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

53–828 PDF 2010

S. HRG. 110–1032 

PRESIDENT’S PROPOSED EPA BUDGET FOR 

FISCAL YEAR 2008 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MARCH 7, 2007 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress.senate 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

CRAIG L. THOMAS, Wyoming 

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

BETTINA POIRIER, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

ANDREW WHEELER, Minority Staff Director 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

MARCH 7, 2007 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California ........................ 1 

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma .................... 4 

Lautenberg, Hon. Frank, U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey ............... 6 

Vitter, Hon. David, U.S. Senator from the State of Louisiana ............................ 8 

Voinovich, Hon. George, U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio ............................. 9 

Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island ......... 11 

Craig, Hon. Larry, U.S. Senator from the State of Idaho .................................... 12 

WITNESSES 

Johnson, Stephen , Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Accompanied by: Benjamin H. Grumbles, Assistant Administrator, Office 

of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ............................................. 13 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 14 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer ................................ 19 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe ............................... 57 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Vitter ................................ 62 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Voinovich .......................... 66 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Cardin ............................... 68 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Carper .............................. 70 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Sanders ............................. 72 

(1) 

PRESIDENT’S PROPOSED EPA BUDGET FOR 

FISCAL YEAR 2008 

Wednesday, March 7, 2007 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:00 p.m. in room 406, 

Dirksen Senate Office Building, the Hon. Barbara Boxer (chairman 

of the committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Boxer, Lautenberg, Warner, Baucus, Voinovich, Alexander, Bond, Cardin, Carper, Craig, Inhofe, Isakson, Klobuchar, Lieberman, Sanders, Thomas, Vitter, and Whitehouse. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF THE HON. BARBARA BOXER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. We are going to call the hearing to order today. 

We are here today to review the President’s proposed budget for 

the Environmental Protection Agency for fiscal year 2008. 

We are awaiting others, but they will come as they can. It has 

been a very hectic day, and everybody is going to read the record 

on this, I am sure. We will take 5 minute rounds, and then the Administrator, we will give you 5 minutes, and then we will go into 

questions. 

Unfortunately, my view is that the President’s proposal fails to 

provide EPA with the money it needs to fully protect the public 

health and the environment. Budgets are about priorities, whether 

we are talking about our own households or the Federal Government. By chopping hundreds of millions of dollars out of EPA’s 

funding, this budget sends an unmistakable message to people who 

are concerned about our health and a clean environment, that you 

are not a high priority. 

This budget shortchanges core EPA programs of the resources 

they need to clean up toxic waste sites, prevent contamination from 

polluting our rivers and lakes, and reduce dangerous air pollution. 

Even programs that are specifically designed to protect our children have been cut. 

The American people are going to know about this, because I am 

going to tell them. Because if you live near one of the Nation’s most 

heavily contaminated toxic waste sites, you need to know the Administration’s budget cuts $7 million for those cleanups. The Nation has 1,240 Superfund sites. One in four people in the country 

lives within 4 miles of a Superfund site, including 10 million of our 

children. Why on earth would we cut back on that program? 
2 

Human exposure, EPA’s words, is not under control at 108 sites. 

EPA has insufficient information to determine if exposure is under 

control at 162 sites. Over the last 6 years, the annual pace of 

Superfund cleanups has declined by 50 percent, from more than 80 

cleanups per year, to 39. This year, EPA revised their projected 

cleanups from 40 to 24. This is a 71 percent decline. Just remember, when Bill Clinton was President, we had 80 cleanups a year. 

Now, we are looking at 24. 

Based on internal documents, EPA has projected a cleanup back- log of more than $1 billion in fiscal year 2007. Something is wrong. 

The Administration proposes to reduce independent oversight of 

cleanups by slashing $6 million from EPA’s Inspector General’s 

funding to audit and analyze how to improve the Superfund program. 

