S. HRG. 109–288, PT. 2 

Senate Hearings 

Before the Committee on Appropriations 

Department of the Interior 

and Related Agencies 

Appropriations 

Fiscal Year 2006 

109th CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION 

H.R. 2361 

PART 2 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 
Interior Appropriations, 2006 (H.R. 2361)—Part 2 
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) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

35–578 PDF 2007

S. HRG. 109–288, PT. 2 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED 

AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 

2006 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE A

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON

H.R. 2361 

AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES FOR THE FISCAL 

YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2006, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES 

PART 2 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi, Chairman 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama 

JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

LARRY CRAIG, Idaho 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado 

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

TOM HARKIN, Iowa 

BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland 

HARRY REID, Nevada 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

PATTY MURRAY, Washington 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

J. KEITH KENNEDY, Staff Director 

TERRENCE E. SAUVAIN, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES

CONRAD BURNS, Montana Chairman 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire 

LARRY CRAIG, Idaho 

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

HARRY REID, Nevada 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

Professional Staff 

BRUCE EVANS

GINNY JAMES

LEIF FONNESBECK

RYAN THOMAS

REBECCA BENN

PETER KIEFHABER (Minority) 

RACHAEL TAYLOR (Minority) 

Administrative Support 

MICHELE GORDON
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

THURSDAY, MAY 19, 2005 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Page 

Statement of Hon. Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator ....................................... 1 

Mike Ryan, Deputy Chief Financial Officer .......................................................... 1 

Tom Dunn, Deputy Assistant Administrator for the OSRA Program ................. 1 

Rob Brenner, Deputy for the Air Office ................................................................. 1 

Opening Statement of Senator Conrad Burns ...................................................... 1 

Opening Statement of Senator Patrick J. Leahy .................................................. 1 

Opening Statement of Senator Byron L. Dorgan .................................................. 4 

Opening Statement of Senator Wayne Allard ....................................................... 5 

Summary Statement of Hon. Stephen L. Johnson ................................................ 6 

Prepared Statement of Stephen Johnson .............................................................. 8 

Homeland Security .................................................................................................. 9 

Clean Air and Global Change ................................................................................. 9 

Clean and Safe Water ............................................................................................. 10 

Land Preservation and Restoration ....................................................................... 10 

Healthy Communities and Ecosystems .................................................................. 11 

Compliance and Environmental Stewardship ....................................................... 12 

Effective Management ............................................................................................. 12 

(1) 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 

FISCAL YEAR 2006 

THURSDAY, MAY 19, 2005 

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met at 10:09 a.m., in room SD–124, Dirksen 

Senate Office Building, Hon. Conrad Burns (chairman) presiding. 

Present: Senator Burns, Allard, Dorgan, and Leahy. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

STATEMENT OF HON. STEPHEN L. JOHNSON, ADMINISTRATOR 

ACCOMPANIED BY: 

MIKE RYAN, DEPUTY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 

TOM DUNN, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE OSRA 

PROGRAM 

ROB BRENNER, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF AIR AND 

RADIATION 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CONRAD BURNS

Senator BURNS. We’ll call the subcommittee to order this morning. It’s 9:30, the witching hour. Senator Leahy has a previous engagement, a pretty important hearing in judiciary and he’s a valued member of this subcommittee. Senator Leahy thank you for 

coming down; I understand you have some questions you want to 

submit. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATRICK J. LEAHY

Senator LEAHY. I will, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate your 

usual courtesy. Mr. Administrator, I’m glad to see you here. I’ve 

been looking forward to coming today, you’ve probably been looking 

forward to it too. And I appreciate your telephone conversation we 

had a couple of weeks ago. I’m concerned as I told you before about 

the administration’s work on the environment. 

I’m also concerned and express that a number of Senators have 

had trouble getting responses. I do believe that you’re a good nominee, I told the President that and I told you that. That’s why I 

voted that way when we had the issue before us. 

I talked to you before about cleaning up Lake Champlain, which 

I believe is an absolute jewel in this country, one of my top priorities. I hope sometime you may have a chance to come up and see 

what we rightfully call our sixth great lake, but it is the largest 
2 

body of water outside the Great Lakes. You’re welcome to come to 

Vermont anytime. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I would love to take you up on that. 

Senator LEAHY. I’m glad the funding is included in the President’s budget. We have authorized $5 million there; the budget has 

less than $1 million, $956,000. Last year we increased that to $2.5 

million with the help of Chairman Burns and Senator Dorgan. And 

we will work to do it some more. We’ve got to restore the lake. 

I hope the administration will change their attempts, I see it, I 

realize you see it differently, but rolling back the Clean Air Act. I 

think we’ve got to reduce the toxic emissions like mercury, especially those in the East, because of the prevailing winds. And the 

Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) new rule was supposed 

to bring powerplants into the 21st century, and clean up the emissions. I see it as just delaying it for another 10 years. 

I came to the Senate about the time that we passed the Clean 

Air Act, and we had a huge amount of negotiation, Republicans, 

Democrats, got a bipartisan act but with a steady program of clean 

up, and we should not back away from that, because according to 

EPA’s own regulatory impact analysis, we’re going to be lucky if 1 

percent of powerplants can pass their mercury controls by 2015, 

only 3 percent in 2020. 

Pregnant women, women of childbearing age, children can’t wait 

that long. Twelve States, including New Jersey, California, Connecticut, Maine, New Mexico, New York, and Wisconsin decided to 

sue each other over this, it’s not a partisan issue. Republicans and 

Democrats alike have said, you’re own inspector general of the Government Accountability Office criticized how the rule was drafted. 

I think that of the 80,000 public comments of record, of those 

comments 6 were not ignored. And I have a great deal of respect 

for you, but I want you to know I’m very concerned about this rule. 

We will continue to work together. I will submit a number of questions for the record and again, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your 

courtesy letting me go forward. 

Senator BURNS. Thank you, Senator Leahy, and good luck this 

morning on your legislation, because that’s very important to us, 

up in Montana. Today the subcommittee and related agencies will 

conduct what will likely be our final hearing in this fiscal year on 

this 2006 budget, our topic is the Environmental Protection Agency, and with us is the new Director. He’s the newly appointed Administrator, Steven Johnson. I would like to welcome him before 

this subcommittee for the first time I’ve been at the helm anyway. 

So welcome to the friendly confines of this room. Although Mr. 

Johnson’s first hearing here is today, he’s been with the Agency 

about 24 years. So I’m looking forward to his thoughts as he should 

have some. If he hasn’t formed any by now, my description of the 

bureaucracy would hold true. Thank you for being here today. 

Let me begin by saying that the EPA has one of the most important and difficult missions of all the Federal agencies. I know you 

have a big job. EPA’s jurisdiction ranges from the responsibility for 

the clean up of Superfund sites such as Libby and asbestos sites 

in my home State of Montana to funding clean water and drinking 

water infrastructure, to enforcement of a long list of the laws. The 
3 

administration has requested $7.567 billion in total budget authority for fiscal year 2006 for the EPA. 

This is $218 million below the fiscal year 2005 request and $453 

million below the fiscal year 2005 enacted level. The 6-percent reduction in the EPA budget really concerns me. EPA has only been 

under the jurisdiction of this subcommittee a few months, but the 

enormity of clean water and drinking water infrastructure needs 

across this country has really left an impression on me. 

