear the other witness testimony regarding the impact of these library closings.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

Chairman MILLER. I believe that—yes, Mr. Hall. And Mr. Hall,

if I ever return to the practice of law, I assume that I can use some

part of what you said today in my promotional materials.

All right. I believe that we have four photographs to show before

we begin the testimony. The first photograph shows the sign that

now greets library visitors at EPA headquarters. ‘‘As of October 1,

2006, the EPA Headquarters Library space is closed.’’ Now, the second photo shows the sign that greeted visitors at the Chicago library. ‘‘This U.S.A. EPA Region 5 Library is permanently closed.’’

The third photo, which was taken by our Committee staff, shows

boxes of materials at the Headquarters Library. The final photograph shows empty shelves, again at headquarters. Those shelves,

we assume, used to be full of the documents that EPA employees

and independent scientists relied upon to do their work. Those photographs, as well as others taken by the Committee staff, or provided to the Committee, will also appear in the record.

[The information follows:]

24

Photo #1

25

Photo #2

26

Photo #3

27

Photo #4

28

Chairman MILLER. So, with that, I want to introduce our witnesses. It is my pleasure to introduce our witnesses.

Our first witness is Mr. John Stephenson, the Director of the

Natural Resources and Environment Division at the Government

Accountability Office. Mr. Charles Orzehoskie is the President of

the American Federation of Government Employees Council 238,

AFGE. Dr. Francesca Grifo is a Senior Scientist and Director of the

Science Integrity Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Mr. Jim Rettig is the President of the American Library Association. And our final witness is Ms. Molly O’Neill, Assistant Administrator for the Office of Environmental Information and Chief Information Officer at the Environmental Protection Agency.

Welcome to all our witnesses. You will each have five minutes for

your spoken testimony, and you have, I think, all submitted written testimony, which will be included in the record of the hearing.

When you all end your testimony we will begin with questions. And

each Member will have five minutes to question the panel.

All right. It is my intention to keep this hearing moving at a

brisk pace. It looks like the usual sources of disruption are not, will

not be the problem they are sometimes, so we should be able to do

that. We will almost certainly be interrupted by votes. I say we,

but it may just be me. I want to encourage all of my colleagues who

may be watching this on the House Internet system to get back as

quickly as possible, if they intend to attend any part of the meeting, so we can continue our business as rapidly as possible.

It is our practice to take testimony under oath. This is an Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee. Do any of you have any objection to swearing an oath? Okay. You also have the right to be

represented by Counsel. Is anyone here represented by Counsel at

today’s hearings? We ask these questions to put you at ease. Please

stand and raise your right hand.

[Witnesses sworn]

Mr. Stephenson, please begin.

STATEMENT OF MR. JOHN B. STEPHENSON, DIRECTOR, NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE

Mr. STEPHENSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to be

here today to discuss our report being released today on EPA’s library restructuring.

We conducted our review, as you have already mentioned, at the

request of the Full Science and Technology Committee, as well as

the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the

House Committee on Energy and Commerce, and the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.

The EPA’s library network provides access to critical environmental information that the Agency needs to promote environmental awareness, conduct research, enforce environmental laws,

make policy decisions, and fulfill its mission of protecting human

health and the environment. The library network also provides information and services to state environmental agencies, local community organizations, and the general public. Before the reorganization, the network included 26 libraries, some at the EPA headVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:40 Sep 28, 2008 Jkt 041131 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\I&O08\031308\41131 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
29

quarters, but most at its ten regional offices, research centers, and

laboratories around the country.

In summary, as you have in your report, we found that in late

2006, the EPA embarked on an effort to restructure its library network by closing physical access to one headquarters and three regional office libraries, and reducing or changing operations at six

others. In a separate move, it also closed its headquarters-based

Chemical Library, containing vast information on hazardous chemicals and pesticides. Furthermore, some of the libraries began to

digitize, disperse, and dispose of books, research studies, and other

materials without a common set of Agency-wide guidance for doing

so.

EPA’s approach created the risk that not only would library services not be improved, but they may actually be degraded. While exploring ways to restructure and make library operations more efficient is always a good idea, it should not be done haphazardly. Certainly, you don’t close libraries, get rid of staff, and dispose of materials first, and then figure out what to do later.

But it seems that that is exactly what happened here. EPA

began restructuring its libraries without conducting several analyses that you would typically expect to see to adequately justify,

plan, and implement such an important endeavor. For example, it

did not fully survey EPA staff and other users to characterize their

needs. It did not fully inventory its vast holdings to determine

what it had and how it should be handled. It did not develop or

analyze business, organizational, or technical models for improving

service. It did not develop new policy and procedures to guide the

library reorganization, nor did it do a basic cost-benefit analysis

that OMB generally recommends for agency decisions such as this.

According to the EPA officials that decided to proceed without

completing such analyses, many of which were recommended, as

you mention, in its own 2004 Library Study, to create $2 million

in savings needed to contribute to the overall EPA reduction in the

President’s fiscal year 2007 budget proposal. Interestingly, EPA’s

Regional Managers usually have discretion as to how to absorb

budget reductions such as this, but in fiscal year 2007, they agreed

that the reduction would come from the libraries.

As of today, EPA has still not developed an effective strategy or

plan to ensure the continuity of library services. EPA’s 2007 plan

describes library reorganization as a phased approach, but it does

not provide specific goals, timelines, or feedback mechanisms to

measure performance and monitor user needs to ensure a successful reorganization while maintaining quality services.

Moreover, library collections and services formerly provided by

the closed libraries will now be provided on a fee for service basis

by other libraries in the network, and some materials will be

digitized and made available online, but EPA has yet to estimate

what these activities will cost or where the funds will come from.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, our report contains recommendations to the EPA Administrator to continue the moratorium on further changes to the library network until the Agency: one, develops

a comprehensive plan to justify and guide the implementation of its

reorganization; two, institutes an outreach process to ensure that

the views of all stakeholders affected by the reorganization are conVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:40 Sep 28, 2008 Jkt 041131 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\I&O08\031308\41131 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
30

1GAO, Environmental Protection: EPA Needs to Ensure That Best Practices and Procedures

Are Followed When Making Further Changes to Its Library Network, GAO–08–304 (Washington,

D.C.: Feb. 29, 2008).

sidered; three, creates mechanisms to ensure sufficient oversight to

control the library reorganization and to monitor the impact on

EPA staff and other users; and four, implements procedures to ensure library materials are appropriately handled.

EPA agreed with the recommendations in the report, but now, it

needs to take the next step and implement them.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes the summary of my statement,

and I will be happy to answer questions at the appropriate time.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Stephenson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN B. STEPHENSON

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

I am pleased to appear here today to discuss our recent review of the reorganization of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) library network, which is being

released today.1 We conducted this review at the request of the House Committees

on Science and Technology, Oversight and Government Reform, and Energy and

Commerce, and the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.

As you know, the library network provides access to critical environmental information that the agency needs to promote environmental awareness, conduct research, enforce environmental laws, make policy decisions, and fulfill its mission of

protecting human health and the environment. The library network also provides

information and services to State environmental agencies, local community organizations, and the general public to help these stakeholders in protecting human

health and the environment. In fiscal year 2006, the network included 26 libraries

across headquarters, regional offices, research centers, and laboratories, and these

libraries were independently operated by several different EPA program offices, depending on the nature of the libraries’ collections.

In fiscal year 2007, EPA began to reorganize its library network on the basis of

a 2006 reorganization plan issued by EPA’s Office of Environmental Information

(OEI). This plan focused on OEI’s headquarters library and libraries located in each

of the agency’s 10 regional offices. The plan was intended to provide a framework

for consolidating libraries and making more materials and services available online.

My testimony, which is based on our report being released today on the EPA library network, addresses (1) the status of, and plans for, the library network reorganization; (2) EPA’s rationale for its decision to reorganize the library network; (3)

the extent to which EPA has communicated with and solicited views from EPA staff

and external stakeholders in planning and implementing the reorganization; (4) the

steps EPA has taken to maintain the quality of library services following the reorganization, both currently and in the future; and (5) how EPA is funding the library

network and its reorganization.

To address these objectives, we reviewed relevant EPA documents, policies, plans,

and guidance as well as related laws and requirements pertinent to the library network and reorganization effort. We interviewed EPA librarians and library managers from each of the 26 libraries in EPA’s library network as well as EPA officials

knowledgeable about EPA’s library network and budget. In addition, we interviewed

representatives from local unions, who represent EPA staff, and regional science

councils, which is a group that consists of EPA scientists and technical specialists.

We also sought information from library professionals, including representatives

from the American Library Association and the Association of Research Libraries;

members of academia; and private consulting companies with expertise in libraries.

We conducted this work from December 2006 through February 2008 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence

to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit

objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Summary

In summary, we found the following:

31

• Since 2006, EPA has implemented its library reorganization plan and closed

physical access to the OEI headquarters library and three regional office libraries. In the same period, six other libraries in the network independently

changed their operations: one closed, four reduced their hours of operation,

and one changed how it provides library services. Sixteen libraries did not

change. Furthermore, some of these libraries digitized, dispersed, or disposed

of their materials before EPA had drafted a common set of agency-wide library procedures for doing so. Until these procedures are completed, EPA

plans no further changes to the library network. In addition to completing

these procedures, the library network’s future configuration and operations

may depend on EPA’s response to directions accompanying its fiscal year

2008 appropriation to use $1 million to restore libraries recently closed and

EPA’s 2008 library plan, which describes how EPA expects to operate the library network in the future.

• EPA reorganized its library network primarily to generate cost savings

through a more coordinated library network and more electronic delivery of

services. However, we found that EPA did not effectively justify its reorganization decision. That is, before launching the reorganization, EPA did not

conduct several analyses, including many that its own 2004 study of the libraries recommended, as well as a cost-benefit analysis that the Office of

Management and Budget recommends. According to EPA officials, OEI decided to reorganize its libraries without completing the recommended analyses in order to reduce its fiscal year 2007 funding by $2 million to create

the savings necessary for its headquarters library and the regional office libraries, per the President’s fiscal year 2007 budget proposal.

• EPA did not systematically inform the full range of stakeholders on the final

configuration of the library network. In addition, EPA libraries varied considerably in the extent to which they communicated with and solicited views

from staff, external stakeholders, and experts before and during the reorganization effort. Such efforts were limited or inconsistent because EPA acted

quickly to make changes in response to a proposed fiscal year 2007 funding

reduction and because of the decentralized nature of the library network. EPA

is currently reaching out to stakeholders, including EPA staff and library experts, by holding and attending stakeholder meetings and conferences.

• EPA does not yet have an effective strategy to ensure the continuity of library

services following the reorganization and does not know the full effect of the

reorganization on library services. EPA’s library plan describes the reorganization effort as a ‘‘phased approach,’’ but it does not provide specific goals,

timelines, or feedback mechanisms that allow the agency to measure performance and monitor user needs to ensure a successful reorganization while

maintaining quality services. EPA did not follow key practices for a successful

transformation, even though the agency made several changes to the library

network that could have impaired the continued delivery of library materials

and services to its staff and the public. For example, EPA did not determine

whether federal property management regulations applied to the dispersal

and disposal of library materials before it closed the libraries. Instead, EPA

provided vague criteria and guidance to its libraries and did not adequately

oversee the process.

• The several different program offices responsible for the EPA libraries in the

network each generally decide how much of their available funding to allocate

to their libraries and how to fund their reorganization. For example, OEI

typically provides funding for the regional office libraries through each region’s support budget and gives regional management discretion on how to allocate this funding among the library and other support services. However,

when faced with a proposed budget reduction of $2 million in fiscal year 2007,

rather than following its normal procedures, OEI directed the regional and

headquarters offices to reduce funding for OEI libraries—a reduction of 77

percent for these libraries from the previous fiscal year. EPA did not allocate

funds to help closing libraries manage their collections; instead, the responsible program or regional office used its annual funding to pay for these costs.

Services formerly provided by the closed libraries are now provided on a feefor-service basis by other libraries in the network. While EPA did not track

the costs associated with closing the libraries, it estimated that it spent about

$80,000 through an existing contract to digitize 15,260 titles between December 2006 and January 2007.

32

2OEI primarily funds these regional office libraries.

3 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, Business Case

for Information Services: EPA’s Regional Libraries and Centers, EPA 260–R–04–001 (January

2004); and Optional Approaches to U.S. EPA Regional Library Support, EPA 260–R–05–002

(June 2005).

We recommended that the Administrator of EPA continue the agency’s moratorium on changes to the library network until the agency (1) develops a strategy to

justify its reorganization plans; (2) improves its outreach efforts; (3) ensures sufficient oversight and control over the reorganization process, and continuously and

consistently monitors the impact of the reorganization on EPA staff and the public;

and (4) implements procedures that ensure that library materials are dispersed and

disposed of consistently and in accordance with federal property management regulations. EPA agreed with the recommendations made in our report.

Background

The EPA library network was established in 1971 to provide staff and the public

with access to environmental information in support of EPA’s mission to protect

human health and the environment. The libraries differ in function, scope of collections, extent of services, and public access. Before the 2007 reorganization, the network comprised 26 libraries, each funded and managed by several different program

offices at EPA: one library was managed by OEI and 10 by regional offices;2 eight

libraries were located at EPA laboratories within the Office of Research and Development (ORD), and two were within the Office of Administration and Resources

Management (OARM). In addition, each of the following program offices had one library: Office of the Administrator, Office of General Counsel, Office of Prevention,

Pesticides, and Toxic Substances (OPPTS), Office of Enforcement and Compliance

Assurance, and Office of Air and Radiation. A national program manager within

OEI was responsible for coordinating the major activities of the entire EPA library

network.

Aside from visiting a physical location, the network provides access to its collections to its staff and to the public through (1) a Web-based database of library holdings—the Online Library System (OLS); (2) interlibrary loans from another network

library or a public library; and (3) through a separate online database—the National

Environmental Publications Internet Site (NEPIS). EPA staff also have access to

other information sources—such as online journals, the Federal Register, news,

databases of bibliographic information, and article citations—from their desktop

computers.

EPA began to evaluate its library network in 2003. It developed and issued studies to determine the value of library services and inform regional management of

their options to support library services beyond fiscal year 2006.3 EPA also issued

an internal report in November 2005, which offered recommendations on how to

maintain an effective library network if the library support budget were reduced.

After these reports were issued, EPA established a Library Steering Committee—

composed of senior managers from EPA’s program offices and regions—to develop

a new model for providing library services to EPA staff. In August 2006, the steering committee issued the EPA FY 2007 Library Plan: National Framework for the

Headquarters and Regional Libraries.

The August 2006 library plan provided the framework for the network to begin

reorganizing in the summer of 2006 in preparation for the proposed fiscal year 2007

budget reduction beginning in October 2006. The plan provided guidelines for EPA

staff to determine how the collections would be managed; noted that OEI libraries

in Regions 5, 6, and 7 would close, and that the headquarters library would close

physical access to its collection but would function as a repository library, along

with the OARM libraries in Cincinnati, Ohio, and Research Triangle Park, North

Carolina. In addition, according to the plan, EPA is to develop Library Centers of

Excellence, where a library with more expertise in a specific area of reference research would provide that service to staff in other regions.

Some Libraries Independently Decided to Close, Reduce Their Hours, or

Take Other Actions, but the Final Network Configuration Is Still

Uncertain

As a part of EPA’s 2006 reorganization effort, some EPA libraries have closed, reduced their hours of operation, or changed the way that they provide library services. Furthermore, some of these libraries have digitized, dispersed, or disposed of

their materials. The future of EPA’s library network—its configuration and its operations—are contingent on final policies and procedures, on EPA’s response to direcVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:40 Sep 28, 2008 Jkt 041131 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\I&O08\031308\41131 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
33

tions accompanying its fiscal year 2008 appropriation, and on EPA’s 2008 library

plan.

Owing to the decentralized nature of the EPA library network, each library decided on its own whether to change its operations. Table 1 shows the operating status of each library in the EPA library network.

34

4OARM libraries are located in Cincinnati, Ohio and in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. The OARM libraries and the Region 3 library have been designated as Centers of Excellence for the EPA library network, meaning that these libraries have staff qualified to conduct

research in specific areas, have access to tools to support services, and have the ability to handle

increased workload. According to EPA officials, the OARM libraries serve as Centers of Excellence for core library services, such as research requests and interlibrary loans, and the Region

3 library serves as a Center of Excellence for business research issues.

While EPA’s August 2006 library plan noted that three regional libraries—Regions 5, 6, and 7—and the headquarters library would close physical access to their

libraries, it did not reflect other changes that occurred, as shown in Table 1. According to EPA officials, the plan focused on the OEI headquarters and regional office

libraries, and they did not think it was necessary to reflect all changes that were

planned for other libraries. The focus of the plan, according to EPA officials, was

to set the framework on how library services would be provided electronically and

not on what physical changes were to occur.

Although no longer accessible to walk-in traffic from EPA staff and the public, the

closed regional and headquarters libraries continue to provide library services, such

as interlibrary loans and research/reference requests, to EPA staff through service

agreements that the closed libraries established with libraries managed by OARM

or with the Region 3 library located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.4

As part of the library reorganization, each library in the network that was planning to close access to walk-in services independently decided which materials

would be retained at their library or be selected for digitization, dispersal to EPA

or non-EPA libraries, or disposal. Table 2 shows the actions taken by the closed libraries.

35

5Pub. L. No. 110–161.

In terms of digitization, the criteria in the August 2006 library plan noted that

unique EPA materials—which, according to EPA officials, refers to materials created

by or for EPA—that are not already electronically available in NEPIS would be

digitized and made available in NEPIS. At the time of our review, 15,260 titles had

been digitized, and EPA anticipates that a total of about 51,000 unique EPA library

materials from closed and open libraries will be digitized.

In terms of dispersal, EPA’s library plan noted that a library choosing to disperse

its materials can send materials to one of the EPA-designated repositories, other libraries in the library network, EPA regional record management centers, other federal agency libraries, state libraries and state environmental agency libraries, colleges and university libraries, public libraries, or e-mail networks used specifically

to exchange library materials.

Finally, in terms of disposal, the OEI headquarters library and the OPPTS Chemical Library disposed of some of their materials as a part of the reorganization.

EPA’s library plan noted that certain materials not claimed during the dispersal

process could be destroyed. In total, the OEI headquarters library has disposed of

over 800 journals and books, and the Chemical Library has disposed of over 3,000

journals and books.

Recognizing that libraries could function more cohesively as a network, EPA established a new interim library policy in 2007 and established uniform governance

and management for the network. This interim policy, among other things, (1) reestablished the National Library Program Manager position, which was left vacant

from 2005 through 2007 and (2) resulted in 12 draft agency-wide library procedures,

including procedures on digitizing and dispersing library materials, and developing

a communication strategy. EPA officials told us that they do not have a time frame

for completing these procedures but will complete them before the moratorium on

changes to the network is lifted. The January 2007 moratorium was imposed in response to congressional and other concerns, and extended indefinitely in February

2007.

The future of the library network, its configuration, and its operations are contingent on the completion of the final policies and procedures, on EPA’s response to

directions accompanying its fiscal year 2008 appropriation,5 and on EPA’s 2008 library plan. In an explanatory statement accompanying the fiscal year 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act, $1 million was allocated to restore the network of EPA

libraries that were recently closed or consolidated. The explanatory statement also

directed EPA to submit a plan to the Committees on Appropriations within 90 days

36

6Office of Management and Budget, Guidelines and Discount Rates for Benefit-Cost Analysis

of Federal Programs, OMB Circular A–94 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 29, 1992). 7GAO, Results-Oriented Cultures: Implementing Steps to Assist Mergers and Organizational

Transformations, GAO–03–669 (Washington, D.C.: July 2, 2003). This report identified nine key

practices and related implementation steps that have led to successful mergers and transformations in large private and public sector organizations.

of enactment regarding actions it will take to restore the network. Separately; EPA

officials told us that they are developing a Library Strategic Plan for 2008 and Beyond, which details EPA’s library services for staff and the public and a vision for

the future of the library network.