If you want to take your family to enjoy a clean river or lake, 

you need to know that this budget asks Congress to cut almost 

$400 million to the Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund Program, a 37 percent reduction. These funds go to water treatment 

projects that stop raw sewage and other pollution from washing 

into our Nation’s waterways. More funding is needed, since almost 

50 percent of our surface waters fail to meet, or are at risk of not 

meeting environmental standards. 

Undermining efforts to clean up unhealthy levels of air pollution, 

the President’s budget would cut research funds needed to help set 

health-based air quality standards and to reduce the emission of 

toxic chemicals that cause cancer or reproductive harm. It would 

slash State and local air quality management program funding by 

$35 million. State and local officials run those programs to help 

clean up our Nation’s air. When 150 million people live in areas 

with unhealthy levels of air pollution. Later in the time I have I 

am going to show you some examples of the quality or lack thereof 

of the air in parts of polluted California. It says to me we need to 

support clean air programs, not cut them. 

To have the Environmental Protection Agency agreeing to these 

kind of cuts is devastating to the people. The Environmental Council of the States, representing all 50 environmental protection agencies, says, ‘‘It is disappointing to see a budget proposal that cuts 

air programs and water programs, and has the biggest cut to water 

infrastructure in the history of the Agency.’’ 

The President also proposes to combine EPA’s Office for Protecting Children’s Health with its Environmental Education Office. 

By consolidating the functions of these two offices and eliminating 

$8 million in funding for environmental education, the Administration appears to undermine the purpose of the Children’s Health Office. The reason we set up a separate Children’s Health Office was 

to give attention to children’s health. When you combine it, you are 

doing away with it. Let’s call it what it is. 

EPA says it will spread out its children’s health issues as one of 

many considerations addressed by multiple agency programs. This 

undermines the mission of the Children’s Health Office. I can’t wait 

to have this issue on the floor of the United States Senate, because 

we wanted in a bipartisan way to single out children’s health because of the particular threat to children posed by environmental 

pollutants. 
3 

Once again, with this budget the Administration takes us further 

down the wrong path, cutting dollars necessary to protect our air, 

water and communities from toxic pollution. We have to head in a 

different direction. The EPA needs to live up to its name and its 

mission: the Environmental Protection Agency, not the Environmental Pollution Agency. EPA’s budget should reflect our shared 

values, our spiritual values, our religious values, our commitment 

to safeguarding the health of our families and all of God’s children. 

The budget before us fails to meet this test. It is shocking to me, 

some of the initiatives that are in this budget, and again I say to 

my friend, Senator Inhofe, who missed my opening statement I am 

sure not by design. 

Senator INHOFE. No, ma’am. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. We will be having a number of these issues 

about the children’s health budget, the cuts to the States’s water 

funds, all of these things will be issues when we get to the floor. 

I am delighted to see Senator Vitter has joined us, so Senator 

Inhofe, we welcome your opening statement. We are keeping it to 

5 minutes. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Boxer follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, U.S. SENATOR FROM

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Today we will hear from a group of leading corporations and environmental 

groups who have agreed on a roadmap for next steps to address the global warming 

challenge. 

They have banded together to issue ‘‘A Call for Action’’ on global warming. They 

have concluded that ‘‘we know enough to act’’ on global warming and that ‘‘Congress 

needs to enact legislation as quickly as possible.’’ 

I want to thank these companies for their report and let them know that I believe 

it makes an important contribution to helping solve the global warming problem. 

This group includes some of the world’s largest corporations, such as General 

Electric, Dupont, BP, Caterpillar, Alcoa, and includes key energy companies such as 

Duke Power, Florida Power and Light and PG&E, from my home State of California. 

These companies produce products of all types, use fuels of all types, including 

coal, and are committed to being profitable for many years to come. As the Chairman of Duke Power noted on release of the report, Duke Power is the third largest 

user of coal in the United States. Yet all these companies agree that we need to 

act now to enact a mandatory program to address global warming. 