While the administration has requested level funding of $850 

million for drinking water SRF of the revolving fund it has recommended a large reduction in State revolving loans. The administration is requesting $730 million for the clean water SRF which 

is $371 million below the fiscal year 2005 enacted level. The $730 

million for clean water SRF is simply not enough. 

EPA’s clean water and drinking infrastructure gap analysis published in 2002 indicates that a substantial gap in funding could develop if the country’s clean water and drinking water systems 

maintain the current spending levels. That analysis estimates that 

the United States will need to spend $540 billion, that’s with a ‘‘b’’, 

$540 billion in the next 20 years just to stay abreast of the problem. 

I’m not certain yet what our subcommittee allocation will allow 

us to do, but I intend to try to fund both the State revolving loan 

funds, to close the fiscal year 2005 level as close to the 2005 level 

as I can possibly get it. EPA also faces significant challenges in 

cleaning up the 1,244 Superfund sites. On the national priorities 

list (NPL) and 64 sites proposed to make the NPL, the administration is requesting $1.279 billion for the Superfund program which 

is $31 million above fiscal year 2005. 

There’s no question that the Superfund program could use increased funding to clean up sites currently on the NPL and those 

waiting to make that list. For example, the Libby asbestos site was 

added to the national priorities list in 2002. Mr. Johnson, you’re 

appearance here is especially timely for me and the residents of 

Libby, given the continued work on asbestos legislation where Senator Leahy was in route. That legislation is now pending in the 

Senate Judiciary Committee. I worked hard to make the Judiciary 

Committee aware of our situation in Libby, Montana; it is a site 

unto itself. Further I strongly encourage the EPA to budget the 

highest level of funding for that site. Folks in Libby have suffered 

greatly and I would like to see something more happen up there 

and to speed up the clean up in that area. 

It seems unlikely, because of severe budget restraints, that this 

subcommittee can allocate the total amount of money necessary to 

the Superfund accounts to address all sights on the MPL and those 

waiting to make the list. As an alternative, Mr. Administrator, I 

would hope that every effort will help to allocate resources within 

the Superfund program with the goal of both diminishing the immediate health risk to the communities surrounding these sites 

and completing the construction as swiftly as possible. 

There are many other issues that I could raise at this point ranging from the clean air mercury rule and the clean air interstate 

rule to one of the administration’s new initiatives, methane to mar-
4 

kets. But I’ll save my comments when we start asking the questions. 

I would also like to thank you for being with us today. I look forward to working with you and the many challenges that we face, 

we hope we will face it together. This Agency has a tremendous responsibility; we’re a little conflicted this morning as we’re marking 

up the electric title and the energy bill. Senator Dorgan and I are 

both members of this committee. I’m going to send him up there 

to take care of my interests. Isn’t that right? 

Senator DORGAN. I wouldn’t sit really easy if I were you. 

Senator BURNS. Senator Dorgan, the ranking member on this 

subcommittee, a valued member of it. If you have an opening statement you may proceed. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BYRON L. DORGAN

Senator DORGAN. We do have a mark up of the energy bill at 

9:30. We’re doing the electric title. I’m going to be going up there 

as well. But, we do have similar interests with respect to energy 

issues and also EPA issues. And I support the concern of the chairman, expressed in his comments about the 33-percent cut in the 

clean water State revolving fund. I mean, that’s what, as you know, 

helps our communities in their water treatment problems. The 

chairman indicated that the gap analysis done by the EPA suggests 

that the future needs for sewage treatment facilities are in the 

hundreds of billions of dollars. So, that’s just the start of the difficulties we face Mr. Johnson. 

Mr. Johnson, welcome to you and congratulations on a long and 

distinguished career and now on the nomination and the new role 

that you play. You and I have had experience before at hearings. 

And I don’t know how you view that experience, but I know that 

we’ve—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Good experience. 

Senator DORGAN. We’ve had some testy exchange from time to 

time. I wanted to say this, the chairman and I share the issue that 

brought you to Capitol Hill previously some years ago, that is the 

issue of chemical harmonization with Canada. 

A trade agreement which is typical of trade agreements, they 

promised the Moon on chemical harmonization with Canada and 

not really much has been done. And you and I have had hearings 

about that. You’ve testified and I know that you made some efforts, 

but I should say to—both in Montana and North Dakota all across 

the northern tier, farmers sit on the south side of that border and 

they have exactly the same chemicals they have on the north side; 

one difference, it’s a significantly higher price. Yet they are not 

able to bring those chemicals from Canada, essentially the identical 

chemical across and put it on their crops, but the Canadians can 

put it on their crops and send their crops across. We’re really out 

of patients. 

It’s your bad luck that both the chairman and I are on this appropriations subcommittee because we can probably do a little dealing with this issue. My hope is that we can work—in some ways 

it’s an appropriations issue, because it costs money to do what you 

need to do to actually make the committee to get harmonization. 

It’s a promise that was made long ago and has not been kept. 
5 

Speaking for myself and I hope perhaps the chairman, we can 

press EPA and work with you on this, and get an outcome that I 

think was contemplated and promised when NAFTA was passed so 

many years ago and an outcome that American consumers and 

farmers expect as well. Having said all that, Mr. Johnson as I said 

before, I admire your career. I think you’re candid and straightforward. I’m interested in working with you, you inherit the budget 

recommendations sent to us by this President. I understand that, 

I have no idea what recommendations you would have offered had 

they been your recommendations, but you’re here to defend the 

President’s recommendations, no matter how hard the grilling 

you’re not going to deviate for that message. 

The chairman has spoken for me and many on this subcommittee 

when saying, a 33-percent cut in the clean water State revolving 

fund is hardly an approach to dealing with clean water issues. It’s 

the wrong way and we’re going to have to work through this and 

we’re going to need your help when the lights are turned off and 

we can have some back and forth about how we actually prioritize 

and do what’s necessary. So, Mr. Johnson, thank you for being here 

and welcome to this new role. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator BURNS. Thank you, Senator, we’ve been joined by Senator Allard of Colorado. It’s your turn. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD

Senator ALLARD. Thank you for holding this hearing today and 

as you were all aware of, the EPA oversees a bulk of environmental 

regulations and requirements. And these regulations can be far 

reaching and have an unattended disproportionate effect on small 

communities. 

I think that this fact is very important that Congress—for this 

fact, I think it’s important that we exercise some oversight of the 

Agency and its funding. One of the prime examples, Mr. Chairman, 

of the impact that EPA regulations can have on small communities, 

the arsenic regulations that will soon be taking effect. 

EPA’s own website acknowledged the following and that is that 

arsenic occurs naturally in rocks and soil, water, air, plants, and 

animals. These are all natural and volcanic activity, the erosion of 

rocks and minerals and forest fires are all natural resources that 

can release arsenic in the environment. 

Yet the new requirements set by EPA, the small mountain communities are being forced to spend huge amounts of money to upgrade or replace their water treatment systems. Often the amount 

that they must spend exceeds or is greater than the towns entire 

operating budget. 

I recognize that EPA regulates some nasty and sometimes deadly 

substances, but many small communities have had to spend hundreds they simply do not have to remove naturally occurring substances. The cost-benefit analysis of regulation should be given 

more weight in situations like this in my view. 

There’s been a dramatic change in the arsenic content from 50 

parts per billion now moving down to 5 parts per billion. And all 

these factors have come together and I can think of one particular 

community that is very poor, in the State of Colorado, there is a 
6 

college there, a small college. And all these factors come together. 