EPA Did Not Effectively Justify Its Decision to Reorganize Its Library Network

EPA reorganized its library network primarily to save costs by creating a more

coordinated library network and increasing the electronic delivery of library services. However, EPA did not fully complete several analyses, including many that its

2004 study recommended. In addition, EPA’s decision to reorganize its library network was not based on a thorough analyses of the costs and benefits associated with

such a reorganization.

EPA initiated its 2004 Business Case study because of ongoing budget uncertainties and because of technological changes in how users obtain information and how

commercial information resources are made available. While the study concluded

that EPA’s libraries provide ‘‘substantial value’’ to the agency and the public, it

raised concerns about EPA’s ability to continue services in its present form. As such,

the study recommended that EPA take several actions to foster an agency-wide discussion on the library network’s future. In addition, according to Office of Management and Budget guidance, a benefit-cost analysis should be conducted to support

decisions to initiate, renew, or expand programs or projects, and that in conducting

such an analysis, tangible and intangible benefits and costs should be identified, assessed, and reported.6 One element of this analysis is an evaluation of alternatives

to consider different methods of providing services to achieve program objectives.

However, EPA did not fully complete these assessments before it closed libraries

and began to reorganize the network. According to EPA officials, EPA decided to reorganize its libraries without fully completing the recommended analyses in order

to reduce its fiscal year 2007 funding for the OEI headquarters and regional office

libraries by $2 million. This claimed savings, however, was not substantiated by any

formal EPA cost assessment. According to EPA officials, the $2 million funding reduction was informally estimated in 2005 with the expectation that EPA would have

been further along in its library reorganization before fiscal year 2007. Furthermore,

EPA did not comprehensively assess library network spending in advance of the $2

million estimation of budget cuts.

By not completing a full assessment of its library resources and not conducting

a benefit-cost analysis of various approaches to reorganizing the network, EPA did

not justify the reorganization actions in a way that fully considered and ensured

adequate support for the mission of the library network, the continuity of services

provided to EPA staff and the public, the availability of EPA materials to a wider

audience, and the potential cost savings. In effect, EPA attempted to achieve cost

savings without (1) first determining whether potential savings were available and

(2) performing the steps that its own study specified as necessary before moving forward.

EPA Did Not Fully Inform or Solicit Views from the Full Range of Stakeholders on the Reorganization But Is Now Increasing Its Outreach

Efforts

Communicating with and soliciting views from staff and other stakeholders axe

key components of successful mergers and transformations.7 We have found that an

organization’s transformation or merger is strengthened when it (1) makes public

implementation goals and a timeline; (2) establishes an agency-wide communication

strategy and involves staff to obtain their ideas, which among other things, involves

communicating early and often to build trust, ensuring consistency of message, and

incorporating staff feedback into new policies and procedures; and (3) adopts leading

practices, such as those for library services, to build a world-class organization.

While EPA did not fully take these actions during the library reorganization, it is

now reaching out to both EPA staff and external stakeholders.

EPA’s August 2006 library plan did not inform stakeholders on the final configuration for the library network or implementation goals and a timeline. Through the

library plan, EPA generally informed internal and external stakeholders of its vision

37

8 In September 2007, the national EPA union held arbitration talks with EPA. The EPA union

won its unfair labor practice claim against the agency. More specifically, the Federal Labor Relations Authority administrative law judge ruled that EPA violated federal labor law by failing

to enter arbitration with the union regarding its grievance about the library restructuring. U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency v. American Federation of Government Employees. The ruling

also required the agency to post signs notifying employees that EPA had violated labor law. On

February 15, 2008, an arbitrator found that EPA had violated provisions of the Master Collective Bargaining Agreement by not engaging the union in impact and implementation bargaining

pertaining to the reorganization of its library network. EPA v. American Federation of Government Employees Council 238, FMCS Case No. 07–50725 (George Edward Lamey, Arbitrator). 9 71 Fed. Reg. 54,986 (Sept. 20, 2006).

for the reorganized library network, noting that EPA would be moving toward a new

model of providing library services to EPA staff and the public. However, EPA did

not provide enough information on how the final library network would be configured or the implementation goals and timeline it would take to achieve this configuration. For example, EPA did not inform its staff or the public that OPPTS would

close its Chemical Library and that other libraries would reduce their hours of operation or make other changes to their library services. According to OEI officials, the

plan was intended to provide a framework for how new services would be provided

and not to lay out the network’s physical configuration. Without a clear picture of

what EPA intends to achieve with the library network reorganization and the implementation goals and timeline to achieve this intended outcome, EPA staff may not

know if progress is being made, which could limit support for the network reorganization.

Because EPA’s library structure was decentralized, EPA did not have an agencywide communication strategy to inform EPA staff of, and solicit their views on, the

changes occurring in the library network, leaving that responsibility to each EPA

library. As a result, EPA libraries varied considerably in the information they provided to staff on library changes.

For example, management in only a few of the regions solicited views from their

regional staff through discussions with their regional science councils—an employee

group located in each region composed of EPA scientists and technical specialists—

or unions.8 In addition, EPA generally did not communicate with and solicit views

from external stakeholders before and during the reorganization because it was

moving quickly to make changes in response to proposed funding cuts. Of the libraries that closed, only the headquarters library informed the public of the changes occurring at its library by posting a notification in the Federal Register.9 EPA also

did not fully communicate with and solicit views from professional library associations while planning and implementing its library reorganization. EPA did meet

with the American Library Association, a professional library association, on a few

occasions, but did so later in the reorganization planning process. Without an agency-wide communication strategy, staff ownership for the changes may be limited,

and staff may be confused about the changes. Furthermore, EPA cannot be sure

that the changes are meeting the needs of EPA staff and external stakeholders.

Finally, EPA did not solicit views from federal and industry experts regarding the

digitization of library materials and other issues. These experts could have provided

leading practice information and guidance on digitization processes and standards

for library materials. As such, EPA cannot be sure that it is using leading practices

for library services.

Recognizing the need to communicate with and solicit the views of staff, external

stakeholders, and industry experts, EPA recently increased its outreach efforts. For

example, EPA asked local unions to comment on a draft of the 2008 library plan,

and attended and presented information at a stakeholder forum at which a number

of professional library associations were present. Furthermore, OEI started working

with the Federal Library Information Center Committee, a committee managed by

the Library of Congress, to develop a board of advisers that will respond to EPA

administrators and librarians’ questions about the future direction of EPA libraries.

EPA Lacks a Strategy to Ensure Continuity of Library Services and Does

Not Know Whether Its Actions Have Impaired Access to Environmental Information

EPA does not yet have a strategy to ensure that library services will continue and

does not know the full effect of the reorganization on library services. However, several changes it has made may have limited access to library materials and services.

According to our review of key practices and implementation steps to assist mergers

and organizational transformations, organizations that are undergoing change

should seek and monitor staff attitudes and take the appropriate follow-up actions.

While EPA’s library plan describes the reorganization effort as a ‘‘phased approach,’’

38

10These figures are based on estimates from EPA. We did not independently determine their

accuracy. Because EPA does not track library funding, each library in the network provided estimates that were based on past spending and enacted funding. However, libraries may have varied in the type of spending data provided in terms of whether the data included contract costs,

salaries, and acquisitions.

it does not provide specific goals, timelines, or feedback mechanisms so that the

agency can measure performance and monitor user needs to ensure a successful reorganization while maintaining quality services. In addition, to balance the continued delivery of services with merger and transformation activities, it is essential

that top leadership drives the transformation. However, during the reorganization,

EPA did not have a national program manager for the library network to oversee

and guide the reorganization effort.

Several changes that EPA made to its library network may have impaired the

continued delivery of library materials and services. For example, because of copyright issues, only unique reports produced by or for EPA will be digitized in

NEPIS—only about 10 percent of EPA’s holdings of books and reports. If the material is not available electronically, EPA staff in locations where libraries have closed

will receive the material through an interlibrary loan—delaying access to the materials from one day to up to 20 days. EPA also does not have a plan to ensure the

continuation of library services for the public, such as State and local government

environmental agencies, environmental groups, and other nongovernmental organizations.

Furthermore, EPA may have inadvertently limited access to information because

it did not determine whether federal property management regulations applied to

the dispersal and disposal of library materials and hence may have disposed of materials that should have been retained. For example, the Regions 5 and 6 libraries

gave materials to private companies, and the OEI headquarters library and the

Chemical Library discarded materials without first determining that they had no

monetary value. EPA officials stated that it was unclear whether library materials,

such as books and journals, were subject to federal property management regulations. EPA officials stated that they will engage federal property management officials at GSA regarding what steps should be taken in the future.

EPA Program Offices Are Responsible for Funding Their Libraries and

Their Reorganization Through Their Support Budgets

The program offices responsible for the EPA libraries in the network generally decide how much of their available funding to allocate to their libraries out of larger

accounts that support multiple activities. Until fiscal year 2007, library spending

had remained relatively stable, ranging from about $7.14 million to $7.85 million

between fiscal years 2002 and 2006.10 OEI, which is the primary source of funding

for the regional libraries, typically provides funding for them through each region’s

support budget, and generally allows regional management to decide how to allocate

this funding among the library and other support services, such as information technology. For fiscal year 2007, OEI management decided to reduce funding for the

OEI headquarters and regional office libraries by $2 million, from $2.6 million in

enacted funding for fiscal year 2006—a 77 percent reduction for these libraries and

a 28 percent reduction in total library funding. After $500,000 of the $2 million reduction was applied to the headquarters library, the regional administrators together decided that the remaining $1.5 million reduction should be spread equally

across all regions, rather than by staffing ratios in each region or previous years’

spending. The $2 million reduction for the libraries was included in the President’s

fiscal year 2007 budget proposal for EPA. However, like most agencies, EPA was

included in the full-year continuing resolution, which held appropriations near fiscal

year 2006 levels. The continuing resolution was enacted after EPA began reorganizing the library network. According to EPA, OEI restored $500,000 to the library

budget in fiscal year 2007 to support reorganization activities.

When planning the reorganization, EPA recognized that the responsible dispersal,

disposal, and digitization of an EPA library collection is a major project requiring

planning, time, and resources. However, EPA did not allocate funds specifically to

help the closing libraries manage their collections. According to EPA, the funding

for library closures was taken into account during the budget process. As a result,

the program or regional office responsible for the library used its usual library funding available at the end of fiscal year 2006 to pay for closing costs.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to respond to any questions that you and Members of the Subcommittee may have.

39

BIOGRAPHY FOR JOHN B. STEPHENSON

Mr. Stephenson is currently the Director of Natural Resource and Environment

issues for the U.S. Government Accountability Office—the independent investigative

arm of the Congress. In that capacity, he has for the past eight years directed numerous studies and research projects, issued hundreds of reports, and testified on

many occasions before several Senate and House Committees. His work has provided invaluable assistance to the Congress in its oversight and legislative role on

diverse environmental protection issues such as clean air, clean water, safe drinking

water, chemical controls, toxic substances, climate change, superfund, and hazardous materials spill prevention and cleanup, as well as critical infrastructure protection.

He began his career in GAO’s Cincinnati Field Office, and transferred to GAO’s

Washington D.C. headquarters office in 1987 where he worked on a variety of information technology and national and international security issues. From April 1998–

February 2000, he was Deputy Staff Director for the Senate Special Committee on

the Year 2000 Technology Problem for the Chairman (Senator Robert Bennett, R–

UT), and Vice Chairman (Senator Christopher Dodd, D–CT). In that capacity, he

ran the day-to-day operations of the Committee including orchestrating over 35

hearings, preparing legislation, organizing briefings and floor activities for the full

Senate, working with the White House’s Year 2000 Director and staff, and organizing numerous press and public events. He returned to GAO in March 2000 where

he was executive assistant to the U.S. Comptroller General (the head of GAO) until

entering the Senior Executive Service in October 2000.

Mr. Stephenson holds a BS degree in Industrial Management from Purdue University, an MBA from Xavier University, and is a graduate of the Harvard Kennedy

School of Government’s Senior Executive Fellows program. He lives in Fairfax Station, Virginia with his wife, his 11-year-old daughter, and his 9-year-old son.

Chairman MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Stephenson. Mr. Orzehoskie.

STATEMENT OF MR. CHARLES ORZEHOSKIE, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF EPA LOCALS #238, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

Mr. ORZEHOSKIE. Good morning. I would like to thank Chairman

Miller, Congressman Sensenbrenner, and Members of the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight for this opportunity to

appear before you today.

My name is Charles Orzehoskie. I am President, AFGE Council

238, and I have worked for EPA for over 37 years, more than 20

of those years as a supervisor. I hold an engineering degree from

Illinois Institute of Technology, and a law degree from DePaul University in Chicago. Our organization, AFGE Council 238, represents almost 9,000 employees of EPA, and 11 locals throughout

the country, and we strive to improve the working conditions and

agency efficiency.

For EPA to carry out our mission requires a deep understanding

of environmental science that EPA engineers and scientists have

historically utilized the EPA libraries and library staff to assist

them in that effort. Sadly, EPA library services are no longer available to staff or to the general public at two headquarters libraries

and three regional offices.

Yet, on February 6 of 2007, EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson testified before the Senate Environmental and Public Works

Committee, stating: ‘‘We discontinued walk-in service at five of our

26 libraries, and reduced the hours of operation at other libraries.

However, the services provided remain unchanged.’’

Council 238 does not understand Administrator Johnson’s statement. For example, he must not have visited Chicago recently, because the space where the library was located is vacant. Even the

furniture has been sold. How have the services provided remained

40

unchanged, particularly for any person who does not receive EPA

messages explaining the new library procedures?

Administrator Johnson further testified, ‘‘EPA saw a decline in

the walk-in traffic at many of our libraries,’’ implying the public’s

demand for information had decreased. The decline in walk-in traffic may be due, in part, to increased security measures at federal

buildings since 9/11, and EPA budget reductions in public outreach

programs, but the public’s interest in environmental issues remains

strong.

At the same hearing, Leslie Burger, President of the American

Library Association, testified: ‘‘Is the EPA library plan based on

end-users’ needs? Apparently not.’’ The Council tried to work with

the EPA on this issue, but we were stonewalled. Management was

apparently not interested in the Agency’s engineers and scientists

had to say about EPA libraries. Unfortunately, so many of this Administrator’s decisions appear to based on the President’s Management Agenda, PMA, and not on the mandate of Congress, the will

of the American people, or what would be best for accomplishing

EPA’s mission.

We have many concerns about closing libraries. Let me just summarize that common sense suggests that to make sound scientific

decisions, data and information are at the heart of a good process,

and closing libraries at this time appears to work counter to that

objective. We have been told that the libraries were closed to save

the government money, yet this doesn’t make sense. EPA’s own Office of Environmental Information did a cost-benefit analysis in

2004, which estimated that EPA’s library network saved Agency

professional staff 214,000 hours, a cost saving of approximately

$7.5 million. The benefit-to-cost ratio was conservatively estimated

at 4.4 to one.

EPA management has stated that closing the libraries was also

an act of modernization. Hopefully, at some time in the future, we

will see positive results of modernization. However, wouldn’t it

have made sense to have piloted the project, tested how well

digitization worked, and only then considered whether there was a

need for redundancy of hardcopy? More should have been done before declaring ‘‘Mission Accomplished,’’ turning off the lights, locking the doors, and tossing out documents.

When AFGE Council 238 first raised the issue of libraries, EPA

rebuffed the Council, saying the Union’s request for input was premature. In March of 2006, after EPA Region 5 announced the regional library would close, we issued a demand to bargain over the

libraries, thinking the issue was now ripe for negotiations. However, management again refused to bargain, and instead, went

ahead and dismantled EPA libraries.

On August 16, 2006, Council 238 filed a grievance against EPA

for failure to negotiate. Filed by Council 238 invoking arbitration

over the grievance after the Agency declined to settle. Still, the

Agency refused to bargain. On February 5, 2007, we filed with the

Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) for the Agency’s failure

to pick an arbitrator.

FLRA Judge Pearson ordered the Agency ‘‘to cease and desist

from failing or refusing to proceed to arbitration, or interfering

with its employees in their rights to exercise their rights assured

41

by the Federal Service Labor Management Relations statute.’’

Then, on September 25, 2007, an arbitration was heard, and Arbitrator George E. Larney’s opinion was issued last month. The opinion found that the Agency had violated applicable provisions of the

union contract when it acted to forestall and preclude engaging the

Council in bargaining. The Arbitrator ruled to sustain the grievance and order the Agency to engage the Council in bargaining.

Arbitrator Larney stated in his finding: ‘‘The evidence reveals

that the Agency stonewalled the Union with regard to negotiations,

let alone allowing the Union a real and viable role in the library

reorganization process.’’ Arbitrator Larney went on to state: ‘‘If the

Agency’s conduct was not bad enough, the Agency compounded the

error of its ways by closing libraries unilaterally without the benefit of legitimate Union input.’’

EPA’s report to Congress on reopening the libraries is due later

this month. Yet EPA, even after Larney’s ruling, has failed to meet

with the Council to negotiate any aspect of the library closing. This

type of behavior, where EPA ignores the rights of its employees,

must stop.

In conclusion, the EPA should depend on impartial research and

science to make informed decisions, and a first class EPA library

can help with those decisions. Council 238 would like to see the libraries reopened and restored by the end of this fiscal year, and

we thank Congress for providing $1 million in the fiscal year 2008

budget to reopen the libraries.

However, we are concerned that the funding may be insufficient

to get all of the libraries open, and there was no funding to hire

research librarians, a critical aspect of any library, let alone a state

of the art environmental library.

Finally, in almost four decades of working for EPA, I have never

experienced such an unprecedented level of political consideration

in the performance of EPA’s missions. This political influence

threatens the integrity of EPA engineers and scientists, and undermines the very mission of the Agency, and must stop.

Thank you again for the opportunity to speak on behalf of AFGE

Council 238 and its almost 9,000 engineers, scientists, and staff,

which we represent.

I am happy to take any questions from the Committee.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Orzehoskie follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHARLES ORZEHOSKIE

Good morning, Chairman Miller, Congressman Sensenbrenner and Members of

the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight. I thank you for this opportunity

to appear before you today to present AFGE Council 238’s views about the closure

of EPA’s libraries.

INTRODUCTION

My name is Charles Orzehoskie. I am President of the National Council of EPA

Locals# 238 of the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE). I have

worked for EPA for over 37 years as a professional engineer in the construction

grants program, facilities planning, and 208 plans under the Clean Water Act, and

served as Chief of EPA Region 5’s Wetlands Enforcement Program. Over 20 years

of my EPA service has been as a supervisor, including two years on an Interagency

Personnel Agreement to the Indiana Department of Environment Management as

Chief of their Facilities Development Branch. I am a Licensed Attorney in the State

of Illinois, and have been a Registered Professional Engineer in the States of Indiana and Illinois. Additionally, I served two terms as the Vice President of the IlliVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:40 Sep 28, 2008 Jkt 041131 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\I&O08\031308\41131 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
42

nois Society of Professional Engineers, and have been a member of both the American Bar Association and the Chicago Bar Association.

AFGE COUNCIL 238

AFGE Council 238 represents almost 9,000 employees of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) who are first and foremost, committed to the protection of

human health and the environment, and ensuring that our nation’s environmental

acts, laws and regulations are carried out. AFGE Council 238’s mission is to strive

to improve workplace conditions so that EPA employees have the opportunity, support and tools needed to accomplish EPA’s mission and advance in their chosen field

and respective careers.

AFGE Council 238 does this as our employees’ exclusive legal representative in

national labor negotiations, and works to obtain agreements which provide our

members with a supportive work environment and improved opportunities to work

more effectively and efficiently for the protection of human health and the environment.