What is more, they agree on the targets for reduction, both in the short term and 

the long term. They agree that we need to stabilize world wide atmospheric concentrations of CO2 at 450-550 parts per million. Their targets for emissions include 

reductions of 10-30 percent from today’s levels within the next 15 years and a 60 

percent to 80 percent reduction from today’s levels by 2050. 

These targets are consistent with what the scientists are telling us and they are 

consistent with the targets set forth in the Sanders bill, of which I am co-sponsor, 

as well as other bills introduced in this Congress. 

The companies and groups before us today also make clear that by acting now, 

we can help, not hurt our economy. They say that: 

‘‘Each year we delay action to control emissions increases the risk of unavoidable 

consequences that could necessitate even steeper reductions in the future, at potentially greater economic cost and social disruption.’’ 

The U.S. CAP report also makes the point that we need to enact an economy wide 

program. 

I am very proud of my home State of California, which enacted AB 32, an economy-wide global warming bill. The California law sets a mandatory cap on carbon 

pollution, including a 25 percent reduction from projected levels by 2020 and the 

California Governor’s Executive Order includes a target to reduce emissions 80 percent from 1990 levels by 2050. 
4 

California is leading the way in combating global warming. And one of the companies here, Pacific Gas and Electric, has helped enormously by working hard to help 

increase California’s energy efficiency, which is one of the highest in the Nation. 

I continue to believe we should approach this problem with hope and not fear. I 

am an optimist, and I believe we can solve this problem, and that in doing so, we 

will be better for it in every way. 

The members of the Climate Action Partnership who are here today agree with 

this approach. They say that ‘‘In our view, the climate change challenge, like other 

challenges our country has confronted in the past, will create more economic opportunities than risks for the U.S. economy’’ and that ‘‘addressing climate change will 

require innovation and products that drive increased energy efficiency, creating new 

markets. . . increased U.S. competitiveness, as well as reduced reliance on energy 

from foreign sources.’’ 

As business leaders that successfully compete in national and world-wide markets, they should know. 

We must face the challenge of global warming now. It is one of the great challenges of this generation. With the help groups and businesses like those in the Climate Action Partnership, this is a challenge we can and will meet. 

I look forward to hearing the witnesses’ testimony. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF THE HON. JAMES INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Welcome, Mr. Administrator. We are anxious to hear your testimony. I think I might find myself in partial agreement with the 

last thing that the Chairman said, and some of the things. What 

I would not want to happen, since we are talking about $500 million less than the previous year in this year’s budget, the 2008 

budget, is for you to come up with things that you know in your 

own mind that Congress isn’t going to let you get by with. This is 

one of the things that we are, whether it is the State revolving 

fund or some of the clean water programs. 

So I would hope that in trying to meet this budget that you 

would be looking at it realistically and looking at things, not just 

making cuts where you know that it is going to be reversed during 

the congressional process. 

One place to exercise some budgetary restraint might be in the 

voluntary programs EPA has created that have not been authorized by Congress. Some of these may have laudable goals, but at 

a time when the agency is proposing cutting clean water funding 

by nearly $400 million, it may not be the time for administratively 

created programs. 

I raise the same concern about the Agency’s international grants 

last year. While these programs may not add up to too much, it is 

a good starting point. And while I disagree with your cut to the 

SRS revolving fund, I am pleased to see that the Administration 

has proposed an alternative to fill the gap. The budget includes lifting the cap on private activity bonds for water and wastewater infrastructure projects. I look forward to working with the Administration to see if using the tax code through private activity bonds 

would help fill the infrastructure gap that has given us the shortfall of appropriated dollars. 

I would like to address also a couple of other issues. One of the 

obvious issues, Tar Creek. You guys have done a great job. That 

is the most devastating of all the Superfund sites. Finally, after 25 

years of failure, we are doing the right thing. I commend you, DOI, 

the tribes, the Governor of the State of Oklahoma and all of us 
5 

working together. It is a team effort that can truly be used as a 

model. It includes all of the Indian tribes that are involved up 

there. So I just hope that we have your commitment to continue 

that as you have in the past and see it through. 