And for them to try and meet these regulations, it’s just very, very, 

difficult. 

So, we get around to enforcement. It seems you’re always willing 

to enforce, but when there’s an opportunity to try to help the community, environmental wants to pass that down to the State and 

say that’s the State’s responsibility to help out. There is something 

that’s been created by the Environmental Protection Agency and I 

think unreasonably low standard here, and whether there’s not 

particularly any health effects, that’s been documented scientifically. 

Now these—it’s creating a burden on some of these mountain 

communities, particularly the one that I’m thinking of. I’m also a 

little concerned that what I see is the climate, on the climate within the EPA is that, you know, I’ve received this communication 

from constituents, you’re not as interested in assisting communities 

as you are in just complying with EPA regulations. 

My hope is that you can step forward and be a little more helpful 

in trying to get these communities to deal with these frustrating 

issues. You know, industry or anybody hasn’t really caused this; 

this is just naturally occurring arsenic levels in this one particular 

town in particular. 

So I look forward to working with the Administrator and my colleagues to see that you’re able, meaning the EPA, is able to reasonably carry out their mission in working with the subcommittee to 

ensure that activities at the Environmental Protection Agency are 

funded in a manner that is responsible and sufficient. Thank you, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BURNS. Thank you, Senator. Director Johnson, it’s your 

turn. 

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. STEPHEN L. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, sir, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BURNS. We look forward to hearing from you. Welcome 

to the subcommittee. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I’m 

pleased to be here to discuss President Bush’s fiscal year 2006 request for the Environmental Protection Agency. I do look forward 

to working with the staff of the Subcommittee on the Interior and 

Related Agencies under which EPA has recently been placed. 

As the chairman noted earlier, this is my first time appearing before you as the Administrator of EPA and I am happy to be here. 

Mr. Chairman, I ask that my written testimony be made part of 

the record. 

Senator BURNS. It will be. 

Mr. JOHNSON. As you know, EPA is a regulatory agency who’s 

mission is to protect human health and the environment. We carry 

out this mission by developing and enforcing regulations that implement environmental laws enacted by Congress. The Agency also 

works at laboratories around the Nation to assess environmental 

conditions and to identify, understand, and solve current and future environmental problems. 

The President’ fiscal year 2006 request of $7.6 billion supports 

the work of the EPA and our partners across the Nation. In his 
7 

February 2 State of the Union Address, the President underscored 

the need to restrain spending. In order to sustain our economic 

prosperity as part of this restraint it’s important that total discretionary and nonsecurity spending be held to levels proposed in the 

fiscal year 2006 budget. The budget savings and reforms in the 

budget are important components of achieving the President’s goal 

of cutting the budget deficit by half by 2009. And we urge the Congress to support these reforms. 

The fiscal year 2006 budget even includes more than 150 reductions, reforms, and terminations in nondefense discretionary programs of which two affect EPA programs. The Agency wants to 

work with Congress to achieve these savings. 

As we present the President’s 2006 budget, I’m certain it will 

allow us to increase the pace of protecting environmental health 

and improvement. I would like to continue by emphasizing that the 

Agency is committed to building on four cornerstones: new technologies, market incentive, collaborative efforts, and a focus on results to achieve greater gains in environmental protection. 

This budget engages a full range of partners, not just Federal, 

State, tribal, and local, but also businesses, interest groups, and 

educational institutions. 

To help leverage our Federal money, in fact through collaborative 

networks and partnerships to foster healthy communities, we will 

be able to leverage billions of additional dollars—I will highlight 

just a few of the programs that illustrate the strong commitment 

to a cleaner healthier America. 

Clean fuels and clean technologies are also an integral part of reducing emissions from mobile resources. The fiscal year 2006 President’s budget provides $15 million for the clean diesel initiative. 

EPA and a coalition of clean diesel interests will work together 

to expand the retrofitting of diesel engines into new sectors. President Bush is also requesting $210 million in 2006 for the 

Brownfield’s program, an increase of $46.9 billion over the enacted 

2005 funding. 

EPA is working with the State, tribe, and local partners to meet 

the objective to clean up and restore contaminated properties and 

abandoned sites. Together with the extension of the Brownfield’s 

tax credit, the EPA expects to achieve the following in 2006: Assess 

1,000 Brownfield properties, clean up 60 properties using 

Brownfields funding, leverage resources to yield $1 billion, create 

5,000 jobs, train 200 participants, placing 65 percent in jobs related 

to Brownfield efforts. 

The 2005 budget increases support to $73 million for the Great 

Lakes programs and regional collaboration. That amount includes 

$50 million for the Great Lakes Legacy Act program to remediate 

contaminated sediment in areas of concern such as the Black Lagoon and Detroit River. Removing contamination and providing a 

natural process for keeping it healthy means that every drop of 

water flowing to the lagoon will be cleaner. 

As part of the core program to improve water quality the EPA 

will continue to provide significant annual capitalization to the 

clean water State revolving funds. During fiscal year 2006, EPA 

and the States community water systems will build on past successes while working toward the fiscal year 2008 goal of assuring 
8 

that 95 percent of the population served by community water systems receiving drinking water that meets all applicable standards. 

To help ensure that the water is safe to drink, the 2006 President’s budget requests $850 million—$7.6 billion also effects a 

strong commitment to safeguard human health and the environment with funds to insure that EPA’s critical role in homeland security is made a top priority. 

EPA’s request includes $79 million in new resources for homeland security efforts. $44 million will launch in selected cities as 

pilot programs of monitoring and surveillance to provide early 

warning of contamination. Environmental decontamination research and preparedness increases by $19.4 million with $4 million 

being requested for the safe buildings research program. Over 

$11.6 million in new resource will support preparedness and response-related activities at State and EPA environmental laboratories. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

In summary, this budget will enable us to carry out our goals 

and objectives as set forth in our strategic plan, help us meet new 

challenges, move forward EPA’s core programs as reflected in the 

Nation’s environmental statutes, protect our homeland, and identify new and better ways to carry out EPA’s mission while maintaining our national competitiveness. 

That concludes my statement. I will be pleased to answer any 

questions you and the others may have involving EPA’s work and 

our 2006 budget request. 

Senator BURNS. We thank you for your testimony and your full 

statement will be made part of the record. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEPHEN JOHNSON

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am pleased to be here to discuss 

the fiscal year 2006 budget request for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

and I look forward to working with the members and staff of the Subcommittee on 

Interior and Related Agencies under which EPA has recently been placed. This is 

my first time appearing before you as the Administrator of EPA and I am happy 

to be here. 

EPA is a regulatory agency whose mission is to protect human health and the environment. We carry out this mission by developing and enforcing regulations that 

implement environmental laws enacted by Congress. In addition, the Agency works 

at laboratories throughout the nation to assess environmental conditions and to 

identify, understand, and solve current and future environmental problems. 

The President’s fiscal year 2006 budget request of $7.6 billion reflects a strong 

commitment to protect health and safeguard the environment. This includes moving 

forward EPA’s core programs as reflected in the nation’s environmental statutes. 

This request will also ensure that EPA’s critical role in homeland security is made 

a top priority. 