EPA’S MISSION AND WHY LIBRARIES ARE IMPORTANT

EPA’s mission is to protect human health and the environment. To carry out that

mission requires a deep understanding of environmental science and technology.

EPA engineers, risk assessors, and scientists rely heavily on EPA technical information and have over the years utilized EPA libraries to perform their jobs in an effective and efficient manner. EPA library staff provide Agency professionals with the

latest research on cutting-edge environmental, homeland security and public health

issues.

In addition, EPA libraries conduct business searches for EPA inspectors, investigators, and enforcement officers, providing a host of other resources that cannot

be found with a standard Internet search. EPA technical library staff provide vital

support services that allow EPA employees to spend more time conducting inspections, writing public health and environmental policies and reports, and enforcing

and implementing EPA regulations.

EPA LIBRARY CLOSURES

Sadly, EPA library services are no longer available to EPA staff or the general

public at two EPA Headquarters libraries and three Regional libraries (Region 5 in

Chicago, Region 6 in Dallas, and Region 7 in Kansas City)—which serve 15 states.

EPA libraries in Regions 1 (Boston), 2 (New York), 9 (San Francisco), and 10 (Seattle) have reduced hours. The closure of EPA Headquarters’ Office of Prevention,

Pesticides and Toxic Substances (OPPTS) library was a particularly severe loss to

the public, research institutes, as well as EPA engineers, risk assessors, and scientists.

CLOSURE OF OPPTS HEADQUARTERS LIBRARY

The EPA Headquarters OPPTS Chemical Library was shut down on October 20,

2006. It provided research services to EPA scientists who review industry requests

for the introduction of new chemicals into the environment. Among other holdings,

the library contained unique toxicological studies on the potential effects of pesticides on children, up-to-date research on genetically engineered chemicals and

other biotech products, and extensive literature on emergency planning and chemical risk assessments.

EPA scientists often begin their reviews by looking at the effects of similar chemicals or analogues—a technique hampered by closing the library housing research on

chemicals and their effects. Headquarters EPA scientists now have fewer resources

to conduct thorough analyses on hundreds of new chemicals for which companies

are clamoring for ‘‘EPA approval.’’

When it was closed, the OPPTS library’s valuable, paper-only collection was

moved into boxes, and stored in a Headquarters basement cafeteria. EPA made no

public announcement concerning its dismantling of the OPPTS Library, nor was it

mentioned in the ‘‘EPA FY 2007 Framework’’ as one of the several libraries slated

to be shuttered. It is a travesty that EPA closed this all important library critical

to the Agency’s mission and the general public.

We concur with Leslie Burger, President of the American Library Association and

Director of the Princeton Library, when she testified before the Senate Environment

and Public Works Committee on February 6, 2007, ‘‘In an age of global warming

and heightened public awareness about the environment, it seems ironic that the Administration would choose this time to limit access to years of research about the environment.’’

43

WHY PUBLIC ACCESS TO EPA LIBRARIES IS CRUCIAL

Public access to EPA libraries is crucial because without it, organizations such as

the Lake Michigan Federation may never have come into existence. While raising

four children in Chicago’s Hyde Park neighborhood in the 1950s and 1960s, Lee

Botts became involved as a volunteer in several local issues leading up to taking

a leadership role in the campaign which in 1966 resulted in the creation of the Federal Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore. In 1971, Ms. Botts founded the Lake Michigan Federation. The Lake Michigan Federation was the first independent citizens’

organization dedicated to the protection and preservation of a specific Great Lake.

Part of the reason for Ms. Botts’ success was her frequent visits to the EPA Region

5 library in Chicago. Today, the Lake Michigan Federation is known as the Alliance

for the Great Lakes, and has been instrumental in the effort to restore the sixth

largest lake in the world. EPA Region 5’s library is now closed, so I am concerned

for the new Lee Botts of this country who may not have access to a world-class environmental library.

IMPACT OF EPA LIBRARY CLOSURES ON STAFF

On February 6, 2007, EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson testified before the

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, stating in part, ‘‘We discontinued walk-in services at five of our 26 libraries and reduced the hours of operations

at some other libraries. However, the services provided remain unchanged.’’ AFGE

Council 238 does not understand Administrator Johnson’s statement based upon the

fact that there are no libraries in Region 5 (Chicago), Region 6 (Dallas), and Region

7 (Kansas City) or at EPA Headquarters, particularly the OPPTS library. In Chicago, the space is vacant; even the furniture has been sold. How have ‘‘. . .the services provided remain unchanged. . .’’?

We surveyed some of our bargaining unit and they indicated adverse impacts due

to the closure of the EPA Library in their location. High on the list of concerns and

complaints was the loss of quick and direct access by EPA Ecologists, Environmental Engineers, Environmental Health Scientists, Environmental Scientists, Risk

Assessors, and Toxicologists, among others, to EPA studies, reports, and reference

materials. Many of our top engineers, risk assessors and scientists find themselves

either purchasing their own expensive reference texts, or spending time in university libraries that might otherwise be better spent if we had our libraries back.

High on the list of concerns in Chicago was the loss of the specialized reference

materials for the Great Lakes National Program Office. Yet on February 6, 2007,

EPA Administrator Johnson testified that, ‘‘Let me also assure you that unique EPA

material has been retained, catalogued, and is available to EPA and the public.’’ Our

bargaining unit employees tell us they cannot access some of these materials. Does

EPA management know where all of the Great Lakes National Program Office material is? Can they assure us that ALL of the ‘‘. . .unique EPA material has been

retained, catalogued, and is available to EPA and the public?’’

Administrator Johnson also testified on February 6, 2007, ‘‘EPA saw a decline in

the walk-in traffic at many of our libraries,’’ implying that the public’s demand for

information had decreased. EPA libraries were used as repositories for information

on Superfund Sites, among other things, which the general public has now lost access to in at least four major metropolitan areas (Chicago, Dallas, Kansas City and

Washington, DC). The decline in walk-in traffic may be due in part to increased security measures at federal buildings since 9–11. We also believe that EPA budget

reductions in public outreach programs have contributed to a decline in walk-in traffic. However, I do believe that the general public’s interest in environmental issues

is still strong. I am left with the question as to whether or not EPA wants walkin traffic and a public engaged in environmental decision-making. If the Agency

really wanted to find out what the public wanted or needed from EPA libraries, it

should have publicly noticed its proposed changes to library services AND held information sessions in the locations where the libraries were either going to be closed

or the hours reduced.

EPA employees have already experienced significant decreases in the support necessary to maintain their ability to work effectively and efficiently due to decreases

in travel and training dollars. Now with the decreases in networking support EPA

libraries offered, their ability to perform their jobs has been further diminished. The

loss of institutional memory, as well as the loss of expertise from professional librarians in the Regions, hampers the scientific decision-making process. The current Administrator maintains that he wants decisions that are scientifically based, yet the

ability of EPA staff to accomplish sound science continues to be impaired. Is the real

goal to have even more of the technical assistance and evaluations contracted out

at higher cost to the taxpayer?

44

How much money can EPA possibly save by taking away reasonable access to

newswires and reports that inform Agency technical staff of so many issues that impact EPA’s mission, in a condensed and summarized form? The idea of taking away

EPA staffs’ easy access to important environmental journals is appalling. Certainly,

it can be said that EPA’s library plan was not based on an assessment of the endusers needs. On February 6, 2007, Leslie Burger testified, ‘‘Is EPA’s library plan

based on the end-users’ needs? Apparently not. . .ALA doesn’t see what’s being done

as connected to users’ needs in any way.’’ AFGE Council 238 agrees with Ms. Burger’s testimony.

The Council tried to work with EPA management but was stonewalled. Management was apparently not interested in what the Agency engineers, risk assessors,

and scientists had to say about EPA libraries. The Administration’s action in shuttering EPA Libraries appears penny wise, pound foolish and a step backwards in

protecting the environment. Unfortunately, so many of the Administrator’s decisions

appear to be based on the President’s Management Agenda, and not on the mandates of Congress, the will of the American people or what would be in the best interest of accomplishing EPA’s mission.

AFGE COUNCIL 238 IS CONCERNED:

• Because the $2 million budget cut for EPA libraries was proposed by the

President and the Office of Management and Budget, but carried out without

Congressional approval by EPA management. AFGE Council 238 believes

that the EPA library closures reduces the effectiveness of EPA, and continues

to demoralize its employees.

• About the sudden, draconian manner, in which EPA libraries were closed,

with little regard to protection of unique collections of technical reports and

documents, such as the Great Lakes collection. We consider it one more example of suppressing information on environmental and public health-related

topics.

• Because we consider the EPA library closures to be an ‘‘environmental justice’’ (EJ) issue. At least four major metropolitan areas have lost EPA libraries—Chicago (Region 5), Dallas (Region 6), Kansas City (Region 7), and Washington, DC (Headquarters). It is an EJ issue because people of color and lower

economic means have been impacted disproportionately by these library closures since they rely more heavily on publicly accessible services.

• In the interim, until digitization is completed, the ability of EPA to respond

to emergencies may well be reduced because important reference materials

are not available or will take a significant time to be retrieved from storage

or another library.

• That the public will no longer have convenient access to many of EPA’s past

reports and technical documents, even though EPA management has indicated that the public will get their information either from EPA hotlines, program staff (which would require a Freedom of Information Act or FOIA request), or from the EPA website.

• EPA management has assured Agency personnel and the general public that

all documents will be available ‘‘on-line,’’ for easy retrieval. Yet, EPA’s own

National Environmental Publications Information System has indicated that

thousands of documents have yet to be ‘‘digitized.’’

EPA’S RATIONALE—TO PROMOTE INCREASED EFFICIENCIES

Senior EPA managers touted the message that the $2 million budget reduction,

and subsequent library closures, would promote increased ‘‘efficiencies,’’ with virtually all EPA reports being available in an electronic format. These ‘‘savings’’ were

illusory, and nothing could have been further from the truth. Here are some sobering facts regarding the EPA library closures:

• EPA’s Office of Environmental Information (OEI), in a cost-benefit analysis

completed in 2004 (‘‘Business Case for Information Services: EPA’s Regional

Libraries and Centers,’’ EPA–260–R–04–001, January 2004), estimated that

EPA’s library network saved Agency professional staff more than 214,000

hours—a cost savings of approximately $7.5 million. The benefit to cost ratio

was conservatively estimated at 4.4-to-1. Despite this study indicating cost

savings by maintaining these specialized environmental libraries, EPA shuttered those same libraries in a ‘‘cost savings’’ move. It is interesting to note

that this report stated, ‘‘Librarians are found to save professional staff as

much as 16 hours ‘‘per question answered.’’ Patron surveys also suggest that

45

librarians save professional staff approximately one hour ‘‘per document delivered.’’ That adds up to huge hidden costs in wasted salary dollars when you

multiply EPA staffs’ time to do their own library searches. The report even

explains why this happens: ‘‘Library patrons do not always come with wellformed questions or clearly articulated requests for specific information resources. Rather, research is frequently a joint venture between the patron and

the librarian.’’

I find it pretty sad that Agency management apparently ignored this report in its

frenzy to shutter EPA libraries. The Agency’s own report stated, ‘‘Many of EPA’s

mission activities entail the need for rapid and/or repeated access to relatively specialized collections of data, scientific information and methods, and legal and legislative information. Similarly, it is necessary for EPA scientists, economists, attorneys,

financial analysts, and other professional staff to stay abreast of cutting-edge developments and state-of-the-discipline information. The establishment of these collections enable EPA professionals to save time during the research phase of their activities, to conduct rapid turnaround research projects in response to evolving events,

and to complete research projects that might have been stymied were unique and appropriate references not immediately available.’’ The report concluded that EPA libraries were ‘‘. . .clearly a source of substantial value to the Agency, its stakeholders, and the public. Even employing the most conservative of assumptions, benefit-to-cost ratios for core library services indicate that libraries ‘‘give back’’ far more

than they take in terms of Agency resources. . ..’’

As a result of the EPA library closures, we have literally thousands of EPA

staff conducting their own library searches. This is not a cost-effective use of

EPA employees’ time. We find the February 6, 2007, testimony of Ms. Leslie

Burger particularly on point regarding the need for librarians when she stated, ‘‘ALA understands that we are living in the 21st century, an age when

users can access much of what they need from their own desk. . .. But the bottom line is that libraries still need skilled professionals to a) assist users, b)

organize Internet access, and c) determine the best way to make the information available to those users. When searching the EPA site, one retrieves thousands of hits for a topic such as ‘‘water.’’ When qualifying the search by a date

range the results include items outside the date range. The user will wonder

about the veracity of the data and will need the assistance of the librarian.’’

• Some of EPA’s library collections were dispersed without establishing any

standard procedures or criteria to ensure that important documents were not

lost. For instance, the EPA Region 5 library in Chicago closed on September

30, 2006, and its collections were offered to other libraries. Ms. Leslie Burger

in her February 6, 2007, testimony stated ‘‘What this ‘‘dispersement’’ entails

isn’t exactly clear at this point and what concerns us is how this information

will be handled, and therefore what type of long-term damage has been done

to the effectiveness of EPA and the ability of the American public to find important environmental and government information.’’ Can EPA management

account for ALL of the documents and materials from, for example the Great

Lakes collection?

• The National Environmental Publications Information System, EPA’s repository of electronic documents, currently holds over 25,000 documents. But the

Agency has thousands more documents that should be retained; most of these

are not yet available in any electronic format. EPA management has not addressed the issue of how much it will cost to digitize these thousands of reports, where the money will come from, or how long it will take to complete

the task.

• EPA’s approach did not consider how university, school, and municipal libraries will borrow paper copies of EPA’s documents through the interlibrary loan

process.

• EPA’s approach has deprived working-class people of a user-friendly, wellstaffed EPA library system that could provide them with environmental and

public health information.

MODERNIZATION OF EPA LIBRARIES

EPA management has stated that shuttering its libraries was an act of modernization. As the saying goes, ‘‘the devil is in the details.’’ If AFGE Council 238

had been tasked with modernizing EPA’s libraries, we would have first consulted

with the experts such as the American Library Association, the Association of Research Libraries, and the American Association of Law Libraries. We would have

46

acknowledged up-front that not all parts of each EPA’s library collection could be

digitized, since much of it is copyrighted. We would have acknowledged the abundance of specialized and unique materials to the EPA collection—including reports

paid for by taxpayers, maps and other specialized formats, which would be and are

very difficult and time-consuming to digitize.

Ms. Leslie Burger stated on February 6, 2007, ‘‘Before we begin the costly

digitization process, we always consider the needs of the current and future user communities. Digital content must be created in a fashion assuring that it will be usable

25 and 50 years from now. We need to capture cataloging information, or what we

call metadata, about the digital resource so that we can find the digital object now

and in the future, or so that if we have to recreate it we know how we created it

the first time.’’

Second, if we were tasked with digitizing EPA library materials, we would have

piloted the project; testing it out and discovering problem areas and processes, as

well as procedures that would need to be followed to ensure accuracy and completeness of the digitization process. Third, we would have ensured that all materials

had first been digitized and made available electronically, and only then would we

have considered whether the redundancy of hard copies was necessary or in the best

interest of the general public. All this and more we would have done prior to declaring ‘‘mission accomplished,’’ shuttering EPA’s libraries, and tossing out documents—

which in fact is what EPA did when it shuttered its libraries.

Despite Administrator Johnson’s testimony that ‘‘. . .our library modernization effort has and will continue to provide more people with more access to EPA information, both online and through traditional library services,’’ feedback from bargaining

unit employees has indicated just the opposite. To date EPA’s modernization effort

has not provided more people with more access to EPA information.

AFGE COUNCIL 238’S RESPONSE TO EPA’S LIBRARY CLOSURES

Administrator Johnson testified on February 6, 2007, ‘‘We also plan on continuing

a strong network of physical libraries. Some will serve as repositories to hold hard

copies of our collection and some will continue to provide walk-in services.’’ The

Agency’s actions in closing EPA libraries, reducing hours at other libraries and how

they went about accomplishing those changes were the reasons we wanted to sit

down and negotiate with EPA management and find a solution that would be in the

best interest of EPA and the employees we represent.

AFGE Council 238 tried to have an impact on this issue internally by negotiating

with EPA management. Senior Agency management rebuffed the Council, saying

that the topic was ‘‘premature’’ to negotiate because no formal FY 2007 library plan

had yet been adopted. On March 13, 2006, the EPA Region 5 Regional Administrator announced that the Region 5 Library would close ‘‘. . .in the near future.’’

Therefore, on March 16, 2006, AFGE Council 238 demanded to bargain procedures

and appropriate arrangements over the closing and major reorganization of EPA’s

libraries. In spite of AFGE Council 238’s Demand to Bargain, EPA management

went ahead with its dismantling of EPA libraries unchecked, with no coherent plan

in place.

On August 16, 2006, AFGE Council 238 filed a grievance against the Agency for

failure to negotiate with the Council over the closure of the libraries. Since the

Agency made no real effort to resolve the grievance, on October 17, 2006, AFGE

Council 238 invoked arbitration. On February 5, 2007, the Council filed an Unfair

Labor Practice (ULP) with the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) because

the Agency refused to pick an arbitrator. On September 25, 2007, FLRA Administrative Law Judge Richard A. Pearson ruled on the ULP and ordered the Agency,

among other things, ‘‘. . .to cease and desist from . . . Failing or refusing to proceed

to arbitration. . .’’ and ‘‘. . .in any like or related manner, interfering with, restraining or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights assured by the Federal

Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.’’ The September 25, 2007, FLRA

Order also required EPA to post at its facilities where bargaining unit employees

represented by the Council are located, copies of a notice to all employees that the

EPA had committed a ULP and their agreement to abide by the FSLMRS. EPA

management has dragged its feet complying with FLRA’s Order to post the settlement agreement nationwide. AFGE Council 238 continues to work with FLRA to resolve this matter.

Coincidentally, on September 25, 2007, the arbitration was heard by Arbitrator

George E. Larney. On February 15, 2008, Arbitrator Larney found that the Agency

had violated applicable provisions of the Master Collective Bargaining Agreement

(MCBA) when it acted to forestall and preclude engaging the Council in impact and

implementation bargaining pertaining to issues attendant to the reorganization of

its Library Network. The Arbitrator ruled to sustain the substance of the grievance

47

and ordered the Agency to engage the Council in impact and implementation bargaining over issues attendant to the reorganization of the Agency’s Library Network

in a timely manner. Such bargaining should include all issues that directly affect

and may potentially have an adverse impact on the working conditions of bargaining unit employees. Arbitrator Larney stated in his ruling last month, ‘‘Thus,

the record evidence establishes with great clarity and without contravention that

from the very beginning of its initiative in FY 2003, to consider making changes to

its Library Network and continuing up until midway through FY 2006 when the

Agency began laying the groundwork to effect the changes that had already been determined by it to implement, Management had precluded the Union, both on a national and local level, from assuming any role in the planning and decision-making

stages relative to the reorganization of its Library Network and, consideration of the

possible potential impacts such a reorganization would have on its bargaining unit

employees. . ..’’ [p. 60 of 81, February 15, 2008, OPINION and AWARD, EPA v

AFGE Council 238 (FMCS Case No. 07–50725)]

Arbitrator Larney went on to state that ‘‘. . .the record evidence reveals that the

Agency stonewalled the Union with regard to permitting commencement of negotiations let alone allowing the Union a real and viable consultative role in the library

reorganization process.’’ [p. 61 of 81, February 15, 2008, OPINION and AWARD,

EPA v AFGE Council 238 (FMCS Case No. 07–50725)]

Arbitrator Larney continued by stating ‘‘. . .As if the Agency’s conduct as evidenced by the above enumerated four (4) instances was not bad enough, the fact that,

in addition to precluding the Union from entering into impact and implementation

bargaining pursuant to its contractual right to do so as provided for in Article 45

of the Master Collective Bargaining Agreement (Jt.Ex.1), pertaining to the reorganization of its Library Network, the Agency compounded the err of its ways by instituting changes attendant to its reorganization initiative unilaterally without the benefit of legitimate Union input. Such unilateral changes were implemented over much

of the time period the Union was seeking to enter into impact and implementation

bargaining with the Agency up to and including the period of time leading to this

arbitral proceeding.’’ [p. 66 of 81, February 15, 2008, OPINION and AWARD, EPA

v AFGE Council 238 (FMCS Case No. 07–50725)].