The agency is in the process of finalizing several policies that are 

important to Oklahoma. Last year, you proposed the changes in the 

agency’s drinking water affordability standard. As I have mentioned in the past, we have a real crisis in Oklahoma with regard 

to the disinfection byproducts rule. Had the affordability standard 

accurately reflected the needs, the small rural towns might not be 

in a such a dire situation. 

Furthermore, the agency will soon promulgate a new rule to 

again revise the spill prevention control countermeasure. We have 

every expectation that the proposal will address the issues that 

have been raised by Oklahoma farmers, as well as farmers in other 

States, the Oklahoma Farm Bureau, our refineries. We pretty took 

care of the problem that was on the airports with this spill policy, 

but we have not been able to do it. It needs to continue to its conclusion. 

In our water systems, going back to the previous point that I 

made, we have a total of 1,717 public water systems. Of these, 

1,463 meet the State definition of a small system, which means the 

system only serves less than 3,300 people. Only 25 systems in the 

State serve more than 10,000 people, so we are very much interested in that in our State of Oklahoma. 

My staff has continued to investigate EPA regions and how they 

vary in their implementations and rules. You will recall we had a 

hearing on that, Madam Chairman. We found that in some districts, I think region five was a problem, and is working out to address some of the treatment, the way they operate that is different 

from some of the other regions. 

And finally, Mr. Administrator, I am deeply interested in the 

EPA’s implementation of the renewable fuel standard, in part because I moved that legislation through this committee while chairman, and also because I am committed to improving our energy security. On that note, I look forward to working with you to make 

sure that the agency takes steps to maximize fuel supply reliability, and particularly provide flexibility to small refineries, and 

at the same time continue our jurisdiction in this because it is always under fire. 

Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much, Senator. 

We are going to do the early bird rule, but we will go back and 

forth. So we are going to go to Senator Lautenberg, and then Senator Vitter. 

Senator, 5 minutes please. Welcome. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR FROM

THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Madame Chairman, I appreciate you having this hearing today. The issue of climate change has taken on a larger significance lately. And the subject of the day 

is mandatory carbon cap and trade. More and more, companies that wish to profit 

on the backs of consumers are coming out of the woodwork to endorse climate pro-
6 

posals in the hope of forcing customers to buy their unnecessary products or to penalize their competitors. 

Some companies are coming together in an attempt to profit from Government 

intervention where they have failed in the marketplace. Economists call this rentseeking. But I think the Wall Street Journal was right. They are climate profiteers. 

These companies will gain market-share against their competitors while the economy flattens and jobs are sent to China—which in an ironic twist of fate will soon 

become the biggest emitter of carbon dioxide on the planet. Madame Chairman, not 

all companies have joined the climate profiteers. Most will be its victims, particularly small businesses that will no longer be able to compete. But the biggest losers 

won’t be businesses, but American consumers. 

This proposal and others like it may be written in the form of Government regulatory mandates, but for all practical purposes, it is really a regressive tax on the 

American economy, where select powerful companies profit at the expense of seniors, the working class and the poor. These groups already pay disproportionately 

more of their monthly budget for energy, and this situation will only worsen under 

proposals like we see today. Let me be clear—this is the biggest tax hike in U.S. 

history. 

I am told that the rush to do something about global warming has gained momentum. But the not so hidden secret is that more and more serious scientists and political leaders are voicing their discontent with both the hype and the symbolic approaches that masquerade as solutions that are designed more to line the pockets 

of its promoters than to accomplish anything. 

Among scientists, of course, there is Claude Allegre—the French Socialist, geophysicist, and member of the French and American academies of science—who has 

said that warming may be due simply to natural variation and that this debate appears to be about money. There is also Nir Shariv, one of Israel’s top young astrophysicists, who says there is no proof of man’s contribution rather than natural variation. 