In his February 2 State of the Union Address, the President underscored the need 

to restrain spending in order to sustain our economic prosperity. As part of this restraint, it is important that total discretionary and non-security spending be held 

to levels proposed in the fiscal year 2006 Budget. The budget savings and reforms 

in the Budget are important components of achieving the President’s goal of cutting 

the budget deficit in half by 2009 and we urge the Congress to support these reforms. The fiscal year 2006 Budget includes more than 150 reductions, reforms, and 

terminations in non-defense discretionary programs, of which four affect EPA. The 

Agency wants to work with the Congress to achieve these savings. 

Mr. Chairman, the Agency has accomplished a great deal. We have cleaned the 

water, improved our air and protected and restored our lands. While the nation’s 
9 

environmental well being has shown a steady improvement, there is more to do. 

Much of what remains is enormously complex and more expensive. 

Bringing a healthy environment to our communities is a responsibility we all 

share. Engaging the full range of partners—not just federal, state, tribal, and local 

but also businesses, interest groups, international and regional authorities and educational institutions—leverages our federal monies through collaboration. New 

science, innovation and technology development, regulation, and market-based solutions that support these efforts are all a part of this budget request. 

This budget, Mr. Chairman, will enable us to carry out our goals and objectives 

as set forth in our Strategic Plan and help us to meet our challenges. It supports 

the Administration’s commitment to environmental results by identifying new and 

better ways to carry out EPA’s mission while protecting our national competitiveness. 

HOMELAND SECURITY

Three years ago we took on significant new responsibilities in homeland security 

work that was necessary to protect human health and the environment from intentional harm. In fiscal year 2006 we are taking another big step towards filling the 

gaps we’ve identified. EPA’s request includes $79 million in new resources for critical homeland security efforts. EPA plays a lead role for addressing the decontamination of deadly chemical, biological and radiological contaminants. The nation 

must have the tools and procedures in place to respond effectively and swiftly after 

a terrorist event. 

One of our most important homeland security responsibilities is to protect our 

drinking water supply. $44 million will launch pilot programs in cities of various 

sizes to explore technology and systems that detect contamination before it causes 

large scale harm. The program includes resources to create the Water Alliance for 

Threat Reduction to train and prepare the operators of our nation’s largest drinking 

water systems. 

Response to terrorist events may call for decontamination from many new hazards. Environmental decontamination research and preparedness increases by $19.4 

million, and an additional $4 million is requested for the Safe Buildings research 

program. Over $11 million in new resources will support preparedness in our environmental laboratories. Working with federal partners in Homeland Security, EPA 

will plan for certain fundamental laboratory network needs, such as appropriate 

connectivity between member labs and standardized methods and measurements for 

environmental samples of terrorism-related agents of concern. Resources also support training and continuing education for member laboratories, as well as accreditation and accountability. 

CLEAN AIR AND GLOBAL CHANGE

The fiscal year 2006 President’s Budget requests $969 million to implement EPA’s 

Clean Air and Global Climate Change goal through national programs designed to 

provide healthier outdoor and indoor air for all Americans, protect the stratospheric 

ozone layer, minimize the risks from radiation releases, reduce greenhouse gas intensity, and enhance science and research. EPA’s key clean air programs—particulate matter, ozone, acid rain, air toxics, indoor air, radiation and stratospheric ozone 

depletion—address some of the highest health and environmental risks faced by the 

Agency. Also in this area, I look forward to working with you Mr. Chairman, in 

passing Clear Skies legislation. 

Clean fuels and clean technologies are also an integral part of reducing emissions 

from mobile sources. The fiscal year 2006 President’s Budget provides $15 million 

for the Clean Diesel Initiative. EPA and a coalition of clean diesel interests will 

work together to expand the retrofitting of diesel engines into new sectors by adopting a risk-based strategy, targeting key places and working with specific use sectors 

to identify opportunities to accelerate the adoption of cleaner technologies and fuels. 

The $15 million proposed for this program will be leveraged significantly by working 

with our partners. Reducing the level of sulfur in the fuel used by existing diesel 

engines will provide additional immediate public health benefits by reducing particulate matter from these engines. 

EPA’s Climate Protection Programs will continue to contribute to the President’s 

18 percent greenhouse gas intensity reduction goal by 2012. In addition, the fiscal 

year 2006 President’s Budget requests $4 million for EPA to implement the Methane to Markets Partnership, an important U.S.-led international initiative and Administration priority that promotes cost-effective, near-term recovery and use of 

methane—a very powerful greenhouse gas—as a clean energy source. Methane to 

Markets builds on the success of our domestic methane programs with U.S. indus-
10 

try, and is designed to assist other countries in achieving significant reductions in 

the same way: voluntarily, cost-effectively, in partnership with the private sector, 

and in a manner than supports development, economic growth, energy security and 

the environment. To date, 16 countries from the developed and developing world 

and over 90 organizations from the private and public sectors have made a commitment to this Partnership. The countries include: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Colombia, India, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Nigeria, Russia, South Korea, 

Ukraine, the United Kingdom and the United States. The requested funding is part 

of the President’s pledge of up to $53 million over the next five years. These resources will be used for Ministerial activities and to promote technology transfer 

and provide technical assistance. Private sector investment and involvement is an 

important part of Methane to Markets and is critical to the success of the partnership. Funding the President’s request for the Methane to Markets Partnership will 

send a clear signal to the world that the United States is committed to the success 

of voluntary, technology-driven programs to address the challenge of climate change. 

CLEAN AND SAFE WATER

In fiscal year 2006, the budget requests $2.8 billion to implement the Clean and 

Safe Water goal through programs designed to provide improvements in the quality 

of surface waters and drinking water. In fiscal year 2006, EPA will work with states 

and tribes to continue to accomplish measurable improvements in the safety of the 

nation’s drinking water, and in the conditions of rivers, lakes, and coastal waters. 

With the help of these partners, EPA expects to make significant progress in these 

areas, as well as support a few more focused water initiatives. 

In fiscal year 2006, EPA will work with States to make continued progress toward 

the clean water goals through implementation of core clean water programs and acceleration of efforts to improve water quality on a watershed basis. Efforts include 

innovative programs spanning entire watersheds. To protect and improve water 

quality, a top priority is to continue to support water quality monitoring to strengthen water quality data and increase the number of water bodies assessed. The Agency’s request includes $24 million to build on the monitoring initiative begun in fiscal 

year 2005 by establishing a nationwide monitoring network and expanding the baseline water quality assessment to include lakes and streams. The initiative will allow 

EPA to establish scientifically defensible water quality data and information essential for cleaning up and protecting the Nation’s waters. The funding provides additional resources to states in order for them to contribute to the development of this 

baseline of water conditions across our country. 

To support sustainable wastewater infrastructure, EPA will continue to provide 

significant annual capitalization to the Clean Water State Revolving Funds 

(CWSRF). The budget provides $730 million for the CWSRF, which will allow EPA 

to meet the Administration’s Federal capitalization target of $6.8 billion total for 

2004–2011 and enable the CWSRF to eventually revolve at a level of $3.4 billion. 

During fiscal year 2006, EPA, the states, and community water systems will build 

on past successes while working toward the fiscal year 2008 goal of assuring that 

95 percent of the population served by community water systems receives drinking 

water that meets all applicable standards. To help ensure that water is safe to 

drink, the fiscal year 2006 President’s Budget requests $850 million for the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund. 