As of this date, we have not yet been able to schedule a meeting with the Agency

to discuss this ruling or Arbitrator Larney’s Order. AFGE Council 238 is concerned

that EPA’s actions tend to limit not only EPA staffs’ access to information, but also

discourages the public’s access to EPA libraries and information.

NATIONAL PARTNERSHIP COUNCIL

On April 14, 2003, Administrator Christine Todd Whitman signed the ‘‘EPA

Labor-Management Partnership Strategic Plan and Operational Guidance,’’ which

stated, among other things that: ‘‘The overarching goal of the Partnership Council

is to increase collaboration between EPA’s labor unions and management thereby furthering the accomplishment of the Agency’s mission through improving job satisfaction and working conditions for all employees and managers at all organizational

levels and locations.’’ The Strategic Plan stated that: ‘‘Rather than having management make decisions and then negotiate with the union, the PDI process involves the

union early in the decision-making process, when issues are at the formative stage.

When PDI is used, the union and management work together as a team to resolve

issues to their mutual satisfaction and interest.’’

EPA management not only repeatedly refuses to adopt the principles of predecisional involvement (PDI), but also refuses to engage the unions in meaningful

negotiations such as library closures, even though they are required to do so by law

and contract. For at least six years, EPA management has repeatedly said that it

wanted to engage Unions in PDI as part of the NPC activities. Yet as of this date,

AFGE Council 238 is unaware of any PDI activities emanating from the NPC, despite numerous requests.

As a result of the failure of EPA management to work with us on the library closures, as well as on a multitude of other issues, AFGE Council 238 served notice

on February 28, 2008, along with our Union partners, that we were suspending any

further involvement with the National Labor-Management Partnership Council with

EPA management. AFGE Council 238 is particularly incensed by EPA’s refusal to

discuss, let alone negotiate with us on the closure of EPA’s libraries.

SOME OF THE LOW–LIGHTS OF EPA’S LIBRARY CLOSURES INCLUDE:

• EPA’s library collections were dispersed before establishing any standard procedures or criteria to ensure that important documents were not lost.

48

• EPA did not have a complete inventory of all documents prior to the closures,

nor do we believe that they have one now. Can EPA management account for

the whereabouts of ALL unique library documents prior to the day of shuttering?

• EPA’s approach to closing its libraries has deprived working-class people of

a user-friendly, EPA-staffed library system that provided them with environmental and public health information. The general public, particularly minorities in four major metropolitan areas have been impacted—Chicago, Dallas, Kansas City and Washington, DC.

• AFGE Council 238 finds it ironic that EPA shuttered its libraries when its

congressionally mandated mission is to protect human health and the environment; a scientific and legal mission that requires ready access to the latest

research and information in the many scientific and technical fields.

• EPA failed to fulfill its contractual obligations under the MCBA, as well as

its statutory obligations under the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (5 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), by failing to negotiate with AFGE Council 238 on these closures.

CONCLUSION

EPA policy-makers, managers and senior executives should depend on impartial,

peer reviewed research and science to make informed decisions. A valuable resource

and research tool is a first class EPA Library Network. AFGE Council 238 would

like to see all EPA libraries reopened and library services fully restored by the end

of fiscal year 2008.

AFGE Council 238 thanks Congress for providing $1,000,000 ($983,500 after rescission) in the fiscal year 2008 budget to reopen the closed EPA libraries. However,

we are concerned that the funding may be insufficient to get all of the closed libraries back to full service, and will not address the reduced service at the remaining

libraries, nor the reduced periodical subscriptions. Unfortunately, much of the funding will need to be spent on construction and repurchasing library furnishings, such

as shelving. For example, EPA Region 5 excessed its library furniture in 2006, selling it for about $350. That furniture was originally purchased in 1990–1991 for approximately $35,000, and to replace that furniture now in 2008 could easily approach $100,000.

Most importantly, AFGE Council 238 points out that there was no funding to rehire research librarians, a critical aspect of any library, let alone a state-of-the-art

environmental library. Ms. Leslie Burger appears to support this position when she

stated on February 6, 2007, ‘‘Further, there are still traditional library users out

there. Not everyone does their searching via web-based search engines. Many would

still rather put their trust in the hands of a knowledgeable library professional,

someone who knows the materials inside and out. It has been argued that the time

of librarians is vanishing with the rise of the Internet, but this is a case in point

where that is just not so. The EPA’s environmental holdings are vast and dense, and

a simple search engine just isn’t enough. With the loss of the brick-and-mortar facilities comes the loss of the most important asset in the library: the librarian. After all,

what good is information if you can’t find it?’’

AFGE Council 238 believes that reopening EPA libraries will require aggressive

oversight by Congress to ensure that the Agency successfully reopens and restores

them in a timely and effective manner. We urge Congress to include explicit instructions that funding must be used to reopen shuttered EPA libraries. AFGE Council

238 is also concerned that authorizing the reopening of EPA libraries to provide

public access should include providing EPA staff with ready access to the latest research and information in their respective scientific and technical fields.

AFGE Council 238 offers its services to Congress to review and comment on the

plan that EPA is required to submit to the Committee on Appropriations regarding

actions the Agency will take to restore publicly available libraries to provide environmental information and data to each EPA region. The Agency is to submit its

report to Congress within 90 days of the signing of the appropriations bill on December 26, 2007.

We are also concerned about EPA’s library closures since it appears to be a phenomenon not restricted only to EPA. Library closures are, in fact, happening at

other federal agencies and departments. For example, the National Institute on

Drug Abuse closed its library in 2007 for ‘‘budgetary reasons.’’ The Housing and

Urban Development Headquarters Library was decreased in size by 60 percent;

periodicals and monograph materials were reduced by over 16 percent. The General

Services Administration Headquarters library closed in October 2006. We underVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:40 Sep 28, 2008 Jkt 041131 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\I&O08\031308\41131 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
49

stand that at the U.S. Geological Survey, budget constraints have created concerns

about the future of their library services as well.

Finally, I must state that in my over 37 years as a dedicated federal civilian employee, I have never experienced such an unprecedented level of political consideration in the performance of EPA’s mission. I express my sincerest concern that this

political influence threatens the integrity of EPA’s Principles of Scientific Integrity,

and undermines the very mission of the Agency, which is to protect human health

and the environment. EPA must make decisions based upon the best reasonably obtainable economic and technical information, as well as sound science that has been

peer reviewed. By initiating these changes now, it would not only improve EPA staff

morale, but also help accomplish EPA’s mission and strengthen the faith of the

American people in this world-class Agency.

Thank you again for this opportunity to speak on behalf of AFGE Council 238 and

the almost 9,000 EPA employees that we represent. I am happy to take any questions from the Committee.

Chairman MILLER. Thank you. Dr. Grifo.

STATEMENT OF DR. FRANCESCA T. GRIFO, SENIOR SCIENTIST,

UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS; DIRECTOR, SCIENTIFIC

INTEGRITY PROGRAM

Dr. GRIFO. Good morning. My name is Francesca Grifo, and I am

a Senior Scientist and Director of the Scientific Integrity Program

at the Union of Concerned Scientists, a leading science-based nonprofit working for a healthy environment and a safer world. Chairman Miller, Congressman Hall, thank you for this opportunity.

In 2006, as we have heard, the EPA began to close or reduce access to parts of its network of libraries as part of a modernization

plan. This process took items out of circulation before making them

available electronically, and did not fully consider how to make the

diversity of EPA’s library holdings accessible during the transition

period and beyond.

We do not object to modernization per se, rather to the ongoing

lack of access to critical library resources, deficiencies in stakeholder consultation, and lack of transparency in the process, and

the rapid pace of library closures, in contrast to the slow rate of

digitization of library holdings.

The Scientific Integrity Program works to expose political interference in Federal Government science, and to ensure a federal scientific workforce able to serve the public interest. Together with

several eminent scientists, we recently released a statement entitled ‘‘Scientific Freedom and the Public Good,’’ that outlines the

conditions needed by federal scientists to do their jobs and serve

the public good. Research support systems such as libraries are one

such necessary condition for a thriving federal scientific enterprise.

In order to fulfill its mission to protect human health and the environment, the EPA must rely on up to date scientific information,

as well as historical materials. Despite the increasing availability

of information on the Internet, world class academic and scientific

institutions are maintaining and expanding their libraries, with

the understanding that they are the bedrock of scholarship and scientific research. Without ease of access to information, the efficiency and accuracy of EPA’s determinations are under threat.

In the fall of 2006, we mobilized our network of scientists and

citizen-activists to call Administrator Johnson’s office and demand

a halt to the closures. UCS activists made nearly 8,000 phone calls.

We have continued to monitor the situation, and have met twice

with EPA’s Office of Environmental Information. Despite these

50

meetings, in the 14 months since we stopped phoning Administrator Johnson, we have seen very little progress. Our main concern continues to be that the EPA libraries are a valuable and costeffective resource for both the Agency and the public, and that

nearly a year and a half after their closures, the system that currently replaces them is inadequate.

We decided to go to the scientists themselves. Approximately

nine months after the closure, we asked the scientists at the EPA

what they thought; 555 scientists agreed or strongly agreed that

the recent changes and closures in the EPA library system impaired their ability to do their jobs. When we went to the scientists

from Regions 5, 6, and 7, where the libraries had closed, half the

respondents agreed or strongly agreed that library closures impaired their ability to do their jobs.

A number of EPA scientists also provided written comments on

the closures. One scientist stated: ‘‘The library must also be reopened. Since its closure, some journals are just no longer accessible.’’ Another wrote: ‘‘EPA program offices use a lot of scientific

information. Reduced library access is crippling.’’ And there are

more comments in my written testimony.

These results show that contrary to EPA’s claims, the libraries

are an important resource for EPA employees, and that desktop

subscriptions, digitization, and the interlibrary loan service are an

imperfect replacement. Essential resources, such as copyright reference books and older volumes of scientific journals, cannot be reproduced online. Plans for access to data and documentation that

came from contractors, or form the basis for guidance or determinations, are unclear. The interlibrary loan system is slower than visiting a local library, and cannot replace librarians, browsing, or the

spontaneous, informal learning that takes place in a library.

Almost a year and a half later, we still do not know the current

status of the digitization process, if skeletal reference collections

might be restored, how many librarians have been lost and any

plans for their replacement, what level of access is available for

materials in repositories, such as older documents, microfilm, and

documents generated by EPA contractors, if there are adequate

provisions to ensure access to digitized documents for people with

disabilities, the status of the OPPTS Chemical Library, and any

plans to digitize those materials, and perhaps most importantly, we

don’t have a firm deadline for when full, efficient access to needed

library resources will be restored. Large problems persist, and no

specific timeline for addressing them has been put forth.

The Union of Concerned Scientists urges Congress to continue its

oversight of the EPA and Administrator Johnson until full access

to EPA library materials is restored. Transparency of library decisions, stakeholder consultations, and protections for scientists who

publicly raise concerns about the libraries are important issues,

and are addressed in my written testimony.

In conclusion, regardless of the timing and manner of the eventual reopening of portions of the library network, there are three

immediate actions that must happen now. The first, a basic reference collection and a librarian should be restored to scientists in

Regions 5, 6, and 7, EPA headquarters, and the OPPTS Chemical

Library. Second, the EPA must set and meet a firm deadline for

51

completion of the digitization of all EPA documents. And third, the

EPA must set and meet a deadline for full public access to all the

rest of EPA’s informational holdings.

We look forward to working with Congress on bipartisan legislation and other reforms, to restore scientific integrity.

And I will be happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Grifo follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF FRANCESCA T. GRIFO

Good morning, my name is Francesca Grifo. I am a Senior Scientist and the Director of the Scientific Integrity Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, a

leading science-based nonprofit working for a healthy environment and a safer

world. Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Sensenbrenner, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to share our work and concerns regarding

the closures of libraries at the Environmental Protection Agency.

Introduction

In summer 2006, the EPA closed or reduced access to parts of its network of 27

libraries, thereby reducing the public’s ability to use to a valuable source of information and making it more difficult for hundreds of EPA employees to do their jobs

of protecting human health and the environment. EPA officials claim the closings

are part of a modernization plan, and that all library materials will eventually be

available online. Unfortunately, the process adopted by the EPA for modernizing the

library system was backwards and mostly non-transparent to stakeholders concerned about the ability of the EPA to do its work. We do not object to modernization per se, rather to the woefully dysfunctional way the EPA sought to undertake

it.

The Scientific Integrity Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists works to

expose political interference in the work of Federal Government scientists and to

push for reforms that ensure the free flow of scientific information between the government and the public. We recently released a statement entitled ‘‘Scientific Freedom and the Public Good’’ that outlines the conditions needed by federal scientists

to do their jobs and serve the public good. Quality research support systems, such

as libraries, are a necessary condition for a thriving scientific enterprise at federal

agencies.

In order to fulfill its mission to protect human health and the environment, the

EPA must rely on accurate, up-to-date scientific information as well as the findings

of earlier studies. Scientists build their research on the findings of those who came

before them. Libraries are the source of much of this intellectual wealth. To make

the best scientific determinations, scientists need access to information regarding

the health effects of toxic substances, records of environmental change over time,

impacts on specific regions or communities and many other issues. Despite the increasing availability of information on the Internet, world-class academic institutions are maintaining and expanding their libraries with the understanding that

such institutions are the bedrock of scholarship and scientific research. Without

ease of access to information, the efficiency and accuracy of EPA’s scientific determinations are under threat—with potentially serious consequences for public health

and the environment.

We have been concerned about the fate of the EPA Libraries since the closures

were first announced. Once the closures began in the fall of 2006, we mobilized our

network of scientists—activists who signed our scientist statement on scientific integrity—to call administrator Stephen Johnson’s office and demand a halt to the closures.

Over the course of several weeks UCS activists made nearly 8,000 phone calls to

EPA headquarters. We believe that this outcry from the scientific community, together with attention from both the House and the Senate, the EPA employee

unions, the library community and other non-profit organizations was instrumental

in convincing the EPA to stop and reassess its plan for the library network. Since

that initial flurry of activity, we have continued to monitor the situation and have

met twice with officials in EPA’s Office of Environmental Information (OEI) to voice

our concerns.

Despite these meetings, in the 14 months since our phone offensive, we have seen

very little progress in repairing the damage already done to the library network.

Our main concern continues to be that the EPA libraries are a valuable and costeffective resource for both the agency and the public, and that the system that currently replaces them is sadly inadequate.

52

Survey Results

To assess the impact of the library closures on EPA’s workforce, UCS surveyed

scientists at the EPA in July of 2007. The survey results show:

• 555 scientists (35.6 percent of survey respondents) agreed or strongly agreed

that the ‘‘recent changes and closures in the EPA library system have impaired my ability to do my job.’’

• This opinion was especially prevalent among scientists in Regions 5, 6 and

7, which had their libraries closed. 86 scientists, or nearly half of the survey

respondents, agreed, however the impact of the closures was felt across the

entire EPA.

A number of EPA scientists also provided written comments on the library closures. One scientist stated ‘‘The library must also be re-opened. Since its closure,

some journals are just no longer accessible.’’ Another explained why libraries are

necessary, saying ‘‘EPA program offices [. . .] use a lot of scientific information. Reduced library access is crippling’’ while yet another called the loss of library facilities ‘‘ludicrous.’’

Other quotes from EPA scientists include—

• ‘‘Give us back our library.’’

• ‘‘Re-open libraries.’’

• ‘‘Restore the libraries.’’

• ‘‘Libraries with the technical support staff should be restored.’’

• ‘‘Bring back the two EPA libraries at Headquarters that were closed. Many

journal articles are now available online, but these go back only about 20

years. Unfortunately, a large number of bound journals from the collection

were discarded.’’

• ‘‘The . . . loss of EPA libraries are bleeding down the EPA’s technical knowledge base and our ability to provide or share the skills and knowledge that

are critical to overall mission success.’’

• ‘‘Proper facilities, including re-establishing EPA’s network of libraries is essential to give staff sufficient access to information.’’

• ‘‘Restore . . . library and other research resources. . .’’

• ‘‘Have access to tech resources and in a timely fashion (includes library/lit

search issues).’’

• ‘‘Stop slashing services that made the EPA what it was (library closings are

just one of many. . .).’’

• ‘‘Give us back our library. . .’’

• ‘‘Better support for ORD, libraries (regional and others). . .’’

In addition some scientists described progress:

• ‘‘BTW—while I loved the library, the new service that was set-up for requesting materials via the Internet is great, quick and responsive.’’

• ‘‘The RTP Interlibrary Loan facility has been very good in obtaining articles

and pages in books as the need has arisen.’’

These results show that, contrary to the EPA’s claims, the libraries are an important resource for EPA employees and that the Interlibrary Loan service is an imperfect replacement, that may work for certain employees, but not for all.

A Backwards Process

The process by which EPA closed the libraries was backwards. The closing of the

physical library should be the very last stage of a well-thought-out modernization

plan, if and only if it is determined that the physical library is truly extraneous.

Unfortunately, closing the EPA libraries was the first step and the driver of all subsequent decisions. UCS supports the digitization of those EPA documents that can

legally be made available on the Internet, but again that process should be complete

before the physical materials are discarded or placed in a repository. Thousands of

EPA documents are currently stranded in digitization limbo for the indefinite future.

Furthermore, digitization cannot fully replace all the resources provided by a

physical library. Essential resources, such as copyrighted reference books and older

volumes of scientific journals, cannot be reproduced online yet are potentially invaluable for the day-to-day work of EPA’s scientists. The Interlibrary Loan system

is a possible solution for some of these problems, but it is undoubtedly slower than

a local library and, for commonly used materials, considerably less efficient. Nor do

53

interlibrary loans replace browsing or the spontaneous informal learning that takes

place in a library.

Our survey indicates that the current system is not meeting the needs of hundreds of EPA scientists. The EPA should carry out a comprehensive, transparent assessment of the information needs of its staff to determine which locations have a

need for a full-service library, which need basic reference collections and which can

make do with the current system. EPA’s library specialists are valuable resources

in their own right and their expertise in answering research and reference questions

has been shown to save the EPA millions of dollars of staff time. Any information

needs assessment should consider the best way to provide access to EPA librarians

to all of EPA’s staff.

Changes to the library system impact the wider public and the information that

is available to them. The EPA libraries are used by community environmental justice groups, historians, independent researchers, and others. Any changes to the library system should be done in a fully transparent and open manner and the EPA

should solicit comment from the various stakeholder groups with an interest in the

library network.

Finally—all of this has taken far too long. Almost a year and a half is too long

to be without these critical materials.

Outstanding Questions

After two meetings with OEI officials, many questions remain about the future

of EPA’s library network:

• What is the current status of the digitization process? When will all the

unique documents be available?

• Copyrighted material can never be part of the EPA’s digital library. While an

interlibrary loan system will address some of these needs, it may not efficiently address the needs of all EPA staff. EPA officials have told us skeletal

reference collections might be restored in each region. Has this happened? If

not, when will it happen? Will stakeholders be involved in decisions regarding

the composition of these collections?

• The EPA’s own internal documents highlight the monetary savings derived

from having trained professionals assist staff. Have librarians been lost? Will

the general public be allowed access to librarians when the closed libraries

reopen? In the interim? If so, how and when?

• What level of access is currently available for all materials moved to the repositories, including older documents, documents on microfilm and documents

generated by EPA contractors? When will full access be restored?

• Have adequate provisions been taken to ensure access for people with disabilities?

• What level of access will the public have to materials in the repositories?