And then there are the political leaders. Prime Minister Stephen Harper reportedly once called the Kyoto accord a ‘‘socialist scheme’’ designed to suck money out 

of rich countries. And just last week, Czech President Vaclav Klaus made clear his 

disdain for politics parading for science when he said ‘‘Global warming is a false 

myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the 

U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it’s a political body, a sort of nongovernment organization of green flavor.’’ 

You don’t have to agree with my position on the science to question the wisdom 

of the cap and trade approach. These proposals will do little and cost much. Moreover, as White House spokesman Tony Snow stated last week, ‘‘there is a carbon 

cap system in place in Europe, we are doing a better job of reducing emissions here,’’ 

Snow said. 

The simple fact is that we cannot continue to put pressure on demand for natural 

gas in this country while we curtail the efforts of producers to supply it. We cannot 

demand significant emission reductions while Senators oppose the construction of 

new nuclear facilities. In short, we cannot demand reductions from our fossil fuel 

sector unless these demands can be met. 

The result can only be further increases and volatility of natural gas prices, continued and even increased job flight to countries that don’t participate. But the biggest cost will be to consumers, who will be forced to foot the bill for this climate 

chicanery. That is why I have decided to fight for consumers and plan to introduce 

the Ratepayer’s Protection Act, which will protect consumers in regulated States 

from having their rates raised to pay any climate schemes. 

Thank you. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF THE HON. FRANK LAUTENBERG, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Make sure you turn on your mic. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. This is the first time I have been accused 

of not being heard enough. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Senator Inhofe thinks I have been heard 

too much. 

[Laughter.] 
7 

Senator LAUTENBERG. I want to begin with a statement, and welcome, Administrator Johnson, that you made during a recent EPA 

hearing. You said, and I quote you here, ‘‘America’s air, water and 

land are cleaner today,’’ and I remember it vividly because I didn’t 

quite get the support for that, ‘‘than they were a generation ago 

under the Bush administration. This progress continues.’’ 

Unfortunately, actions speak louder than words. We have to look 

at the facts. First, President Bush wants to cut $7 million from the 

Superfund program. We can’t afford that. Ask the people who live 

near Superfund sites and they will tell you that we can’t afford to 

work with less. We have more Superfund sites in our State than 

any other State in the Country. Right now, Superfund is cleaning 

up fewer and fewer sites and letting toxic chemicals gather in 

places where our children play. 

Now, in February, Chairman Boxer and I were at a site in South 

Plainfield, NJ working to get the Superfund program back on 

track. If we want to help that community, we have to have a budget that advances our goal, not turns its back on it. 

Second, President Bush wants to take away yearly $400 million 

from the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, which keeps our 

streams, rivers, lakes and coastal waters safe from pollutants. New 

Jersey alone stands to lose $16 million under the Administration’s 

plan. The health of our waters and our local economies depends on 

this and simply cannot afford this kind of a loss. 

Thirdly, President Bush wants to cut more than $35 million from 

State and local agencies that enforce the Clean Air Act. Yet the 

Clean Air Act is essential in removing from our air the harmful 

pollutants that can trigger respiratory illnesses such as asthma. 

Small particles alone can cause up to 30,000 premature deaths a 

year. 

So what do we say to those parents of the children with asthma 

about that cut? I know what my daughter says to my oldest grandchild, who is 13, when he goes out to play sports. The first thing 

my daughter does is check to see where the nearest emergency 

room is. If the weather is bad and the air is not good and clear, 

it is a price that we pay in the family. There are millions of people 

across the country who will have the same result as a consequence 

of these cuts. 

Finally, if the science of climate change proves that the planet 

is warming, why does the President want to cut funding for the 

Federal Global Climate Change program? The EPA needs a budget 

that is more than talk. It needs a budget that will clean up our 

Superfund sites, keep our water clean, our air safe to breathe, and 

reduce global warming, but that is not what is said by this budget. 

I will do my part on this committee to make sure that EPA, 

Madam Chairman, has enough resources to act on these goals. I 

hope that we will all do that together. 

Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much. 