LAND PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION

$1.7 billion of the fiscal year 2006 President’s Budget will help to implement the 

Land Preservation and Restoration goal through continued promotion of the Land 

Revitalization Initiative, first established in 2003. Revitalized land can be used in 

many beneficial ways, including the creation of public parks, the restoration of ecological systems, the establishment of multi-purpose developments, and the establishment of new businesses. Regardless of whether a property is an abandoned industrial facility, a waste disposal area, a former gas station, or a Superfund site, this 

initiative helps to ensure that reuse considerations are fully integrated into all EPA 

cleanup decisions and programs. Through the One Clean-up Program, the Agency 

will also work with its partners and stakeholders to enhance coordination, planning 

and communication across the full range of Federal, State, Tribal and local cleanup programs to promote consistency and enhanced effectiveness at site cleanups. 

The fiscal year 2006 President’s Budget funds the Superfund Appropriation at 

$1.3 billion. Within this total, the Superfund Remedial Program provides significant 

resources in EPA’s effort to preserve and restore land to productive use. In fiscal 

year 2006, the Superfund Remedial Program will continue its clean-up and response 

work to achieve risk reduction, construction completion and restoration of contami-
11 

nated sites to productive use. In fiscal year 2006, the Remedial Program anticipates 

completing construction of remedies at 40 Superfund sites. 

Enforcement programs are also critical to the agency’s ability to clean up the vast 

majority of the nation’s worst hazardous sites by securing funding from Potentially 

Responsible Parties (PRPs). The Agency will continue to encourage the establishment and use of Special Accounts within the Superfund Trust Fund to finance 

cleanups. These accounts segregate site-specific funds obtained from responsible 

parties that complete settlement agreements with EPA and total a cumulative $1.5 

billion. These funds can create an incentive for other PRPs to perform work they 

might not be willing to perform or used by the Agency to fund clean up. As a result, 

is the Agency can clean up more sites and preserve appropriated Trust Fund dollars 

for sites without viable PRPs. 

HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS

The fiscal year 2006 President’s Budget requests $1.3 billion to implement national multi-media, multi-stakeholder efforts needed to sustain and restore healthy 

communities and ecosystems, which are impacted by the full range of air, water and 

land issues. Programs such as Brownfields, the Great Lakes collaboration and the 

targeted watersheds work must reflect local priorities and local stakeholder involvement to be effective. 

Proper use and careful selection of chemicals and pesticides influence air quality, 

clean water and the health of the land. Carefully targeted research is necessary to 

keep the Agency at the forefront of the science that will point to tomorrow’s concerns as well as tomorrow’s solutions. 

Fiscal year 2006 will be a key year for the chemicals and pesticides programs. The 

High Volume Production chemicals program will move from data collection to firsttime screening for possible risks. Many of these chemicals entered the marketplace 

before the Toxics Substances Control Act was passed and EPA’s screening process 

was put in place. Fiscal year 2006 also marks the final milestone in the ten-year 

pesticide tolerance reassessment program, which ensures older food-use pesticides 

meet the latest scientific standards for safety. 

The Brownfields program is a top environmental priority for the Administration. 

EPA is working with its state, Tribal and local partners to meet its objective to sustain, cleanup and restore contaminated properties and abandoned sites. Together 

with the extension of the Brownfields tax credit, EPA expects to achieve the following in fiscal year 2006: assess 1,000 Brownfields properties; clean up 60 properties using Brownfields funding; leverage resources to yield $1 billion in cleanup 

and redevelopment funding and 5,000 jobs; and train 200 participants, placing 65 

percent in jobs related to the Brownfields efforts. 

There is great population and industrial pressure on the areas surrounding our 

large water bodies—the Great Lakes, the Chesapeake Bay, the Gulf of Mexico, and 

our wetlands in general. EPA has established special programs to protect and restore these unique resources by addressing the vulnerabilities of each. 

The Great Lakes program will build on collaborative networks to remedy pollution, with a budget proposal to increase funding for the Great Lakes Legacy program to $50 million in order to remediate sediment that was contaminated by improperly managed old industrial chemicals. Chesapeake Bay resources in this budget total over $20 million. EPA’s work in the Chesapeake Bay is based on a regional 

partnership whose members have committed to specific actions aimed at reducing 

both nutrient and sediment pollution. Wetlands and estuaries are increasingly 

stressed as costal population density grows. The fiscal year 2006 budget provides 

over $40 million for our work to protect these ecosystems. Again, effective collaboration is key to protecting these primary habitats for fish, waterfowl and wildlife. Our 

work with the Corps of Engineers will be instrumental in protecting these valuable 

natural resources. 

Toxic chemicals reduction is also the emphasis of Community Action for a Renewed Environment projects. The requested increase of $7 million will offer many 

more communities the opportunity to improve their environment through voluntary 

action. EPA expects to establish 80 CARE programs across the nation in fiscal year 

2006, building on experience gained from 10 projects started in 2005. 

In the research area, over $5 million is requested for the Advanced Monitoring 

Initiative. This initiative will combine information technology with remote sensing 

capabilities, to allow faster, more efficient response to changing environmental conditions such as forest fires or storm events, as well as current ecosystems stressors 

in sensitive areas such as the Great Lakes or the Everglades. EPA also continues 

to make progress in the area of computational toxicology. In fiscal year 2006, the 

program expects to deliver the first alternative assay for animal testing of environ-
12 

mental toxicants, a major milestone toward the long-term goal of reducing the need 

for animal testing. Other major research efforts include human health risk assessments, which will inform agency regulatory and policy decisions, and research for 

ecosystems, which will emphasize evaluating the effectiveness of restoration options. 

The President’s Budget also includes $23 million for a new competitive State and 

Tribal Performance Fund. The Performance Grant Fund will support projects that 

include tangible, performance-based environmental and health outcomes—and that 

can serve as measurement and results-oriented models for implementation across 

the nation. 

COMPLIANCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP

The fiscal year 2006 President’s Budget requests $761 million to implement national programs to promote and enforce compliance with our environmental laws, 

and to foster pollution prevention and tribal stewardship. The Agency will employ 

a mixture of effective inspection, enforcement and compliance assistance strategies. 

Also within this goal, EPA will protect human health and the environment by encouraging innovation and providing incentives for governments, businesses, and the 

public to promote environmental stewardship. In addition, EPA will assist Federally 

recognized Tribes in assessing environmental conditions in Indian Country, and will 

help build their capacity to implement environmental programs. 

The Agency’s enforcement program works with states, tribes, local governments 

and other federal agencies to identify the most significant risks to human health 

and the environment, address patterns of non-compliance and work to ensure communities or neighborhoods are not disproportionately exposed to pollutants. This 

flexible, strategic use of EPA’s and our state and tribal partners’ resources brought 

over 1 billion pounds of pollution reduction in fiscal year 2004, and helps to ensure 

consistent and fair enforcement. 

EPA also strives to foster a culture of creative environmental problem-solving, not 

only with our state, tribal and federal partners but also with industry, universities 

and others. The result is a high capacity for implementing collaborative results-driven innovations and the organizational systems to support them. The President’s 

Budget supports pollution prevention and other efforts to improve environmental 

performance, looking at the full range of possible interventions that would reduce 

waste created, reduce highly toxic materials in use, and reduce the energy or water 

resources used. These changes also make good business sense, often improving ‘‘the 

bottom line’’ for participating companies. 