• Will the OPPTS chemical library be re-opened? Are there plans to digitize the

materials from that library and make them available online? Will those materials be available through the repositories and Interlibrary loans? If so when?

Solutions

While we believe it is possible that senior library officials do seek to remedy the

situation and address these questions, it has been seventeen months since the closures began. Large problems persist and no specific timeline for addressing them

has been put forth. Congress has allocated funds to re-open some of the closed libraries, yet it remains unclear how long that process will take. The Union of Concerned Scientists urges this committee to continue its oversight of the EPA until

adequate access to EPA library materials is consistently available to EPA employees

and the public.

Immediate Actions

Regardless of the timing and manner of the eventual re-opening of portions of the

library network, there are three actions that must be taken by the EPA immediately:

• A basic reference collection should be restored to scientists in Regions 5, 6 and 7, EPA Headquarters and the Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances (OPPTS). The contents of these collections

should be determined by a quick assessment of the needs of scientists and research groups in those regions. This is not a replacement for a more comprehensive assessment, or for the possible re-opening of those libraries, but

54

is instead a stop-gap measure to provide the necessary resources for EPA employees in the meantime.

• The EPA must set a firm deadline for completion of the digitization

of all EPA documents and meet it.

• The EPA must commit to full public access to EPA’s informational

holdings. At a minimum this should include making materials available

through OCLC and Interlibrary Loan and providing staffing and hours when

members of the public may access materials in all the repositories.

Transparency of Library Decisions

• The EPA should open up its decision-making process regarding agency informational needs to public scrutiny. Information on plans for the library network should be available on the EPA’s website and should include timelines

for digitization and access to information, details on the digitization process,

and the names of responsible parties.

Stakeholder Consultations

• The EPA should undertake a comprehensive assessment of the information

needs of its workforce, including scientific and legal staff, and should design

its library modernization plans with those goals in mind.

• The EPA should also routinely consult with outside stakeholders, including

community groups, independent and academic researchers, and the library

community, to ensure that decisions regarding its library network conform to

best practices and ensure continued public access to information.

Whistleblower Rights

• In passing reforms to the Whistleblower Protection Act that include significant protections for government scientists, the House of Representatives has

sent a strong signal that scientific openness and access to information should

be core agency values and that scientists who speak out deserve protection.

The staff of the EPA should have the right to publicly raise their concerns

about the loss of the libraries.

We look forward to working with the 110Congress on bipartisan legislation and

other reforms to restore scientific integrity to federal policy-making.

BIOGRAPHY FOR FRANCESCA T. GRIFO

Francesca T. Grifo, Ph.D., is the Senior Scientist and Director of the Scientific Integrity Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). The Scientific Integrity

Program works to defend government science from political interference.

Dr. Grifo came to UCS in 2005 from Columbia University where she directed the

Center for Environmental Research and Conservation graduate policy workshop and

ran the Science Teachers Environmental Education Program. Prior to that, she was

Director of the Center for Biodiversity and Conservation and a curator of the Hall

of Biodiversity at the American Museum of Natural History in New York.

Dr. Grifo edited and contributed to the books Biodiversity and Human Health and

The Living Planet in Crisis; biodiversity science and policy. In addition to her scholarly work, Dr. Grifo was the manager of the International Cooperative Biodiversity

Groups Program at the National Institutes of Health. She was also a senior program

officer for Central and Eastern European for the Biodiversity Support Program, a

consortium of the World Resources Institute, the Nature Conservancy, and the

World Wildlife Fund; and an AAAS Fellow in the Office of Research at the Agency

for International Development.

Francesca earned her Ph.D. in botany from Cornell, and a BA in biology from

Smith College. She currently holds adjunct appointments at Columbia and Georgetown.

Chairman MILLER. Thank you, Dr. Grifo. Mr. Rettig.

55

STATEMENT OF MR. JAMES R. RETTIG, PRESIDENT-ELECT,

AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION; UNIVERSITY LIBRARIAN,

UNIVERSITY OF RICHMOND

Mr. RETTIG. Chairman Miller and Congressman Hall, thank you

for inviting me today to speak on behalf of the American Library

Association. My name is Jim Rettig. I am University Librarian at

the University of Richmond in Virginia. I am also President-Elect

of the American Library Association, the oldest and largest library

association in the world, with some 66,000 members.

The importance of this hearing and the gravity of the situation

has caused the American Association of Law Libraries to support

my testimony and the stance of the American Library Association.

Overall, the key issue to determine is whether or not EPA’s library plan is based on users’ needs. Our sources have repeatedly

told us that EPA has not reached out to the EPA library user community, the thousands of scientists, researchers, and attorneys who

use these resources daily, as well as members of the public, who

have benefited greatly from access to these unique collections.

In light of that, I would like to address two issues. First, the

vital importance of access to scientific, environmental, legal, and

other government information for EPA employees, scientists, and

the American public. Second, the necessity for the information specialists, the staff librarian, to ensure the most effective access to

this information. Because there are fewer libraries and professional

library staff, scientists and the public will have less access to this

information.

So, let me first address the loss of valuable environmental information. As one recently retired EPA librarian described it, the EPA

libraries once functioned as a virtual national library for the environment. Because of its networking, both technical and human, an

interlibrary loan and reference services, users of any EPA library

had access to the collections of all other sites. This cost-effective

structure provides wide access for staff and public.

Now that some of these regional libraries and the Chemical Library here in Washington, D.C. are closed, key links have been removed from the chain, weakening the whole. All EPA library users

suffer, not just those near closed facilities. Further, the library

community is deeply troubled by the dispersing of materials from

the closed libraries. What this dispersement entails is not clear. We

are concerned about how the dispersed information has been handled, causing long-term damage to EPA’s effectiveness and the ability of the American people to find important environmental and

government information.

Preservation of digital assets is also very important. Without

more detailed information about the EPA’s digitization project, we

cannot assess whether it is digitizing the most appropriate materials, whether there is appropriate metadata and cataloging to

make sure that people can access the digital materials, or whether

the technology that will be used to host the digital contents meets

today’s standards.

While EPA has met with ALA staff on several occasions to discuss this issue, it has consistently failed to act upon the advice that

came as a result of these meetings. This experience with EPA underscores the need for the executive branch to develop and impleVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:40 Sep 28, 2008 Jkt 041131 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\I&O08\031308\41131 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
56

ment effective and consistent approaches for how government agencies undertake digitization of government records and publications,

and how they provide access to these.

The process of library improvements and/or closures, which directly impacts access to these government materials, must be coherent and user-focused, with proper planning and oversight of the

process.

Our second concern is what this means for EPA’s information

specialists, its librarians. ALA understands that in the 21st Century, people can access much of what they need from their own

desks. We also understand how complicated and costly the move to

digitization can be. But the bottom line is that libraries still need

skilled professionals to assist users, to organize Internet access, to

determine the best way to make information available to those

users, and to assure that digitization projects adhere to standards.

Furthermore, traditional library users who are not comfortable

with web-based search engines put their trust in a knowledgeable

library professional. The EPA’s environmental collections are vast

and deep, and a search engine just isn’t enough. With the loss of

the brick and mortar facilities comes the loss of the most important

asset in the library, the librarian. After all, what good is information if you can’t find it?

The future clearly calls for a hybrid, where not every single item

or service is online, nor is everything confined to a physical structure. The hybrid’s backbone is the profession of skilled, knowledgeable, and helpful information specialists, librarians.

In closing, ALA asks this committee to request EPA to discuss

with stakeholders how best to meet user needs and plan for the future, base its actions upon these users’ needs, stabilize an inventory of the collections that have been put in storage, develop and

implement a government-wide process to assist agencies to design

effective digitization programs, and reestablish the standard that

Federal Government librarians manage Federal Government libraries.

We appreciate your responsiveness, and look forward to determining how we can save these collections, assure library service for

users, and maximize access to important environmental information for staff, scientists, and the public at large.

Thank you again for this opportunity to speak on behalf of the

American Library Association. I will be happy to take questions

from the Committee.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rettig follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES R. RETTIG

Chairman Miller, Congressman Sensenbrenner, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me today to speak on behalf of the American Library Association (ALA). I sincerely appreciate the opportunity to comment on the

closure of libraries in the EPA network.

My name is Jim Rettig, and I am the University Librarian of the University of

Richmond (VA). I am also the President-elect of the American Library Association,

the oldest and largest library association in the world with some 66,000 members,

primarily school, public, academic, and some special librarians, but also trustees,

publishers, and friends of libraries. The Association provides leadership for the development, promotion, and improvement of library and information services and the

profession of librarianship to enhance learning and ensure access to information for

all.

57

The importance of this hearing and the gravity of the situation has caused the

American Association of Law Libraries (AALL) to support my testimony and the

stance of the American Library Association. AALL is a nonprofit educational organization with over 5,000 members nationwide who respond to the legal information

needs of legislators, judges, and other public officials at all levels of government,

corporations and small businesses, law professors and students, attorneys, and

members of the general public.

Given the library community’s mission, it should come as no surprise that ALA

has been so outspoken in its criticism of these closures.

Overall, from the library standpoint, the key issue to determine is whether or not

the EPA’s library plan is based on the end-users’ needs. We think not. Our sources

have repeatedly told us that there has been no outreach to the EPA Library user

community—comprised of the thousands of scientists, researchers, and attorneys

who use these resources on a daily basis, as well as members of the public who have

benefited greatly from access to these unique collections. Indeed, there has been a

lot of talk about getting information to a ‘‘broader audience,’’ which EPA has repeatedly claimed is its primary goal, but how do the steps being taken by EPA accomplish that? ALA doesn’t see how what’s being done is connected to users’ needs.

In light of that, I would like to address two issues:

• First, the vital importance of access to scientific, environmental, legal, and

other government information for EPA employees, scientists and the American public. In the course of shutting down these libraries, has valuable,

unique environmental information been lost or discarded?

• Second, the necessity of the information specialist—the staff librarian—to ensure the most effective access to this information. Because there are fewer libraries and professional library staff, scientists and the public will have limited access to this information. In an age of heightened public awareness

about the environment, it seems ironic that the Administration would choose

this time to limit access to years of research about the environment.

So let me first address the loss of valuable environmental information.

Libraries and other cultural heritage institutions (archives, museums, and historical societies) have been digitizing collections for nearly 20 years. The digital resources provide access 365 days a year, 24 hours a day, regardless of where a user

lives or works. Geographic and political boundaries disappear. These digital resources meet international and national standards and are created by librarians, archivists, museum professionals, and representatives from the photographic and

audio industry, public broadcasting, and computer industry.

As one recently retired EPA librarian described it, the EPA libraries have been

functioning like a virtual National Library on the Environment. (Indeed, the EPA

was at one time a leader in providing public access to critical information in their

collections.) This ‘‘virtual’’ EPA library network functioned as a single national system. Because of its networking (both technical and human) and interlibrary loan

and mutual reference services, users in any EPA library had access to the collections at all other sites. This structure is cost-effective and provides wide access for

staff and for the public.

Now that some of these regional libraries and the pesticide library are closed, key

links have been removed from the chain, thus weakening the whole system. All EPA

library users suffer, not just those closest to the closed facilities. Where will people

look for information about their drinking water? Or which pesticides are safe? Or

how much pollution is in the air of their hometown? These issues are of the utmost

importance; our health and safety depend on them!

In a plan that was best described as ‘‘convoluted and complicated,’’ materials from

closed EPA libraries have been boxed and sent to other locations where they are

slowly being re-cataloged and then sent back to the Headquarters Library here in

Washington, DC—a library that is now closed and that has no room to house these

resources. Other materials have been sent to Research Triangle Park or the National Environmental Publications Internet Site (NEPIS) in Cincinnati where they

are slowly being digitized.

Before libraries begin a costly digitization project, we always consider the needs

of the current and future user communities. Digital content must be created in a

fashion assuring that it will be usable 25 and 50 years from now. We need to capture cataloging information—which we call metadata—about each digital resource

so that we can find these resources now and in the future. Furthermore if we have

to recreate a resource the metadata tells us how we created it the first time, giving

us information such as what camera or which scanner we used to create a digital

58

image. All that information goes into the metadata, along with the title, descriptive

keywords, and publication data.

Further, the library community is deeply troubled by the ‘‘dispersing’’ of materials

from the closed regional libraries and the pesticide library here in Washington, DC.

What this ‘‘dispersement’’ entails isn’t clear at this point. We are concerned about

how this information has been handled, causing long-term damage to the EPA’s effectiveness and the ability of the American public to find important environmental

and government information.

Unfortunately, there continues to be a lot that we don’t know: exactly what materials have been being shipped around the country, whether there are duplicate materials in other EPA libraries, whether these items have been or will be digitized,

and whether a record is being kept of what is being dispersed and what is being

discarded. We remain concerned that years of research and studies about the environment may be lost forever.

Will digital documents be listed in the Online Computer Library Center (OCLC),

an international database of the holdings of more than 41,555 libraries in 112 countries, making them available to other research institutions? Is there metadata or

cataloguing being created to ensure that digital documents can be easily located on

the web? What will happen to the OCLC holdings information of the closed libraries?

EPA representatives have discussed the creation of a premier digital library for

the 21st century and making content from the EPA libraries available to the general

public as well as to EPA scientists. To do that, the EPA will need what libraries

call a web-enabled Digital Asset Management system, which cannot only display the

full range of digital resources that are being converted but also the digital resources

of the future: audio, video, simulations, etc. Digital Asset Management systems, or

DAMs, provide the public with tools to locate and display digital resources, but

these systems can also allow the EPA to provide access to authorized users. For example, if there is a publication that contractually can only be viewed by the EPA

scientists, the EPA could digitize it, put it in the database, make the metadata

searchable, but allow it to be viewed only by those authorized to view it. The DAM

controls all of that through its authentication system.

Preservation of digital assets is also very important. There are already many stories of digitized collections that have been saved on CDs, and when organizations

have tried to access them the content is not viewable. CDs and DVDs are fine transport media, but no longer are they considered acceptable media for preservation.

Networked storage combined with retention of two or three physical copies in different repositories is best preservation practice.

Without more detailed information about the EPA’s digitization project, we cannot

assess whether it is digitizing the most appropriate materials, whether there is appropriate metadata or cataloging to make sure that people can access the digitized

materials, and that the technology that will be used to host the digital content and

the finding software meets today’s standards. In the age of digital media it has become easier and easier for information to simply get lost in the shuffle, and there

is no way of knowing if that’s the case here.

Certainly, not all parts of each EPA library collection can be digitized; they probably have some materials that are copyrighted, for example. But there is so much

specialized and unique material—including reports already paid for by taxpayers—

and we do not know if these are part of the digitization projects. Further, we do

not know about how their maps or other specialized formats have faired, formats

that are very difficult and time-consuming to digitize.

In their haste to close down libraries and meet a fiscal deadline without a clear

plan, EPA has created arbitrarily established deadlines. We continue to hear allegations from former and current EPA staff, who do not wish to be identified, that hundreds of valuable journals and books may have been destroyed. These staff members

are concerned that materials which are unique to EPA (and in some cases exist nowhere else in the world) are no longer available.

EPA has also claimed in the past to have been following ALA guidelines in its

reorganization of holdings. In fact, as far as we can tell, that meant visiting the

ALA website and using our very general guidelines about ‘‘weeding’’ library collections. Weeding is the process of periodically removing materials from a library’s collection. Materials are weeded because they are out of date, in poor condition or are

unneeded multiple copies. ALA’s weeding standards were never intended for application in a digital environment.

While EPA has met with ALA staff on several occasions to discuss this issue, it

has consistently failed to act upon the advice that came as a result of these meetings.

59

This experience with EPA underscores the need for the Executive Branch to develop and implement effective and consistent approaches for how government agencies undertake digitization of government records and publications and how they

provide access to them. The process of library improvements and/or closures—which

directly impacts access to these government materials—needs to be coherent and

user-focused, and there must be proper planning and oversight of the process. The

government is the largest single producer of information, and the information it produces is vital to public health and safety. As a consequence, it is critically important

that instead of a growing patchwork of agency programs emerging—which may fail

to satisfy user information needs—that we put in place, effective and efficient public

access programs to reap the benefits of the digital environment.

Our second concern is what this means for the EPA’s information specialists, its librarians.

ALA understands that we are living in the 21st century, and users can access

much of what they need from their own desks. In the digital environment the librarian’s role is changing. We also understand how complicated and costly the move to

digitization can be. But the bottom line is that libraries still need skilled professionals to a) assist users, b) organize Internet access, c) determine the best way to

make the information available to those users, and d) assure that digitization

projects adhere to standards. When searching the EPA site, one retrieves thousands

of hits for a topic such as ‘‘water.’’ When qualifying the search by a date range the

results include items outside that date range. The user will understandably wonder

about the veracity of the data and will need the assistance of a librarian.

Librarians are also needed to design the interfaces. The web makes it possible to

design customized interfaces—one for scientists, one for teachers and students, and

one for the general public.

Further, there are still traditional library users out there. Not everyone does their

searching via web-based search engines. Many would still rather put their trust in

the hands of a knowledgeable library professional, someone who knows the materials inside and out. It has been argued that the time of librarians is vanishing with

the rise of the Internet, but this is a case in point where that is just not so. The

EPA’s environmental collections are vast and deep, and a simple search engine just

isn’t enough. With the loss of the brick-and-mortar facilities comes the loss of the

most important asset in the library: the librarian. After all, what good is information if you can’t find it?

The future clearly calls for a hybrid, where not every single item or service is online, nor is everything confined to a physical structure. And the backbone of it all

is a profession of skilled, knowledgeable, and, most importantly, helpful information

specialists: librarians.

In closing:

ALA asks that this committee request EPA to:

a) Discuss with stakeholders on how best to meet user needs and plan for the

future;

b) Base its actions upon these users’ needs;

c) Stabilize and inventory the collections that have been put in storage;

d) Develop and implement a government-wide process to assist agencies to design effective digitization programs; and

e) Reestablish the standard that Federal Government librarians manage Federal Government libraries.

We appreciate your responsiveness and look forward to determining how we can

save these collections, stabilize the library services for users and understand how

best to maximize access for staff, scientists, and the public at large to important environmental information.

Thank you again for this opportunity to speak on behalf of the American Library

Association, and I am happy to take any questions from the Committee.

BIOGRAPHY FOR JAMES R. RETTIG

James Rettig currently serves as university librarian at the University of Richmond in Virginia. During 2007–2008 he is serving as President-elect of the American Library Association, the world’s oldest and largest library association. He has

held numerous leadership position in the American Library Association, including

a term on its Executive Board 2003–2006. Since 1976 he has held reference librarian and library administrative positions at Murray State University (KY), the UniVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:40 Sep 28, 2008 Jkt 041131 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\I&O08\031308\41131 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
60

versity of Dayton (OH), the University of Illinois at Chicago, the College of William

and Mary (VA), and the University of Richmond. He has published and lectured

widely on issues in library reference service and has received awards for his work

in that field. He is listed in Who’s Who in America, 2008, 62nd ed. He is married,

the father of three adult children, and is a resident of Williamsburg, Virginia (Virginia 1st Congressional District).

Chairman MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Rettig.

I understand the reason that we are being summoned to the

Floor is not a vote, but at 10:30, there will be a moment of silence

for the American servicemen and women who have died in Iraq, so

obviously, all of us, Mr. Hall and Ms. Johnson and I would want

to be there for that.

So, Ms. O’Neill, I think we can get your testimony in, and still

have time to get to the Floor.

Ms. O’Neill.

STATEMENT OF MS. MOLLY A. O’NEILL, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION, THE OFFICE

OF ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION (OEI); CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER (CIO), U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

Ms. O’NEILL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. Thank

you for the opportunity to testify today about the progress EPA is

making on strengthening its national library network, and ensuring that the information our employees and the American public

need to make sound decisions about the environment is made available to them.