Senator Vitter. 
8 

OPENING STATEMENT OF THE HON. DAVID VITTER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA 

Senator VITTER. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank you, 

Ranking Member Inhofe. 

Mr. Administrator, thank you for being here. 

Obviously, the EPA’s work is very important to Louisiana, always has been, but quite frankly post-Katrina and post-Rita, that 

has never been more true than it is now. I know you appreciate 

that. 

I wanted to focus briefly in my opening comments on two very 

specific issues. One is the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Restoration 

Program. I recently sent you and EPA a letter about this. As you 

know, this was a program created in 2000, a bill I introduced when 

I was a House member. It was reauthorized in 2006. It sets up a 

restoration program within the EPA for the largest watershed in 

our lake, built around Lake Pontchartrain, which is the secondlargest lake in the U.S. after the Great Lakes. 

I appreciate that the EPA has been very supportive of this program in the past, and I would ask that you continue that support. 

Specifically because of the unusual nature of the continuing resolution for fiscal year 2007, you all have to perhaps make many more 

decisions and have fewer directives from us than normal. So I 

would specifically ask that you look at the Lake Pontchartrain 

Basin Restoration Program and continue the type of funding levels 

from EPA that we have together forged in the last several years. 

I look forward to your analysis of that and response in terms of 

specifically what you can do within the continuing resolution for 

fiscal year 2007. 

The second very specific issue I wanted to focus on is landfills in 

the greater New Orleans area post-Katrina. For several months 

now, I have expressed real concern about a couple of landfills in 

particular that have been opened under emergency regulations by 

the State DEQ and operated in eastern New Orleans to help deal 

with Katrina debris. I have been very concerned that they do not 

meet significant enough environmental standards. They were 

opened under emergency authority, and all this was done when 

there are other landfills in the area that meet higher standards, 

and that could accept all of this flow of waste and debris for the 

same cost or less. 

I have expressed this concern for several months, but something 

happened recently which really brought this concern to a new level. 

A couple of weeks ago, it was disclosed in the context of a separate 

Federal criminal investigation that lo and behold two people who 

were close associates to our former Mayor of New Orleans had hidden financial interests in the opening and in the operation of one 

of these landfills, the other has been closed, the only one still remaining open is the Old Gentilly landfill. Lo and behold, these two 

people had hidden financial interests and they helped get it open 

and get it permitted and get the contract with the city. 

I think it is of some note one of these two people is going to jail. 

He is in the process of going to jail in a separate Federal criminal 

matter, and the reason he is going to jail is because he was making 

money off another city contract because of his connections, not because of any work he performed. So basically, the exact same pos-
9 

ture he appears to be in regard to the landfill deal, he is going to 

jail with regard to another deal. 

His other associate is not going to jail yet, but he has been 

named by the U.S. Attorney and the FBI in that other investigation as an unindicted co-conspirator, basically getting paid for his 

connections, not for any work performed. The two of them, it has 

finally been discovered, are in the middle of this other landfill deal. 

Now, I know it is not your job to prosecute criminal cases. I am 

not asking you to. What I am suggesting is that this newest revelation underscores my concern, and I think it adds a whole lot of 

credibility and legitimacy to the questions I have been asking about 

whether we are doing the right thing environmentally at this landfill. I think the answer is clearly not. 

It is also I think significant and important that in this landfill 

deal, the City of New Orleans actually owns the land. For owning 

the land, they retain 100 percent of the environmental liability in 

case there are problems in the future. For all of that, for owning 

the land, for having all of the liability, they get a whopping 3 percent of the revenue under this wonderful deal that the former Mayor’s cronies have cut with the city. 

Again, I am not asking you to step into the shoes of the U.S. Attorney. I am asking you, with this newest revelation, to look at the 

environmental details of this landfill because there are serious concerns about it. I think it is very clear, given these new revelations, 

that this deal is about corruption and greed, not good public policy 

or good environmental policy. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator Vitter. 