Agency resources for tribal programs support their environmental stewardship 

through a variety of means in every major program: air, water, land and others. In 

the Compliance and Environmental Stewardship goal, General Assistance Grants 

develop tribal capacity to implement environmental programs in Indian Country in 

line with local priorities. In fiscal year 2006, EPA will support approximately 510 

federally recognized tribes through these grants. 

EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT

Throughout its operations, EPA is working to maximize effectiveness and efficiency, implementing new information technology solutions and streamlining operations. The research and development areas, for example, will see changes geared 

toward maximizing the effectiveness and relevance of applied research throughout 

the Agency. Continuing to improve internal controls and accountability is another 

priority. Fiscal year 2006 marks the next phase in our financial systems replacement which will enhance our internal systems. For our work with external partners, 

the Exchange Network and the Integrated Portal will provide the foundation for 

states, Tribes, the public, regulated community and EPA to increase data availability, collect better data and enhance the security of sensitive data. 

Finally, EPA is making our grant programs work better. We are using new tools 

to help us achieve our goals: increasing competition for discretionary grant awards, 

making grants more outcome-oriented to meet Agency performance goals, strengthening oversight and accountability and providing more transparency to promote an 

open process. 

Senator BURNS. We might as well start off with the revolving 

fund as you know, it’s funded right now around $850 million, and 

we were $1.1 billion, I think, last year. And the fund continues to 

be one of the most sought after ways of financing water systems 

across America. 
13 

I would have to ask you right now what this suggested cut from 

the administration, how they justify reducing that funding and that 

re-revolving fund in the face of the request and the demand for the 

dollars at this time? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, Mr. Chairman, we certainly agree that our 

water infrastructure is indeed aging across America. And there is 

a continued need to provide funding both at the Federal, the State, 

ratepayers, and other levels to address this issue. The 2006 request 

by the President of $730 million honors a commitment that the 

President made that the total Federal capitalization would amount 

to $6.8 billion. 

So when you look at each of the years prior to 2006, and then you project $730 million out until 2008, that fulfills the President’s 

commitment to have a total Federal capitalization of $6.8 billion, 

that will enable the fund to actually revolve at $3.4 billion per 

year. 

Senator BURNS. But doesn’t that also feed into the idea of the— 

the reason that the gap analysis holds true is that we’re headed 

for bigger problems if we don’t steadily increase those funds? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I think that—clearly as I said—— 

Senator BURNS. Or am I thinking in two different areas? 

Mr. JOHNSON. No. The aging infrastructure, the need is large. 

And by a number of estimates are literally in the hundreds of billions of dollars when you compare the need of hundreds of billions 

of dollars with a total EPA budget of $7.6 billion or $8 billion. I 

mean, even if EPA were to provide all of it’s funding, it doesn’t address the gap. 

So, what certainly I look forward to working with you and other 

members, because I think that we need to find a better way of addressing this gap. Clearly, the Federal Government has a role, has 

a significant role to play, we’re honoring the President’s commitment to have a revolving fund at $6.8 billion, but even with that, 

it’s clear that the gap is larger. 

So we’re going to have to figure out a better way of trying to address this. And Mr. Chairman I look forward to working with you 

and other members to see how we might be able the do that. 

Senator BURNS. You’ve just taken over the reigns down there, 

are you doing anything in the way to adopt other approaches? It 

seems as though there ought to be some imagination down there 

somewhere if we dig hard enough. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir, there is imagination. And among the 

items that we have been talking about, well, there are some unique 

opportunities for the revolving fund and other things, but then 

there are other areas which get into dealing with how do we—we 

know that water quantity, particularly as we move from your part 

of the country further west becomes even more critical. And so, are 

there things that we can be doing to help deal with the water 

quantity issue? 

Are there technologies and certainly our research and development arm, and others are looking at what are some innovative 

technologies we might be able to use that are more cost efficient. 

Cost effective, and I’m sure there’s other imaginations which I will 

look forward to sharing with you and seeing how we might be able 

to address what I believe is a significant problem for the county. 
14 

Senator BURNS. Well, I’ll tell you, a long time ago when I first 

went to Montana I was raised on one end of the Missouri River, 

looks like I’m going the die on the other end with a little luck. But 

when I first went to Montana many years ago, and when you look 

at the State world water—at the State, we’re a watershed State. 

I would venture to say that 50 percent of the water goes by Kansas City, Missouri started in Montana. But I also understand about 

how we feel about water in the west. 

Water adjudication was always a States right. That’s one of the 

issues you fall on your saber for. Whiskeys for drinking, water is 

for fighting. And it goes on every day. But I did—as the country 

grew; I had the opportunity the travel across the stretch. I said by 

the time they get ready to leave this old world that fresh water 

might be our greatest resource in Montana and watershed States, 

Colorado. 

Senator ALLARD. We have the other 50 percent. 

Senator BURNS. But that little old dinky creek that you got called 

South Flat. 

Senator ALLARD. North of South Flat. 

Senator BURNS. You know, but anyway, fresh water would be one 

of the greatest demands that this country will have is the availability of water. And so, we took it very serious in our State. We 

got a very strong Clean Water Act and how we handle our watersheds and this type of thing. 

We would hope that we could work in concert with taking care 

of something like that. But I think we’re going to try to find some 

way to plus up the revolving fund. I don’t know how we’ll do it yet, 

but every now and again there’s some real imagination up here too, 

as you well know. And we’re going to try that. 

Moving into the areas I am concerned about, whenever you draw 

the dollars down, it seems to me that our rural water systems kind 

of gets left, they go on the back burner. 

Larger entities and municipalities and people who are pretty sophisticated in the way they finance and how they use their power 

here in this 17 square miles logic-free environment to get the 

projects they want and sometimes our rural areas that don’t have 

as many people kind of go wanting. 

If you—have you got any kind of assurance that we can be assured in rural areas that there’s going to be money available and 

opportunities to finance water systems? I’ve got two areas in Montana that are now undertaking new water systems in rural water 

areas. And I will tell you water they’re drinking now, you wouldn’t 

let livestock go to it. We’ve got to do some things in these areas 

where they’ve really got huge problems. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think again you hit on another issue facing the country, the small water systems, whether 

they are Senator Allard’s at a college level or a new water system 

dealing with issues such as arsenic. 

We are looking at ways that we can help these new water systems, both in the permitting process, to expedite that as well as to 

help them with some of these new technologies that I’ve been talking about in the case of arsenic that Senator Allard mentioned. In 

fact, as parts of this arsenic rule that does become effective next 
15 

year as was noted there is a provision that allows the States for 

the small water systems to request an extension beyond next year. 

I believe that that extension is to the year 2015, which is actually 14 years after the promulgation of the rule. And the reason for 

that is, we understand that there are circumstances where it’s naturally occurring, we understand there are circumstances in which 

communities, they’re small communities and they need to figure 

out whether it’s funding or other kinds of issues to try to reach 

that. And so we’re trying to be creative, at the same time we also 

do need to be health protective. 

Senator BURNS. Senator Allard. 

Senator ALLARD. I appreciate you to continue to discuss this 

problem. Five parts per billion is not a health problem. 

Mr. JOHNSON. It’s actually 10, but it’s still. You’re right; it went 

from 50 to 10. 

Senator ALLARD. Even 10 parts per billion. And so— 

Mr. JOHNSON. The point is well taken. 