Let me begin by saying that I am fully committed to enhancing

the EPA national library network and providing the broadest possible access to environmental information for EPA staff and the

public. As EPA’s CIO, I am very much aware of the opportunities

that technology offers us to make more environmental information

accessible to an ever growing number of users, both EPA staff and

the public, regardless of their location.

However, I also understand that some users need access in more

traditional formats, and that our professional librarians play a valuable role in assisting our library users. The network is comprised

of 26 libraries, and provides multiple methods for delivering information services: walk-in access to collections and assistance, online

resources, and interlibrary loans. To ensure that the network was

evolving and keeping pace with the newer demands from a growing, diverse customer base, EPA began reexamining its library

model in 2003, to identify new ways to deliver library service and

meet customer needs in a cost-effective manner.

While EPA implemented changes in the walk-in services in some

locations in 2006, we continued to provide a full range of library

services to EPA staff and the public. EPA appreciates the thorough

review the Government Accountability Office recently conducted of

the EPA library network operations. We recognize the importance

of transparency in our library planning processes, and we worked

hard to cooperate and assist the GAO during this review.

The Agency has already taken many steps to address the recommendations made in the GAO review. We placed a 90 day moratorium on any changes at our libraries in mid-December 2006, in

response to concern raised by a number of our stakeholders. In late

61

February 2007, this moratorium was extended indefinitely in an effort to work more closely with various concerned groups.

Since then, EPA has taken many steps to improve governance

and coordinate across EPA on enhancing these services. In early

2007, the EPA issued an interim national library network policy,

assigning the overall responsibility of the library network to me,

the Assistant Administrator of the Office of Environmental Information. The policy established uniform governance and management for the network, applicable to all headquarters and regional

offices that provide library services. To implement the policy, a

number of network-level procedures and standards are being developed that will ensure commonality in the way libraries operate

across the network.

At the same time the policy was issued, EPA hired a highly

qualified professional librarian, with many years of experience, as

the Network National Program Manager. The new Program Manager coordinates all network activities, and provides strategic direction on planning, operations, and outreach efforts.

EPA also increased outreach to outside parties on our library operations and plans. We participated in a number of meetings and

conferences with professional associations such as ALA, the Special

Libraries Association, and the Union of Concerned Scientists. The

Agency has stepped up coordination with other federal agencies on

library operations. My staff is working closely with the Federal Library and Information Center Committee, FLICC, at the Library of

Congress, on our plans for the future of the network. FLICC has

selected a Board of Advisors, composed of federal library managers,

to work directly with the network to advise us on procedures, operations, and future directions.

I want to assure the Subcommittee that as EPA implemented improvements to the network, we continued to provide library services to our customers. Customers continue to have access to documents, either in person or via interlibrary loans. They received

help in answering reference and research questions, and the Agency continues to enhance our offerings available from our digital libraries.

EPA employees now have electronic access to more than 120,000

resources from their desktops. Also, we established agreements between several of our libraries and the Centers of Excellence within

the network to allow us to leverage the expertise available from

other locations. Users of the services offered via these agreements

report high satisfaction with the quality and timeliness of these

services.

Moving forward, EPA continues to develop a long range plan for

a strong and effective library network, and we continue to solicit

input from both internal and external customers. In recognition of

our goal to provide the service our customers need, we will be conducting a formal needs assessment to inform future planning of the

network. Of particular importance is assuring EPA staff have access to the information they need to do their jobs, and EPA is committed to working collaboratively with EPA staff and union representatives on future changes to the library network that may impact employees.

62

As part of the planning efforts, EPA is currently working on a

report to Congress pertaining to EPA’s libraries requested in the

report language on the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008.

The report language directs the EPA to restore the network of EPA

libraries recently closed or consolidated, and submit a report to the

Committees on Appropriations regarding the actions it will take to

restore publicly available libraries to provide environmental information and data to each EPA region within 90 days of the enactment.

EPA’s report will describe the Agency’s plans to ensure on-site

support in each EPA region, the EPA Headquarters Library, and

the Office of Pollution and Pesticides and Toxic Substances, our

Chemical Library.

Finally, EPA is committed to examining ways to provide even

greater access to environmental information to meet customers’

needs. I believe that all of the Agency’s information access services,

be they through EPA libraries, the EPA website, or other Agency

mechanisms, are components of a broader canvas that supports our

commitment to provide access to environmental information.

On behalf of Administrator Johnson, thank you for inviting me

to speak with you today about our EPA national library network

and our ongoing efforts to strengthen it to make it a premier environmental library network.

I am happy to address any questions that the Committee might

have.

[The prepared statement of Ms. O’Neill follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MOLLY A. O’NEILL

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today about the progress EPA is making

in strengthening its National Library Network and ensuring that the information

our employees and the American public need to make sound decisions about their

environment is available to them. This testimony reflects my dual roles as the Chief

Information Officer (CIO) at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and

as the Assistant Administrator of the Office of Environmental Information (OEI),

where the National Library Network is now one of the programs I oversee.

Introduction

Let me begin by saying that I am fully committed to enhancing the EPA National

Library Network (Network) and providing the broadest possible access to environmental information for EPA staff and the public As EPA’s CIO, I am very much

aware of the opportunities that technology offers us to make more environmental

information accessible to an ever growing number of users, both EPA staff and the

public, regardless of their location. However, I also understand that some users need

access in more traditional formats and that our professional librarians play a valuable role in assisting our library users. Our vision is to be the premier model for

the next generation of federal libraries by enhancing our electronic tools to complement our traditional library services.

The Network is comprised of twenty-six libraries, and provides multiple methods

for delivering information services—walk-in access to collections and assistance, online resources, and interlibrary loans. To ensure that the Network was evolving and

keeping pace with newer demands from a growing, diverse customer base, EPA

began reexamining its library model in 2003 to identify new ways to deliver library

services and meet customer needs in a cost-effective manner. While EPA implemented changes in walk-in services in some locations in 2006, we continued to provide the full range of library services to EPA staff and the public.

EPA appreciates the thorough review the Government Accountability Office

(GAO) recently conducted of the EPA Library Network operations. EPA recognizes

the importance of transparency in our library planning processes and worked hard

to cooperate and assist GAO during its review. The Agency has already taken many

steps that address the recommendations made in GAO’s review.

63

Enhancing EPA’s Library Network

We placed a 90-day moratorium on any changes at our libraries in mid-December

2006 in response to concerns raised by a number of stakeholders. In late February

2007, this moratorium was extended indefinitely in an effort to work more closely

with various concerned groups. Since then, EPA has taken many steps to improve

governance and coordination across EPA on enhancing library services.

In early 2007, EPA issued an interim National Library Network Policy assigning

the overall responsibility for the Library Network to the Assistant Administrator of

the Office of Environmental Information. The policy established uniform governance

and management for the Network, applicable to all headquarters and regional offices that provide library services. To implement the policy, a number of Networklevel procedures and standards are being developed that will ensure commonality

in the way libraries operate across the Network.

At the same time the policy was issued EPA hired a highly qualified professional

librarian with many years of experience as the Network national program manager.

The new program manager coordinates all Network activities, and provides strategic

direction in all planning, operations, and outreach efforts. These actions have been

instrumental in strengthening our network of librarians.

EPA also increased outreach to outside parties on our library operations and

plans. We participated in a number of meetings and conferences with professional

associations such as the American Library Association, the Special Libraries Association, and the Union of Concerned Scientists. Whether as speakers at national

meetings, exhibitors during the meetings, or in open conversation with association

staff or members, we have requested input on Network operations, service delivery

and future plans for the Network. We have also provided additional information online for the general public about our library operations and future plans.

The Agency has also stepped up coordination with other federal agencies on library operations. My staff is working closely with the Federal Library and Information Center Committee (FLICC) at the Library of Congress on our plans for the future of the Network. FLICC has selected a board of advisors composed of federal

library managers to work directly with the Network to advise us on procedures, operations, and future directions.

I want to assure the Subcommittee that as EPA implemented improvements to

the Network, we continued to provide library services to our customers. Customers

continued to have access to documents, either in person or via interlibrary loans.

They received help in answering reference and research questions, and the Agency

continues to enhance our offerings available from our digital libraries. EPA employees now have electronic access to more than 120,000 resources from their desktops.

Also, we established agreements between several of our libraries and Centers of Excellence within the Network to allow us to leverage the expertise available from

other locations. Users of the services offered via these agreements report high satisfaction with the quality and timeliness of these services. For example, a 2007 survey

of federal customers who requested literature searches rated EPA high in the relevance, timeliness and completeness of results.

Moving Forward

EPA continues to develop a long range plan for a strong and effective Library Network, and will continue to solicit input from both internal and external customers.

In recognition of our goal to provide the service our customers need we will be conducting a formal needs assessment to inform future planning for the Network. Of

particular importance is ensuring EPA staff has access to the information they need

to do their jobs, and EPA is committed to working collaboratively with EPA staff

and union representatives on future changes to the EPA Library Network that may

impact employees.

As part of the planning efforts, EPA is currently working on a Report to Congress

pertaining to EPA libraries requested in the report language on the Consolidated

Appropriations Act of 2008. The report language directs EPA ‘‘to restore the Network of EPA libraries recently closed or consolidated. . .’’ and ‘‘to submit a report

to the Committees on Appropriations regarding actions it will take to restore publicly available libraries to provide environmental information and data to each EPA

region within 90 days of enactment of this Act.’’ EPA’s report will describe the Agency’s plans to ensure on-site support in each EPA Region, the EPA Headquarters Library, and the Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances (OPPTS)

Chemical Library.

Finally, EPA is committed to examining ways to provide even greater access to

environmental information to meet customers’ needs. I believe that all of the Agency’s information access services, be they through EPA libraries, the EPA Website,

or other Agency mechanisms, are components of a broader canvas that supports our

64

commitment to provide access to environmental information. To solicit input on how

EPA might enhance access to information, the Agency is conducting a National Dialogue with key stakeholders over the next several months. Based on this input, EPA

plans to develop a long term Strategy for enhancing access to environmental information, including library services.

Conclusion

On behalf of Administrator Johnson, thank you for inviting me to speak with you

today about the EPA National Library Network and our ongoing work to strengthen

it and make it the premier environmental library network in the country. I would

be happy to address any questions that you may have at this time.

Chairman MILLER. Thank you, and our questioning will take

place after we return from the Floor, so we are at ease.

[Recess.]

DISCUSSION

ACCESS TO EPA LIBRARY SERVICES

Chairman MILLER. Well, the moment of silence was a little more

optional than I had thought. There was not every Member present,

but I am glad that I was able to go and join in it, and I apologize

for the disruption.

Mr. Hall, in what I assume was sincere compliments of my renown as a lawyer, I am reminded that judges, in North Carolina

at least, tell juries that they should judge the evidence not by its

quantity, but by its quality and convincing force, but Ms. O’Neill,

I still cannot help but notice that you are badly outnumbered, that

every—all of the other witnesses tell a very different tale. Their

testimony was very different from yours.

In your testimony, you discussed the future network services

that would bring EPA materials to EPA employees and to the public, including the scientists who rely upon the EPA libraries, but

your testimony is relatively silent, or soft-spoken, on what is available today, other than to say broadly that EPA continues to make,

and to provide the full range of library services to EPA staff and

the public.

And that certainly sounds like there has been no change in the

access that the EPA staff has or the public has to EPA’s library

materials. Is that your testimony?

Ms. O’NEILL. Well, let me clarify, that is my testimony, but let

me clarify. I think the services are there. They may be different,

in terms of the libraries where we have closed the walk-in service,

where there was obviously a physical librarian there. And that

service is still there, in terms of being able to have reference checks

and research and obtaining information, they just go through a different mechanism. So, where we don’t have the physical presence

of the library, the EPA staff have a number and a website to go

to, to actually get some services for help, and we have Centers of

Excellence where we have librarians there helping them find information that they need.

AVAILABILITY OF LIBRARY MATERIALS

Chairman MILLER. And is it your testimony that all the same

materials are available that were available before?

65

Ms. O’NEILL. I can’t testify that all the materials, all documents

and materials are there that they were there before, but the key,

unique documents are available to them.

The other thing is that we have arrangements with other libraries, so if they were general documents that we have, in our libraries, we had a lot of general documents, whether they be magazines

or something that can go to a public library, but we have tried to

ensure that they have as much as, there as we possibly can, based

on the need.

Chairman MILLER. There has been considerable testimony, and

I think part of the GAO’s findings, that some materials were just

thrown away. Did you keep a catalog of what was thrown away?

Ms. O’NEILL. It is not, to my knowledge, nothing was thrown

away. There were some things that were outdated, that they went

through, we had guidelines for each, excuse me, for each of the regional office to have, in terms of as they went through the materials in their portfolio of things, if this is a document that is

unique, it needs to be tagged for digitization, and we also need to

make sure it goes, and to see if we have a copy in our central repository.

Where there were journals, where we had other copies in other

locations, they were tagged for recycling. I don’t know of anything

that was actually—or we were, we offered those materials up to

other libraries first.

So, there was a whole process that went through this, in terms

of what to do with the materials that were either duplicative in nature, or that no one wanted, or they weren’t unique to EPA.

Chairman MILLER. Okay. Mr. Orzehoskie, I——

Mr. ORZEHOSKIE. Yes, sir.

Chairman MILLER. Apologize for difficulty——

Mr. ORZEHOSKIE. Everyone in my life has had difficulty with my

name.

Chairman MILLER. Well, that is reassuring. I grew up in the

South, there was not a lot of ethnic diversity. Everyone kind of

came from Northern Europe or from Africa, but had European

names, and had done that a long time ago. And so, I am less familiar than some Members in dealing with ethnic names or not Northern European and Western European names.

If I don’t act as country, it is——

Mr. ORZEHOSKIE. You did very well.

Chairman MILLER.—it is because until recently, I have lived exclusively in North Carolina, and have not had to act Southern, because I simply was Southern. So, I don’t have quite the practice in

acting Southern.

Mr. ORZEHOSKIE. Well, my son lives in Louisiana, so I do, I know

what you are talking about.

MORE ON ACCESS TO EPA LIBRARY SERVICES

Chairman MILLER. You have said that the access to EPA services—or do you agree that access to services and resources have not

really changed since the beginning of Fiscal Year 2007?

Mr. ORZEHOSKIE. Well, I think at Region 5, they have changed

dramatically. Now, I can’t—you know, I don’t use the library in my

current position much as a Union person. I have talked to some

66

Union members that have had difficulty accessing some information, but the library itself is totally gone. I mean, the area where

the library was is an empty room. Even the bookshelves and the

materials are gone, and there is no reference librarian in Region

5 that I know of.

Chairman MILLER. All right.

Mr. ORZEHOSKIE. We were told that we could get some information from Cincinnati if we wanted to, but now, I hear we can go

down to the street to our public library and get it, but I don’t know

how many people will be walking in and out of our offices and

going down to the public library on a regular basis.

Chairman MILLER. You could, however, pick up John Grisham’s

latest there.

Mr. ORZEHOSKIE. Yes.

WHEN DID EPA DEVELOP LIBRARY COMMONALITY

PROCEDURES AND OUTREACH?

Chairman MILLER. Ms. O’Neill, you have just, in your printed

testimony, I think, in the answer to the previous question, you said

that EPA was developing network standard procedures to ensure

commonality, you were hiring highly qualified professional librarians to coordinate the network, that you had increased outreach to

outside parties, and you were conducting a formal needs assessment to plan for your future service.

Did you do all of that before implementing the closures, or is that

something you are doing now?

Ms. O’NEILL. We haven’t started the formal needs assessment.

That is something that we plan on doing very, in the short, in the

near future. It has come out of our working with our Union, excuse

me, with our library network. This is something that our librarians

have mentioned that we need to do collectively, and we are committed to doing that.

So, we have been trying to engage in discussions with our librarians throughout the country, and what, really where we need to go,

and that is one of the suggestions that came out. That is why I was

really glad to hear it in the testimony from two other testimonies

here, because that is on our queue to do.

In terms of reaching out, I can only speak to say that we did do

some outreach, but we have done a lot more in the last year. I can

tell you that.

Chairman MILLER. So, the sense I get from all the other witnesses is that, as you have just said, it really began after EPA had

already implemented the closures and the cutbacks. Would it not

have made sense, a great deal more sense, to do that before implementing the budget reductions and the closings, rather than after?

Ms. O’NEILL. Well, let me just be real clear here, just for the

record. I must say that I started at EPA in January of 2007, so

what I speak about is what I have been told, and what I have read

about. There was outreach before the closures of the libraries, but

I can’t tell you, but since January, there has been additional outreach from the libraries, so I think it has been documented that we

didn’t do any, and I don’t think that that is true. I think that we

did do some outreach to different communities, in terms of getting

some ideas.

67

A lot of the—was mentioned earlier about some of the—we started looking at this, I think, back in 2003, and as part of that, we

did look at other procedures that were out there, from different associations, and we did talk to some of these associations during,

over the course of those years as well.

Chairman MILLER. I assume that all of the other witnesses

would have been the outreachees?

Mr. ORZEHOSKIE. Well, you know, I know they have never

reached out to the Union, and I think my testimony reflects that,

and that we have had to file grievances, and you know, Unfair

Labor Practices, just to get where we are, and even after getting

an Arbitrator to agree to an issue in negotiating with us, they still

haven’t.

Chairman MILLER. Okay. Mr. Stephenson.

Mr. STEPHENSON. Think about what was just said by EPA. They

are in the process of thinking about doing a needs assessment to

determine what their users need right now. Why wouldn’t you do

that first? That is what their own 2003/2004 study recommended.

How can you assess your inventories of materials and decide what

you need and don’t need, and throw anything away or not before

you do that?

And Ms. O’Neill doesn’t know whether they threw out any materials. We don’t know whether they threw out any materials, because they haven’t inventoried their materials to determine what

best to do with them. The whole thing is kind of backwards. We

are closing libraries first, as I said, and now, we are beginning to

do the analysis that should have been done in the first place.

Chairman MILLER. The GAO is generally noted for very temperate, qualified, cautious reports.

Mr. STEPHENSON. Fact-based.

Chairman MILLER. Fact-based. I think if Harry Truman wanted

to find a one-handed economist, he probably would have certainly

wanted to find a one-handed GAO employee, but you seem to be

one-handed on this.

Dr. Grifo, what has been your experience in outreach? I assume

that the Union of Concerned Scientists or your members would

have been one of the important clients, and what contact did you

receive, and what are you receiving now?

Dr. GRIFO. We actually didn’t receive any, prior to our initiation

of contact. I mean, it was only after we generated the phone calls,

and they essentially, you know, called us and begged us to stop, to

make the phone calls stop so they could use that phone line, that

we actually met with them, and began our dialogue. There was

nothing ahead of time.

Chairman MILLER. Okay. Mr. Rettig.

Mr. RETTIG. The closings brought this to ALA and ALA members’

attention, and we have been concerned ever since, and remain concerned. There are many resources for planning digitization projects

right here within the Federal Government. The National Science

Foundation Institute for Museum and Library Services, the National Endowments Humanities have made grants of millions and

millions of dollars over the years to develop the standards for

digitization and digital libraries.

68

Chairman MILLER. And my time has expired. Mr. Hall is recognized for five minutes.

EPA ACTIONS SINCE THE SENATE HEARINGS

Mr. HALL. Well, I don’t—I am not sure I have any questions. I

have been gone, and I don’t know what has been asked. I hate to

be repetitious, but I do know the importance of libraries, and I

know that that there is some problem here, and I am not sure what

the problem is, but I think this is a good place to work it out, and

hammer it out, and find out what has happened, and what ought

to happen, and how you can make that happen. And I presume

that is the Chairman’s intent, is to get to the bottom of it, not to

set blame or punish anyone, but to, how to improve it, and make

something work. Libraries, the Southern Association, when they go

to university, they are the accrediting entity of state colleges and

universities, when they go anywhere to any university to talk

about granting them a doctoral program, the very first place they

go is to the library, and that is how important it is, and that is

how very important probably this hearing is, so I guess the only

way I can be helpful, and there is no one here to be helpful but

me on this side of the docket, so I am about the best we got going

right now.