Senator ALLARD. I’ve been a health officer for the city of Libby, 

I understand. And then you impose upon these communities when 

they have natural background. They didn’t create it. It’s been 

there. And if you’re concerned about the impact on the environment, that is the environment. 

Then you’re imposing this huge cost, I’m trying to figure out how 

some of these towns, I’m talking about the city of Alamosa in the 

southern part of the State. It’s probably the most acutely effected 

than many of them. But how they’re going to be able to pay for 

that. 

Then, if you have the revolving fund, I’m not sure they have 

enough industry and enough economy there to sustain paying back 

to the revolving fund. Either we need to have a more efficient less 

costly approach to removing the arsenic or something needs to be 

done there when you impose those kinds of rules or regulations. 

I don’t think Colorado is unique in that. You probably have 

towns all over the Rocky Mountains at least, that are going to have 

some problems. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I do know that our Office of Research and Development has been exploring and in fact, I believe has identified several new technologies which, at least as I understand are more cost 

effective and also can control and certainly I would be happy to 

share—we’re trying to get that information out to the community 

water systems that are facing the kind of issues that you’re facing. 

We would be happy to share that with you and keep you posted on 

that development. 

Senator ALLARD. I appreciate the leeway that you’ve given there 

for small communities, where the local health department, the 

State health department, can extend those provisions out so it has 

some time to respond. 

But I do think that, you know if you can—when you get a concern raised by cities like Alamosa, for example, if the Environmental Protection Agency could be more responsive and more positive than to what they have been led to believe. I think they would 

help a lot and would help our office a lot. 

Also, having said that, I also want to compliment the Environmental Protection Agency in working with the local community and 
16 

everything in cleaning up Rocky Flats in Colorado. Rocky Flats will 

be the first nuclear facility, where they made the triggers for the 

nuclear bomb, to ever get cleaned up. 

They’re setting a standard right now—we’re more than a year 

ahead of schedule. We’re billions of dollars under budget from what 

it was originally designed. We worked hard to get some money into 

it originally to accelerate that clean up. Things are going well. I 

hope as we get toward the end of this that you will help us help 

to ensure that the regulatory assurances are there. 

We’re going to have a GAO study. I hope that you’ll work with 

that. Can you keep that one of your top priorities; we would appreciate it if you can do that. And also, I’d like to address the EPA 

policy in which we have spill prevention control and countermeasure relations are being implemented for fuel trucks at airports. 

My question is why does the Agency feel the need to regulate 

these vehicles under EPA regulations when they’re also, as I understand, regulated under the jurisdiction of the Department of 

Transportation? And are those regulations conflicting, or if they’re 

duplicated why do we have two agencies with the same regulations. 

Mr. JOHNSON. It’s my understanding that they’re not duplicative. 

And it’s my understanding that there were discussions early on before that SPCC rule as you mentioned was actually promulgated. 

As I’m sure you’re aware, that we extended the compliance date for 

that until February I think 17, but it is February 2006. 

In order to make sure that people understand, again, we’re trying to provide some accommodations, but also importance to make 

sure that people are doing the right thing with good products. 

Senator ALLARD. But my question is why we have it? We already 

have the Department of Transportation regulating it. Why do you 

need to come in and regulate on top of that? 

Mr. JOHNSON. If I could, I’ll ask Tom Dunn, who is our Deputy 

Assistant Administrator for the OSRA program. 

Mr. DUNN. Ours is geared at prevention and controlling and the 

Clean Water Act is where we originally get our jurisdiction calls for 

anything, that a certain number—a certain volume that could create a spill into navigatable waters is the jurisdiction that EPA has 

to go with. 

I think our people have been fairly astute in working with the 

Department of Transportation making sure they don’t duplicate 

and replicate anything they are doing. Our job is strictly prevention, controls, and countermeasures in case there is a spill. 

Senator ALLARD. The definition of navigatable waters is pretty 

broad. 

Mr. DUNN. It’s in court already. 

Mr. JOHNSON. That continues to be an issue, sir, yes. 

Senator ALLARD. We would like to have clarification on that. 

Senator BURNS. Sir, if you would yield. What do you assess the 

impact that will have in airport operations? 

Mr. DUNN. We’re currently looking at that right now how much 

containment, whether they have to have a secondary containment. 

Large airports present another problem, that’s a major area in 

terms of how we deal with general navigation than smaller airports. 
17 

Senator BURNS. We’re getting a lot of calls on this—these our 

FBO’s, our fixed based operators. They’re very concerned. As you 

know, aviation is not—commercial aviation is not too healthy right 

now. And airports are straining to not only maintain the infrastructure they have, but adding infrastructure, we hope for increased traffic with this, but this is the impact of secondary containment is sort of troubling to them. 

They think the cost can be—and the impact could be something. 

Mr. DUNN. Well, it could be, but what we’re looking at, what’s 

being analyzed and data collected in terms of how much is really 

on the airport. You know if you’re talking about a small rural airport that has one tanker that’s got 2,000 or 3,000 gallons in a mobile source, that’s dealt with completely different than if it’s storage 

of 50,000 gallons, we’re looking at the right balance. 

Senator BURNS. This also spills over into our farming community 

if we’re talking about secondary containment. I know at $3 or $4 

a week we can’t afford it. Especially if we want to keep getting 

bread. Emission creep, I think it’s called. Sorry I didn’t mean—— 

Senator ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate you allowing me 

the time to have some concerns here. I’m finished I appreciate it 

very much. 

Senator BURNS. Thank you, Senator Allard, bring us up to date 

and give us a little more details on the methane to markets? I 

know it’s something that we read about. But very few of us understand what we want to do here. 

Mr. JOHNSON. What it is, Mr. Chairman, is a program, one of the 

things we have done here in the United States is actually begin to 

both capture methane from a variety of sources, gas mills, coal 

mines capture it and use it as an energy source. 

So we have double benefit of reducing potential carbon into the 

air, and at the same time we have energy production. That’s what’s 

happening here in the United States. Its technology driven. We’re 

doing it very efficiently and effectively in a number of sectors. Because a variety of issues facing the globe include both the issue of 

carbon which is quite controversial but also of energy, what we 

want to do and certainly we have 14, at this point I believe we 

have 14 countries who want to partner with us to actually use 

these technologies to be able to achieve both the energy saving, as 

well as emission reduction. 

What we’ve been able to calculate is that based upon the $4 million which is in the President’s 2006 budget, that this would focus 

on methane emissions from landfills, coal mines, gas and oil operations with our 14 partner countries, which would result from an 

environmental prospective an emission reduction of 50 million metric tons of carbon equivalent can annually—plus obviously the energy use. 

So we see it as a wonderful opportunity of helping both in the 

energy arena as well as in the environmental arena at a very small 

cost to the U.S. Government to have a significant impact globally. 

Senator BURNS. Can you give me an example of where you’re 

doing some of this? Are there some demonstration units? Are you 

doing anything in the field? 
18 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, and Rob Brenner, is our Deputy for our Air 

Office. Rob, do you have some of the specific locations that you can 

comment on? 

Mr. BRENNER. Senator Burns, this program builds on some work 

that we have been doing over the last few years in this area, especially on capturing methane from leaking gas pipelines. 

We’ve done work with some of the parts of what was the Soviet 

Union, some of those countries and Eastern Europe where it turns 

out that their gas systems—their gas distribution system was very 

inefficient, using large amounts of natural gas. 