If libraries have changed over the last 10 or 15 years, that may

ought to be some input. If attendance to their use has dropped in

recent years, maybe that ought to be talked about. If there is any

efforts to engage or not to engage internal APA constituency like

scientists unions or external users, I would, maybe that is important, and maybe this Chairman has gone into all that while I was

not here, but I might ask to Ms. O’Neill, what has EPA done since

last year’s hearing with the Senate to take steps to rectify whatever the problems are, whether you agree they exist or not?

Ms. O’NEILL. Since I think the hearing in SEPW was February

of 2007, I was there, I believe, and I can’t remember if it was before or after that we put the—it was right around the same time,

we put the—there had been a 90-day moratorium put out in December for making any changes to the library. That includes

through any more recycling or taking collections away and things

like that, going through the criteria to do that.

Given where we were, and a lot of the concerns that were out

there, and quite frankly, because we also want to make sure that

we are doing things in a way that makes sense, and in a direction

that is the correct direction, in around February, I don’t know the

exact date, we put another moratorium out indefinitely, and that

has not lifted, so there haven’t been any changes since then.

So, we haven’t had any changes, in terms of reducing hours, or

closing any libraries since late 2006. The only thing that we asked

them to do is just continue to look at those unique documents, so

that when we do do digitization, that we will be ready to do that

for those—in libraries that hadn’t closed. We had already gone

through that for the library closed.

Mr. HALL. Is that for those that the Chairman laid out in his

opening statement? Have you addressed those concerns while I

have been gone?

69

EPA REPORT TO CONGRESS

Ms. O’NEILL. In my testimony, I think I tried to tell what we

were trying—what we were doing. Right now, we are in the process

of finalizing a report to Congress that will put together the plan

for how we are going to reestablish the physical libraries in the regions that have closed, as well as in our headquarters and Chemical Libraries that closed, so we are working very closely with the

regions and headquarters to make sure we do that, in a way that

makes a lot of good sense.

And based on what we have learned over the last year, as well,

and beyond that, we want to make sure that plan addresses the libraries that maybe reduced their hours and made some changes

last year that maybe didn’t close, but that we established some

minimum standards for our entire network.

Mr. HALL. And have you shared that plan with those that are

testifying here?

Ms. O’NEILL. Not yet. The plan is not due until the end of March.

So, it is coming, and we are on schedule to deliver that.

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I guess I would ask unanimous consent for Mr. Sensenbrenner to send whatever questions. He will

read the testimony, and then, he will have some questions. I don’t

really have any further questions for the witness, and I thank you

very much.

Chairman MILLER. Without objection, Mr. Sensenbrenner’s questions will be submitted to all of you to answer.

After—I do disagree with my distinguished colleague about the

purpose of oversight hearings. Sometimes, it is to place blame.

That is one of the things oversight does, is look at what has happened, and when what happened shouldn’t have happened, yes,

place blame, criticize harshly what has happened. If there is no

consequence to bad conduct, it will happen again and again. I know

there are some time, Mark McGwire leaps to mind, who say let us

not dwell on the past. Let us look to the future. But if we don’t look

to the past and place blame, if blame is merited, then it will happen again, without consequence.

I understand that the report will be due at the end of March, and

you all will be given some opportunity to respond before it is produced. It sounds like you are not going to have very long to respond. How long would you expect, Ms. O’Neill, how much time

will the various interested parties, the stakeholders, to use the jargon, have to review the document before it is final?

I believe you just said that it would be, it was due at the end

of March, that is this month, and they hadn’t received it yet. Would

they be given an opportunity to comment before it was released?

Is that right?

Ms. O’NEILL. I would have to check and see what the entire

schedule is, but this is——

Chairman MILLER. I am sorry, what did you say?

Ms. O’NEILL. I am sorry. I would have to check to see what the

schedules, in terms of where we are in our internal review right

now, which is where we are right now. We were planning, I know,

briefing the Union on this. We were waiting for the arbitration

hearing to see how things were done, and to also, what we needed

70

to do, in terms of getting this out. But I have to tell you, I mean,

internally, we have been spending a lot of time trying, within our

own organization, trying to figure out what we can do, in terms of

each of these regional areas.

They are all different, and as many of you mentioned here, Region 5, we have the libraries physically gone. In Region 7 and 6,

we have—so, we have to establish a brand new library, and some

of the other regions, we have to—we have different concerns, and

we have been spending a lot of time with—in the places that we

have closed, to figure out what we can do.

Chairman MILLER. And the report is, the report to Congress is

due at the end of this month, and if you are not talking to the employees of the EPA, if you are not talking to scientists who are the

clients of the libraries, if you are not talking to the librarians, who

are you talking to?

Ms. O’NEILL. We are talking to those people. In fact, we have

been working with our library network. We have been working

with the management. We have internally been working very hard

on this, and we have been briefing, I know we are briefing some

of these organizations, in terms of what the plans are. I am not

sure we have gotten to all of them.

EFFECT OF LIBRARY CLOSINGS ON EPA EMPLOYEES

Chairman MILLER. Mr. Orzehoskie, in my opening statement, I

said that my understanding what was the abrupt closing and boxing up of materials had hobbled EPA’s employees’ ability to do

their job. Could you—and that was based upon what I understood

from your testimony and from others, but could you kind of give

us a sense of the practical effect of the closings and reduced services available from the libraries, the practical effect it has on EPA’s

employees’ ability to do their job?

Mr. ORZEHOSKIE. Well, it has an array of effects, and I am not

the best to be a library expert. I am a Union guy, but I have talked

to some of our people, and we had testimony at our arbitration.

And the main thing, in general, is that there is no place to go,

within EPA Region 5 offices, to get library assistance, okay.

We are told, and I have talked to some people who can get help

through Cincinnati over the telephone, or through the computer

network, to get some research. It takes days, now, so when you are

doing something that is really timely, those delays can be very critical. If you are going to be testifying at an enforcement hearing the

next day or two days later, you may not have time to wait to go

to a remote location and get your information.

I have had people tell me that some of the technical journals that

are not necessarily reproducible, because they are copyrighted, and

some of the technical reference material, individuals have actually

purchased, because they can’t wait for delays, and in some cases,

can’t get it digitized anyway. Those kinds of things.

And if you saw the picture that was up there of all those boxes,

I mean, if you wanted one of the documents in that box, how would

you get it?

Chairman MILLER. How would you know where it was?

Mr. ORZEHOSKIE. Exactly.

Chairman MILLER. Dr. Grifo.

71

PROGRESS REPORT ON DIGITIZATION

Dr. GRIFO. I think it is interesting that, you know, we still

haven’t heard a progress report on the digitization. I mean, we are

talking about, okay, these libraries are gone, they are physically

not there, and we have talked about the kinds of things that are

replacing them, I mean, the desktop libraries, the digitization of

some things, and so on, the interlibrary loan system. But I think

it is important to understand, and this number comes from one of

the EPA’s own documents, that those things, even when that

digitization is complete, even when those documents, those unique

documents, which are really all EPA documents, are made available electronically, that that is really less than one percent of the

holdings of the libraries.

So, I think our concern is with all of these other documents. I

mean, there are, you know, reference materials, copyrighted materials, older journals. I mean, there is a whole long list of things,

particularly, you know, documents produced by contractors, documents produced specifically for guidance, as background for guidance and determinations. I mean, if we think back to the complexity of the mandate of the Environmental Protection Agency, I

may not have the number exactly right, but it is something like,

you know, 14 pieces of legislation that govern this Agency, and

many of those have very specific instructions about best available

science, science-based information, and how is this to happen if

these things, if these very important resources have been essentially in limbo, inaccessible, you know, unreachable, unusable for

now going on, what, 17 months, a very long time? How many decisions have been made in that 17 months without the best available

science there for them to be used?

Chairman MILLER. Thank you. I know the red light has come on,

but Mr. Stephenson, I would like to give you a chance to address

this as well. Your point of view is not that of a stakeholder, but

someone who has, I assume, entered upon the question without

preconception.

Mr. STEPHENSON. Well, in these cases, we rely on others with

their expert opinion, and I think Dr. Grifo mentioned that they did

a survey of EPA’s own scientists, and they admitted that it impaired their ability to do their job. The Federal Arbitrator, when

he rendered his decision, said that was one of the factors in his decision, that EPA’s actions affected the employees’ abilities to do

their jobs. So, you don’t have to believe GAO. We didn’t have to

find anything original.

There is all kinds of evidence out there that, in fact, these documents are in limbo, and—or there is one percent or not. EPA at

this point doesn’t know what it should digitize, and what it should

not digitize. Should it make a PDF file out of it? Should it make

a searchable file out of it? It hasn’t inventoried what it has, and

gone through the process of determining what makes the most

sense for this individual document.

Chairman MILLER. My time has expired. Mr. Hall.

Mr. HALL. Well, I am not here to, as a protector of EPA, nor as

an admirer of EPA. I have, I represent a state that is an energy

state, and we have had a lot of problems with the EPA, and seekVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:40 Sep 28, 2008 Jkt 041131 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\I&O08\031308\41131 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
72

ing answers to them, and when they wouldn’t give us answers, we

have sent up amendments to give them 30 days to say yes or no,

and not caring whether they said yes or no, but to give us an answer we could appeal from.

And that really hasn’t worked too well, so—but I want to be fair

with the lady that is here to offer her knowledge and—of the past,

and what is present, and what they intend to do, and then, I guess

that is the duty of this Chairman, and of those of us who are asking you questions, to lay that out, and to be helpful to you if we

can be, to pull you together, and give us instructions, and if it, your

purposes here to tell us whether we need further legislation, what

to do about the future, and I haven’t heard anybody say, or make

any suggestions on that, but I haven’t been here, so you might

have made your suggestions.

But I have found EPA hard to deal with, and I wouldn’t take an

appointment as the Administrator of EPA if it paid $10 million a

year, because there is no way in the world you can do your job. If

you do what Congress tells you to do, you are going to get sued,

and if you don’t, you are going to get sued. So, it is a tough situation.

I think they could be better in answering and giving definite answers, and not stall anybody that wants to build a $100 million refinery when gas prices are going to $4 a gallon, when they want

an approval of a request for a permit, and just not to act on it, because you can’t appeal on a no action. You have to have either a

turn down or an approval, and we set it up to where if they made,

and I think it is in the Energy Act a year and a half ago, had an

amendment there that said if we made a request, or industry made

a request to build or to upgrade a refinery, that they would have

30 days, EPA would have 30 days to answer that, not caring if they

said yes or no, because you can appeal from what they do. You

can’t appeal from nothing, and somehow, EPA was strong enough

to knock that out, and we didn’t get that in that Act.

But I am not here to uphold EPA, but to be fair with Ms. O’Neill,

and give her a chance to answer any questions that you all have

set up, and Mr. Sensenbrenner will look at the information that

you have, that will go of record. The Chairman will see that all of

your testimony goes into the record, and your presentation that you

read from initially, and he will have some questions.

So, Mr. Chairman, I don’t have anything further to say. I yield

back my time, and I thank you for it.

Chairman MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Hall.

MORE ON EPA’S REPORT TO CONGRESS

Ms. O’Neill, I have a few more questions about the report that

will be due in just a couple weeks, that you spoke about a minute

or two ago. Who precisely is participating in preparing the report?

Ms. O’NEILL. Excuse me. We have been working with our, at

OEI, obviously, we take the lead. Our Office of Environmental Information takes the lead to do the response, so we are working

closely with our library network, as well as, with our network of

libraries for the——

Chairman MILLER. Which—well——

73

Ms. O’NEILL.—as well as the regions and the headquarters and

the Chemical Library that are affected with this.

Chairman MILLER. Well, I think my question what I am trying

to get at is exactly which EPA employees are preparing the report,

doing the work and putting it together?

Ms. O’NEILL. There are people from my staff, and there are, I am

not sure if there are, who is actually writing it beyond that, in

terms of the library network, that they have written parts of, but

a lot of my staff are.

Chairman MILLER. So, it is your office that is preparing it.

Ms. O’NEILL. That is correct.

Chairman MILLER. Okay. And it will be ready in two weeks,

or——

Ms. O’NEILL. Yes.

Chairman MILLER.—17 days, whatever is left.

Ms. O’NEILL. Yes, we will be responsive.

Chairman MILLER. Okay. And to whom are you submitting it for

review before it is released?

Ms. O’NEILL. I believe we are, and I apologize for not knowing

the full process here, this is the first time I have had to do an appropriations response, so I know right now, it is an internal review

with our Office of Financial, or Financial Officer right now, just to

make sure it is an appropriations request, to see if we have fully

answered the request.

Chairman MILLER. What about OMB?

Ms. O’NEILL. I don’t know. I am assuming it is going.

Chairman MILLER. You are assuming?

Ms. O’NEILL. It is going.

Chairman MILLER. That OMB will see it.

Ms. O’NEILL. I don’t know for a fact.

IS EPA BRIEFING STAKEHOLDERS ON THE REPORT?

Chairman MILLER. Okay. A moment ago, Ms. O’Neill said that

stakeholders were being briefed in advance. Is that correct?

Ms. O’NEILL. To my knowledge, I believe we talked about this

yesterday in my, in one of my briefings, that we were going to

reach out to—if we had time, obviously, if we had an opportunity

to reach out to the—if there is a union meeting set up or something

to reach out and talk to the unions, because we talked about, when

the arbitration hearing came down, what we can do, in terms of

telling them what was going to be in the plan.

Beyond that, quite frankly, I will have to get back to you on specifically who else we have reached out to, external to EPA.

Chairman MILLER. Mr. Orzehoskie, have you been briefed, or—

do you know if the AFGE has been briefed or consulted in any

way?

Mr. ORZEHOSKIE. As far as I know, AFGE has not been briefed.

I know I personally have not.

Chairman MILLER. Right.

Mr. ORZEHOSKIE. And I think that is my concern, she said if we

had time. You know, we went to arbitration. We have a Federal Arbitrator say they are supposed to negotiate with us, and she says

if they have time, they might talk to us.

74

Chairman MILLER. And that time would come in the next two

weeks. Ms. O’Neill said if there was a meeting already scheduled

or not. Could you schedule a meeting just for this?

Mr. ORZEHOSKIE. Well, certainly.

Chairman MILLER. All right. I thought you might be able to work

that into your schedule. How about Dr. Grifo, has Union of Concerned Scientists or scientists individually been consulted, briefed,

that you know of?

Dr. GRIFO. Not to my knowledge, but we would be happy to set

up a meeting on a moment’s notice, almost.

Chairman MILLER. All right. Well, it sounds like that is what you

will get.

Dr. GRIFO. That is okay.

Chairman MILLER. You might want to clear your calendar for

March 30 and 31.

Dr. GRIFO. Good enough.

Chairman MILLER. Mr. Rettig, how about you. How about the librarians?

Mr. RETTIG. Well, the ALA Washington office staff would be the

contact for that, and they have not informed me of any such discussions to date.

Chairman MILLER. Would you expect that they would?

Mr. RETTIG. We certainly hope so, and we would be very willing

to enter into dialogue.

Chairman MILLER. Okay. But would you expect that the Washington office would have told you, would have mentioned it to you?

Mr. RETTIG. I don’t know how many times I have spoken with

staff at the Washington office this week. It would have come up

then, I am sure.

Chairman MILLER. Okay. It seems like something might come

up, particularly since you were testifying today. And you might

want to suggest to the librarians that they keep the 30th and 31st

of March free as well for consultation before the report is released.

EFFECT OF LIBRARIAN LOSS ON EPA EMPLOYEES

Mr. Rettig, I know I asked Mr. Orzehoskie and Dr. Grifo about

the—how the day to day work of EPA employees and scientists was

affected by the closing and limiting of the libraries, but how is the

loss of librarians, what role do they play, and how does that affect

employee effectiveness, and the effectiveness for scientists in doing

their research?

Mr. RETTIG. Librarians bring an added value to any organization

that operates on information. Not every scientist can know where

all of the information that might be relevant to his or her work is

available. This is what librarians specialize in. This is what we do.

We help connect people to that relevant information that they can

use. This is not something that one, you know, picks up just even

from day to day experience. It requires education and study, and

we believe that it is essential that if a federal agency is going to

call something a library, that it be managed by librarians.

75

IS EPA REACHING OUT TO COMMUNITIES WITH LIBRARY

CLOSURES?

Chairman MILLER. Okay. Ms. O’Neill, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson was here earlier, but was not able to come back after the moment of silence, but she is particularly interested in Dallas, Texas.

We are all proudly parochial in our jobs in the House. That is our

job. And the regional library there, of course, was closed.

The public, in addition to the EPA employees in that region, relied on that office, as did the public. What are you all doing to

reach out specifically to the people in the regions where the libraries are closed, and most specifically, to Dallas? Or they should be

available on March 30 or 31, for consultation?

Ms. O’NEILL. No. No, we have been working with the regions, as

I mentioned over the past two months, in terms of what the needs

are, in terms of reestablishing the physical presence. Dallas is

not—is one of those regions that we are working with.

Chairman MILLER. Who precisely are you talking about?

Ms. O’NEILL. I would have to get back to you on the exact names,

but I am sure we have been coordinating through the ARA, the Assistant Regional Administrator, and his staff there.

Chairman MILLER. And they have been talking to members of

the public who use that library?

Ms. O’NEILL. I can’t answer that question for the record.

Chairman MILLER. Okay. We are obviously being called to the

Floor for something. Mr. Hall, do you have any questions at this

point?

Mr. HALL. I will ask one question. Ms. O’Neill, is there anything

that we haven’t asked you that you would like for us to ask you,

to where you can give us full information that you have for these

four people that are sitting by you there?

Ms. O’NEILL. Yeah, thank you for the opportunity. Just, you

know, we have talked a little bit about, a little bit, and I recognize

that we don’t have a lot of time here, about the plan that is coming

out to reestablish the physical presence in the actual regions and

headquarters, and the Chemical Library, that have closed. I also

want to just say for the record, one of the things that we are doing,

because we have been listening to people, we have spent a lot of

time in the last year reaching out to people, is that beyond that,

we are actually looking at establishing some minimum standards

for those libraries that have remained open, but to make sure everyone is on the same, and has the same amount of good quality

service, that we have standard hours in place, and things like that.

So, we really have gone out and listened, in terms of some of the

things that people are concerned about. So, the report will also address that as well.

MORE ON THE EPA REPORT TO CONGRESS

Mr. HALL. And is your deadline for support set by someone

above, and within the EPA, or is that Congressional, or who sets

that deadline that you are trying to meet?

Ms. O’NEILL. Yeah, there is a Congressional deadline, actually.

I believe it is the 26th, so the time would be before that, Mr. Chairman, or the 30th or 31st.

76

Mr. HALL. And that is—and you intend to comply with that.

Ms. O’NEILL. We have to comply with that. But we, I will say,

even after the report is written, we do plan on meeting with a lot

of the folks outside to get the details of the plan, to make sure, because some of these, as I have mentioned, each region has a different, is in a different place right now, so we have to really work

through some of the details, in terms of buildouts, what the requirements are going to be for each of these libraries, and things

like that. And we have got to, we have got a very good idea of what

those things are, but we can certainly have some of these other

folks that are interested in working with us identify some of the

details to that, but——

Mr. HALL. Do you seek any of their advice on when you are writing out your report? It would seem like Mr. Rettig would be a great

source for you.

Ms. O’NEILL. Yes, and as I mentioned earlier, we have been very,

very busy internally, making sure that we can meet our commitment, okay, both from a financial standpoint—but one of the things

we don’t want to do, quite frankly, is reestablish these libraries,

and then not have the commitment to make sure that they continue beyond next year. And so, one of the things we have been

really working with is to make sure there is a commitment financially as well, to make sure that we open them, and that they stay

open, meeting the requirements that we are putting in place.

Mr. HALL. And I can’t see Charlie’s last name, but he represents

an awful lot of people that are looking to him to represent them,

and to give them advice, and would he not be a good reference for

you, someone to work with?

Ms. O’NEILL. Yes, he would, sir.

Mr. HALL. I would yield back my time.

REOPENING EPA LIBRARIES

Chairman MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Hall. We do have a few more

minutes, because the vote will be a procedural vote, and it usually

is left open for a while.

Ms. O’Neill, I have a few questions that are not essay questions

or even short answer questions, but really are true/false questions,

or yes or no questions.

Will the EPA reopen the three closed regional libraries this fiscal

year?

Ms. O’NEILL. Yes.

Chairman MILLER. That is your commitment.

Ms. O’NEILL. Yes.

Chairman MILLER. Will you reopen the headquarters library this

fiscal year?

Ms. O’NEILL. Yes.

Chairman MILLER. That is your commitment.

Ms. O’NEILL. Yes.

Chairman MILLER. Will the EPA reopen the Chemical Library

this fiscal year?

Ms. O’NEILL. Yes.

Chairman MILLER. And that is your commitment.

Ms. O’NEILL. Yes.

77

Chairman MILLER. Okay. Mr. Stephenson, again, thank you for

the GAO’s report, for your work on this. It certainly sounds like

there may be the occasion for more work. Will the GAO be ready

to assess what happens from this point forward?

Mr. STEPHENSON. We respond to all requests.

Chairman MILLER. Well, I appreciate that you will respond. I

hope the response will be yes, you will do the report, additional report.

All right. Thank you all for appearing. We do need to go for

votes, and I think that we don’t really have time for closing statements, but I think we have all made our views pretty well known.

So, thank you for appearing, and this may not be the last time.

And under the rules of the Committee, the record will be held

open for two weeks for Members to submit additional statements,

and any additional questions, including from Mr. Sensenbrenner,

that they might have for the witnesses, and I ask now for unanimous consent to enter a packet of materials in the record. Hearing

no objection, the materials will be entered in the record.

And the hearing is now adjourned. Thank you.

[Whereupon, at 11:27 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

(79)

Appendix 1:

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

80

1These figures are based on estimates from EPA. We did not independently determine their

accuracy. Because EPA did not track library funding, each library in the network provided estimates that were based on past spending or enacted funding or both. In addition, libraries also

varied in the type of spending data provided in terms of whether the data included contract

costs, salaries, and acquisitions. 2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, Business Case

for Information Services: EPA’s Regional Libraries and Centers, EPA 260–R–04–001 (January

2004); and Optional Approaches to U.S. EPA Regional Library Support, EPA 260–R–05–002

(June 2005). 3Office of Management and Budget, Guidelines and Discount Rates for Benefit-Cost Analysis

of Federal Programs, OMB Circular A–94 (Washington, D.C., Oct. 29, 1992).

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by John B. Stephenson, Director, Natural Resources and Environment,

Government Accountability Office

Q1. You stated in your testimony that EPA’s justification for reorganizing the library

system was to generate cost savings. How much was needed to operate the library system before this reorganization occurred?

a. Did EPA conduct a cost-benefit analysis to determine whether such reorganization would actually produce cost savings?

b. If not, how could EPA determine it was not setting itself up for greater funding needs through this reorganization?

A1. According to EPA officials, the agency began reorganizing the library network

to create cost savings through a more coordinated library network and more electronic delivery of services. EPA’s 26 libraries within the network are operated by

eight program offices and the regional offices. There is no line item for EPA libraries

included in the President’s budget nor in EPA’s more detailed budget justification

to Congress. Because of this and due to the decentralized nature of the library network, funding for the entire library network was not tracked by EPA. As a result

of our review, however, EPA did provide us with estimated figures on the amount

of spending by each library within the network over a five-year period. Based on

this data, library spending remained relatively stable, ranging from about $7.14 million to $7.85 million between fiscal years 2002 through 2006.1

EPA did not conduct a formal benefit-cost analysis to determine whether the reorganization, as it occurred in fiscal year 2007, would result in cost savings. Beginning

in 2003, EPA began assessing its library network by conducting a business case assessment of its library network and a study of options for future regional library

operations.2 These two studies primarily focused on the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) headquarters library and the regional office libraries and were intended to determine the value of library services and inform management in the regions on their options to support library services beyond fiscal year 2006. However,

EPA did not conduct a formal benefit-cost analysis of various alternatives to reorganizing the entire library network per OMB guidance.3 Such guidance specifies that

agencies should conduct a benefit-cost analysis to support decisions to initiate,

renew, or expand programs or projects, and that in conducting such an analysis,

tangible and intangible benefits and cost should be identified, assessed, and reported. One element of a benefit-cost analysis is an evaluation of alternatives that

would consider different methods of providing services in achieving program objectives.

In determining the $2 million cost reduction for the OEI and regional office libraries as proposed in the President’s fiscal year 2007 budget, EPA did not conduct a

formal cost assessment. According to EPA officials, the $2 million funding reduction

was informally estimated in 2005 with the expectation that EPA would have been

further along in its library reorganization effort. Furthermore, EPA did not comprehensively assess library network spending in advance of the $2 million estimation of budget cuts.

Without conducting a formal benefit-cost assessment, it would have been difficult

for EPA to determine whether the reorganization approach taken would be the most

cost effective and beneficial in the long-term or whether additional funds would be

needed in the short-term to implement the reorganization—such as boxing, shipping, and digitizing library materials.

Q2. When disposing of documents, did EPA violate the Federal Property Management Regulations?

A2. We believe EPA did not follow federal property management statutes and regulations when its libraries transferred property to non-governmental entities; as well

81

4Generally, agencies may not donate property directly to non-profit entities. Instead, such donations must be made to a designated state agency, which then transfers the property to the

non-profit entity. 41 C.F.R. § 102–37.35. 5For example, the Region 5 library transferred materials to BASF Corporation of Wyandotte,

Michigan and to Bear River Associates of Oakland, California. In addition, the Region 6 library

transferred materials such as Preliminary Air Pollution Survey of Chromium and Its Compounds: a Literature Review to Cambridge Environmental of Boston, Massachusetts. 6GAO, Environmental Protection: EPA Needs to Ensure That Best Practices and Procedures

Are Followed When Making Further Changes to Its Library Network, GAO–08–304, at 39 (February 29, 2008).

as when its libraries abandoned or destroyed property without first making a written determination that it had no commercial value.

The management of federal property generally is governed by federal property

management laws, 40 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. By law, ‘‘property’’ means ‘‘any interest

in property,’’ and excludes ‘‘records of the Government.’’ 40 U.S.C. § 102. Under the

Federal Records Act, the term ‘‘records’’ does not include ‘‘library. . .material made

or acquired and preserved solely for reference. . .purposes,’’ 44 U.S.C. § 3301, and

thus disposition of government library reference materials is to be carried out in accordance with the federal property management laws.

Under the federal property management laws and regulations, ‘‘excess property’’

is ‘‘property under the control of a federal agency that the head of the agency determines is not required to meet the agency’s needs or responsibilities.’’ 40 U.S.C.

§ 102(3), 41 C.F.R. § 102–36.40. Generally, federal agencies must promptly report

their excess property to the General Services Administration (GSA), which administers the federal property management system. 40 U.S.C. § 524(a)(3). GSA then

may determine whether the property may still meet the needs and responsibilities

of other federal agencies. 41 C.F.R. § 102–36.35. If the property is not needed within

the Federal Government, GSA then determines the property surplus to the Federal

Government and may direct that the surplus property be donated to eligible entities

or that. it be offered for sale to the public by competitive offerings. Id. However,

federal agencies may take certain actions without first notifying GSA. For example,

agencies may abandon or destroy excess property without first notifying GSA, provided that the agency makes a written determination that the property has no commercial value or the estimated cost of its continued care and handling would exceed

the estimated profits from its sale. 41 C.F.R. § 102–36.305. In lieu of abandonment

or destruction, agencies may donate excess property without first notifying GSA;

however, such donations must be only to a ‘‘public body,’’ such as a State or local

government agency. 41 C.F.R. § 102–36.320. In addition, under some circumstances

federal agencies may transfer excess property directly to another federal agency

without first notifying GSA. 41 C.F.R. § 102–36.145. Although government agencies

may donate property that is ultimately given to non-profit entities, generally GSA

must approve such donations.4 41 C.F.R. § 102–37.120.

Because the EPA materials at issue are library materials acquired for reference

purposes, the materials are not ‘‘records’’ and instead are ‘‘property’’; therefore, the

materials are subject to the provisions of the federal property management statutes

and their implementing regulations.

EPA libraries in Regions 5 and 6 did not follow federal property management

statutes and their implementing regulations when the libraries transferred materials to nongovernmental entities.5 After EPA determined that library materials in

Regions 5 and 6 were not required to meet EPA’s needs or responsibilities, the materials became excess property. EPA could have transferred the excess property directly to another federal agency. Had EPA first made a written determination that

the property lacked commercial value or that the estimated cost of continued care

and handling of the property exceeded the estimated proceeds from sale, EPA could

have abandoned or destroyed the property. In lieu of abandonment or destruction,

EPA could have transferred the excess property to eligible public bodies. Alternatively, EPA could have notified GSA of its excess property and then followed the

applicable GSA regulations for the disposition of such property. As discussed in our

report, however, EPA did not notify GSA of its excess property, made no written

determination that the property lacked commercial value or that the estimated cost

of continued care and handling of the property exceeded the estimated proceeds

from sale, and transferred the property without charge directly to private entities.6

Similarly, EPA did not follow the federal property statutes and their implementing regulations when the OEI headquarters library and the Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances chemical library abandoned or destroyed

property without first making a written determination that it had no commercial

value or that the estimated cost of continued care and handling of the property exceeded the estimated proceeds from sale. In total, the OEI headquarters library

82

7For example, the chemical library abandoned or destroyed Smith, Mark C., Christiani, David

C., and Kelsey, Karl T. Chemical Risk Assessment and Occupational Health: Current Applications, Limitations, and Future Prospects. Westport, Connecticut: Auburn House, 1994. Journal

titles abandoned or destroyed include Journal of Environmental Pathology and Toxicology and

Pesticides Monitoring Journal.

abandoned or destroyed over 800 books and journals and the chemical library abandoned or destroyed over 3,000 books and journals without making a written determination that the property had no commercial value or that the estimated cost of

continued care and handling of the property exceeded the estimated proceeds from

sale.7

83

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Molly A. O’Neill, Assistant Administrator for Environmental Information, The Office of Environmental Information (OEI); Chief Information Officer

(CIO), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Q1. How did EPA evaluate the potential cost savings of its library modernization?

A1. EPA is moving to an expanded reliance on the electronic delivery of library

services, which will provide greater access to information for EPA employees and

the public. This model provides more library materials electronically and on the

EPA Web site thereby increasing accessibility to environmental information and increasing the efficiency by which employees and the public can find and obtain the

materials they need. In addition to improved electronic access, EPA continues to

maintain a strong network of physical libraries to provide another avenue for access

to EPA materials. While EPA did not conduct a formal evaluation of the potential

costs savings, we are confident that the modernization of our overall library network

and the expanding use of electronic delivery of these services will allow for greater

access to information, faster, and at reduced costs.

Q2. How much money did EPA determine it would save by closing and reducing operations at libraries?

A2. While EPA did not conduct a formal evaluation of the potential costs savings,

we are confident that the modernization of our overall library network and the expanding use of electronic delivery of these services will allow for greater and faster

access to information at reduced costs.

Q3. In 2004 EPA conducted a review of the library system and found that it was

cost effective. Given the findings of this report, why would EPA close libraries

because of budget constraints?

A3. The review that EPA conducted in 2004 was not a review of its library system,

but rather a review of the cost-benefit of its library services. The report found that

the services provided by the network libraries were of value to the agency. During

the development of the modernization plan every effort was made to ensure continuity of these valuable services. Furthermore, modernizing the EPA’s library network system will enable EPA to provide library services more efficiently and will

ensure that a high level of service will continue to all users.

Q4. When was the planning for these closings initiated? Was it before or after the

2004 Business Case Report?

A4. Preliminary discussion on the effort to modernize the library network was

begun as early as 2003 and the business case and other studies were conducted as

part of the overall plan for the modernization efforts.

Q5. To what extent did EPA include findings and recommendations from earlier reviews in their decision to close and scale back operations at libraries?

A5. EPA’s commitment to maintaining library services, as opposed to physical library space, was built upon earlier findings, including recommendations from the

Regional Library Network Workgroup.

Q6. Would you characterize this situation as an anomaly for EPA, or is it representative of systematic problems at the agency?

A6. EPA believes that the efforts we have undertaken as part of our overall library

modernization efforts are important ways to ensure that more information about the

environment is accessible to a wider audience for EPA staff, our partners and the

public. However, EPA does recognize that more could have been done to better communicate the details of the plan and its implementation. EPA is working closely

with both internal and external stakeholders to ensure that as we continue to move

forward with making more information available to a broader audience we do so understanding we are meeting their library service needs.

Q7. Please describe the difference between EPA unique documents and non-unique

documents? How does EPA plan on handling each?

A7. EPA unique documents are those documents published by or on behalf of EPA

for which only one copy exists within the EPA National Library Network (Network).

Non-unique EPA documents are those published by or on behalf of EPA for which

multiple copies exist within the Network. Non-EPA documents that are EPA library

holdings are addressed below in the response to Question 10.

84

EPA’s goal is to hold one copy of each of the unique EPA documents in one of

the Agency’s Repositories, and create a second paper copy to be held in archive in

a separate location accessible only to library staff. In addition, the Agency’s goal is

to hold one copy of each of the non-unique EPA documents in the appropriate Agency Repository and a second copy in the archive. Any Network library holding copies

of the non-unique EPA documents will be able to keep them in their collections.

Q8. What is EPA doing with non-unique EPA documents? Are they being donated

or destroyed?

A8. Each library in the Network holding copies of the non-unique EPA documents

will follow best library practices and Agency procedures on the areas of collection

development, library materials dispersal, and repository management in handling

those copies. Such practices would include:

• Sending to one of the designated EPA repositories in RTP, Cincinnati, or

Headquarters, or send to another EPA library in the Library Network.

• Offering parts of collections to other libraries in EPA.

For those documents that EPA decides should be dispersed outside of the Agency,

EPA will choose from the following external dispersion options:

• Offer parts of collections to the Library of Congress.

• Offer parts of collections to other federal, State and local governments for

their libraries.

• Offer parts of collections to local research universities for their libraries.

In addition, EPA will follow federal property management regulations when determining disposition of library materials.

Q9. What percentage of documents at EPA libraries is unique to those libraries?

A9. The percentages vary from a high of around 15 percent for three libraries to

a low of 0.03 percent for five libraries.

Q10. How did EPA intend to handle non-EPA documents that may be under copyright protection? How do you ensure that access to that information does not

change when you are transitioning to a modern database?

A10. EPA recognizes that copyrighted materials cannot be digitized and that not all

such materials are available in digital format. For this reason, EPA will continue

to have physical library collections available to meet the needs of its users.

Q11. Is the Great Lakes Collection referenced by Mr. Orzehoskie in his testimony an

EPA unique document that would be digitized and retained? Is it available

anywhere outside of the EPA library system?

A11. The EPA library system holds a number of EPA publications and other commercially produced materials on the topic of Great Lakes. Many if not most of these

materials are available outside the EPA library system. The unique EPA documents

will be digitized, and hard copies will be retained, as described in the answer to

Question 7.

Q12. What effect did increased security procedures at federal facilities after September 1, 2001 have on the use of EPA libraries?

A12. Most of the EPA libraries have experienced a downward trend in the number

of on-site visitors over the past few years. That trend has continued since September

11, 2001, due, in part, to increased security in federal facilities, as well as the increased availability of information in electronic format.

Q13. Has attendance and use of EPA libraries dropped in recent years? Which regions were affected the most? Was there a difference in the number of requests

placed at those sites, or simply the number of users? How does this influence

staffing and hours of operation?

A13. Overall EPA libraries have seen a reduction in the on-site use of our physical

library space. The libraries in Region 1, Boston, Region 2, New York City, and Region 7, Kansas City were affected the most. It is difficult to analyze the foot traffic

to determine how libraries are being used by the public or EPA employees. For example, libraries expressed that they have seen increased use by external and internal library patrons of e-mail, telephone, and the Internet to request assistance from

the library staff. These popular access venues, coupled with increased security at

federal facilities could explain the reported decrease in walk-ins. The decline in

85

walk-in users led EPA to adjust on-site staffing and hours, and to offer more online services to its internal and external patrons.

Q14. Did any libraries choose to close or limit operations without EPA Headquarters

direction?

A14. For the last few years, Regions have faced significant budget constraints in the

delivery of central support services including libraries. When it appeared that further reductions to the support dollars were likely, they assessed their situation and

made independent decisions as to how to respond.

Q15. What steps did EPA take to comply with the Federal Property Management

Regulations? Did EPA violate that Act?

A15. EPA followed the General Services Administration (GSA) Property Disposition

Guidelines for any furniture or equipment removed from closed libraries.

It is unclear whether library holdings (i.e., books, journals, magazines, newspapers, etc.) are subject to the Federal Property Management Regulations. EPA contacted GSA staff for advice on handling materials in the EPA libraries. GSA recommended that EPA property management officials be consulted. In general the

property management regulations apply to items such as furniture. Whether and

how these standards apply to some resources provided by libraries is a unique problem that continues to be addressed.

Because of this lack of overall guidance for federal libraries, the Library of Congress’ Federal Library and Information Collection Committee (FLICC)/Fedlink is establishing a work group to work with GSA to develop guidelines for federal libraries

in accordance with library best practices and property regulations.

Q16. Is there a universal criterion for document disposition? What types of information will be destroyed? What type of information will be donated?

A16. There is no universal criterion for document disposition in the library profession. Libraries, in general, are organic operations that regularly engage in the process of acquiring and dispersing materials to manage their collections to meet the

needs of their users. The EPA National Library Network is developing dispersal procedures to assist network libraries in managing their on-site collections.

Q17. What is EPA’s timeline for completing the modernization process?

A17. With technology that allows for greater access and use of information evolving

every day, EPA cannot put a specific end date on the continuing modernization of

our library network and the expansion of access to more and more information. EPA

does intend to ensure on-site library services to its Headquarters and Regional facilities by September 30, 2008.

Q18. How long does the typical interlibrary loan process take?

A18. Interlibrary Loan (ILL) requests for materials within the Network are supplied quickly, usually in a matter of a day or two for items that require hard copy

delivery and possibly in the same day if the material is scanned and delivered electronically. Rush requests are expedited and have been filled in as little as one hour.

For example 53 percent of the Region 5 requests were provided the same or next

day with many requests being provided within an hour or two. Also, 87 percent of

the items requested by Region 5 were received within two to five days. Survey results from the lead service centers show a customer satisfaction rate of 95 percent

or higher for turnaround time.

In certain situations the process can take up to ten business days. This could

occur when the materials requested are from libraries outside the EPA Network and

depends on the availability of the requested materials and the response time of the

outside libraries.

Q19. When will digitization be completed? Has EPA consulted with outside groups

on how this process will be carried out?

A19. No further digitization of EPA documents has taken place since January 31,

2007. EPA requested a third party review of its digitization efforts in early 2007.

The resulting documents include a series of recommendations on the digitization

process and on the usability of the user interface. EPA plans to convene a panel

of outside experts to assist the Agency in prioritizing the recommendations made

in the study. Once this occurs, digitization can restart. At that time we can project

a completion date for this effort.

(87)

Appendix 2:

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

181

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

200

201

202

203

204

205

206

207

208

209

210

211

212

213

214

215

216

217

218

219

220

221

222

223

224

225

226

227

228

229

230

231

232

233