Of methane, the rut was increases in carbon loadings in the atmosphere and also a loss of potential energy supply for both those 

countries and some of the countries such as areas in Europe that 

they would export that natural gas to. And we can provide you 

with some background on that project and other similar projects. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Could you comment on the United States and 

what our experience is in the United States. 

Senator BURNS. That’s kind of a long drive just to look at something. What are we doing here at home? 

Mr. BRENNER. If you would like to look at some of the projects 

in the United States. I’m sorry I can’t bring to mind any specific 

ones, but we’ve worked with various utilities, natural gas companies and utilities in the United States. To use the same sort of 

technologies, reducing the amount of leakages from the natural gas 

distribution system. 

And then we’ve also worked with a number of landfills to capture 

the methane from the landfill and then use that to generate electricity and we can provide you a list of landfills and companies 

we’ve worked with and help you decide which one if any you would 

like to visit. 

Mr. JOHNSON. If you would for the record actually give you some 

of the specifics and that are a shorter drive than Russia. 

Senator BURNS. I’m interested in how you capture and collect 

and then redistribute say a methane coming off the landfills. I happen to think that is a source. I’ve said that for quite awhile, ever 

since they started these big huge landfills. 

And I would like to see this happen. If we’ve got some demonstration or some places where we’re doing it, then I would like 

to see how you capture it, collect it, transport it. 

Mr. BRENNER. What you will see is that for a number of small 

communities they found it to be economically advantageous they 

can receive revenue from selling the electricity to its customers. 

Senator BURNS. We in Yellowstone County, when I was a commissioner, we collected old motor oil, our heaters that’s how we 

heat our barns for road and bridge and our shops. We found out 

that we’re throwing a lot of that away. We use a lot of trucks and 

a lot of tractors and then we started collecting it. 

We’ve heated entire facilities with this different approach and 

burn that for our heat, and it keeps people from pouring old motor 

oil down in drains where you don’t want it, and gives a use for it. 

So I would be interested in seeing how you do it, if there is some 

demonstration somewhere in some of your research people, I would 

be interested in that. 
19 

Also, let’s talk about; I mentioned in my opening statement with 

Libby, Montana, we have an unusual problem in there with asbestos. The folks that have lived up there for a long time and suffered 

impacts of asbestos. You began the removal actions in Libby back 

in 1999, I would imagine, have you been given any kind of estimates from the people in charge up there, how much longer they’re 

going to be involved with the city of Libby. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, what my understanding is, is that 

we will be issuing our record of decision for Libby later this year, 

late this year, early 2006. And that the—our best estimate or at 

least what my understanding of best estimate that we will have 

somewhere between 1,000 to 1,200 additional properties that will 

need to be cleaned up. 

At the current funding level, which has been relatively constant at $17 million per year, that equating to about 200 properties being 

cleaned per year. So that gives you a sense of timing. 

Senator BURNS. People kind of want a timeline of something up 

there as we look to that. Also, we’ve already covered the airport situation. By the way, I got this idea, you know, and my staff almost 

had a mac attack over it, there’s a line item—I have a mac attack 

every day. I’ve never missed a meal; I don’t plan on it either. 

When I looked here on leaking underground storage tank program, LUST, I see we’re appropriating $73 million in that line. 

Does that—do those dollars come from the General Treasury? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Let me ask our Deputy Chief Financial Officer, 

Mike Ryan. 

Senator BURNS. We have to have a bean counter involved here. 

Mr. RYAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. JOHNSON. He wears that with pride, sir. 

Mr. RYAN. Basically we have a trust fund and it’s capitalized but, 

I believe to $2.1 billion, whatever you appropriate we take out of 

the trust fund, so—— 

Senator BURNS. You have a balance in there now that’s pretty 

healthy, I think. 

Mr. RYAN. Yes, sir we do, it’s about $2.1, $2.2 billion. 

Senator BURNS. Can I use that over my farm programs. 

Mr. RYAN. You’re in charge, Senator. 

Senator BURNS. But, we have the same thing in other funds 

around here. I wonder why this—this money comes from that fund 

correct, not the General Treasury. 

Mr. RYAN. Yes, sir, yes, sir. 

Senator BURNS. All right. That’s all I wanted to ask on that. Pesticides, Senator Dorgan and I, we’ve been trying to find a way of 

harmonization of labels between our country and Canada, and I 

will tell you that, there maybe some people who would take note 

of this, but we have people who live in Plentywood, Montana that 

farm both in Canada and in the United States. 

We finally got to the point where yes, they can come across with 

their sprayers without going through a lot of inspection, we got 

that sort of done, but we haven’t taken care of the price situation, 

and that still continues to be very concerning, although the prices 

are getting narrower. 

Especially on those pesticides that are used and herbicides that 

are used on both sides of the border on the same crops. So I hope 
20 

that you would continue to work with Canadian authorities so we 

can harmonize this. Because just from a standpoint of farming, 

having farm operations on both sides of the border. And we have 

that up there right now. Senator Leahy has other questions and I 

think I do too. I’m going to go energy here in a little bit. 

They ought to be just about through the opening statements. 

Everybody’s got to have one. And try to make that markup, electricity is very important to the State of Montana and we’ve got 

some interests up here. But we’ve got a couple of other questions, 

if you would respond to Senator Leahy and the subcommittee on 

his questions. 

I would imagine that other Senators will too, and we will forward 

those to your office if we could get a response to the subcommittee 

and to those Senators, I would certainly appreciate that. 

Mr. JOHNSON. My pleasure, sir. 

Senator BURNS. I want to thank you for coming up this morning. 

New programs and things that are happening at EPA, I’ve always 

said that we turn the judicial system around. I’m not going to start 

talking about judges. Because of the situation with the regulatory 

agency, I would kind of like to see some—more than anything else, 

we’re all public servants. 

We know there’s a multitude of sins, thank goodness we’ve got 

an EPA, thank goodness they’ve done a terrific job, other times 

they kind of over step. 

Instead of helping to facilitate, we want to punish. And I’m a 

facilitator, as far as it can go, you know. 

In trying to help people work out the problems to do things better, to make it cleaner and more healthy for everybody around us, 

and so, I think you’re a breath of fresh air in the Agency. 

I would hope you would be a facilitator and sort of help us and 

work with agriculture and we’re beginning to talk a little bit about 

particulate and air, we’re concerned about some the stuff that’s 

swirling up around here, how do you hold it down, particularly in 

a farm operation. 

We should talk about those kinds of thing, and water, nonpoint, 

we should talk about those things before we really get into this 

business of carrying around a big old hammer, because we know 

that there are some problems out there, but we know there are 

some ways to take care of it too that can work both to the satisfaction of the American people for our clean air and clean water. 

And I think there’s not one of us here that has not set very high 

standards and a very high priority on our environment. So, we 

thank you for coming this morning, thank you Mr. Ryan and look 

forward to working with you being that you’re the green eyeshade 

guy. 

Mr. RYAN. That’s me, sir. 

Senator BURNS. Yes, sir, we understand those green eyeshade 

eyes. Sometimes they’re dealers. But thank you for your testimony 

this morning and we’ll hold this hearing open for a couple of weeks, 

but if you will respond to those questions and inquiries, I certainly 

appreciate that. 
21 

CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS

Thank you all very much. The subcommittee will stand in recess 

subject to the call of the Chair. 

[Whereupon at 11 a.m., Thursday, May 19, the hearings were 

concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.] 

Æ