I want to point out that the committee did go down to New Orleans. We have seven Senators. We are all very concerned about this 

matter that was raised here, as well as other issues that don’t fall 

under your domain. But this particular matter of a landfill, we 

hope you will take a very special look at it. I just want you to know 

the full committee is interested in this, so I hope you will keep the 

full committee briefed on this. 

Now, Senator Voinovich. Welcome. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF THE HON. GEORGE VOINOVICH, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OHIO 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you. I am pleased to be here. I thank 

you for calling this hearing today. 

I would like to thank you, Administrator Johnson, for being here 

today to discuss the President’s proposed budget for the EPA. I 

look forward to spending some time with you to discuss your presentation. Thank you for serving our country, and I thank your family for their sacrifice. I appreciate all the time that you and your 

team spent with us last year on Clear Skies, even though we didn’t 

clear the skies. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator VOINOVICH. As a former Governor and Mayor, I respect 

and know first-hand the enormous challenges that you have to address when working out a budget proposal. Putting together a 

budget is a process that requires responsible prioritizing and fiscal 
10 

discipline in order to avoid breaking the bank, and responding to 

the orders that you get from OMB. 

I want you to know that the next few remarks that I make in 

this statement are not aimed at you personally or your team, because I have no idea of what you went through when you went to 

OMB and presented your case. You were probably told, this is your 

number; live with it and go back and eat it. 

I want to make that clear. I am really enraged with this budget. 

Okay? I really am. Again, I wasn’t there with you to hear what you 

had to say to my friend that is the OMB director. In 2006, this past fiscal year, we suffered a budget deficit of $248 

billion, and that is not taking into account the funds borrowed from 

the Social Security trust fund, which increases the deficit to $434 

billion. According to OMB’s numbers, even though we held non-security discretionary spending to less than 1 percent growth in fiscal 

year 2007, the budgets for non-security spending is less than 1 percent. In other words, we will still suffer from deficits totaling about 

a half-trillion dollars in 2007 and 2008. 

The meager 1 percent in non-security spending is a symptom of 

our political failure to address the real source of budgetary problems. In your case, according to my numbers, you are getting a 6.9 

percent reduction in your budget, 6.9 percent. Think of it. In refusing to address our entitlements, and instead placing the burden of 

fiscal austerity on discretionary spending means that, you know 

what, we are eating our seed corn. We will do little to solve our 

long-term budget problems, but we would fail in our responsibility 

to invest for the future in education, transportation, and the subject of today’s hearing, our environment. 

The truth of the matter is, and nobody wants to say it, we do 

need a tax increase or we need tax reform. We can’t keep going. 

You can’t be carrying on a war the way we are in Afghanistan and 

Iraq, and see the spending for the 22 agencies in Homeland Security that have gone up over 300 percent, and think that you can 

run the Government of the United States with this kind of a budget. It is unacceptable. I am concerned, and I am going to get into 

just a few of these things because some of my colleagues are getting into some other ones. The Diesel Emissions Reduction Act, we 

worked so hard on it and got it done in 45 days. It leverages $4 

for every $1 we put into it. I talked to Josh Bolten about this. I 

have talked to Portman about it. I said, for God’s sake, when you 

are putting a budget together, if you can spend $1 and get $4 for 

it, you ought to support it. And what did they do? They proposed 

a $35 million cut from $50 million last year. 

The Great Lakes Legacy Act is another thing. We have been 

working on that to try and make that something very special, and 

$35 million for 2008. For 2007, the Administration requested $49.6 

million. I know you have worked hard in helping to improve the 

Great Lakes and continue to work for Great Lakes regional collaboration to make the restoration and protection of the lakes a priority, but I told them last night, they had a big meeting here in 

Washington, that you are not going to get your money. He doesn’t 

have it. We have to figure out how we get some more money in so 

that we can do some of the things that this country should be 

doing. 
11 

As a member of this committee, I have worked hard to bring attention to the Nation’s wastewater infrastructure needs. Every single year, I have participated in trying to get your budget up. This 

year is no exception. The EPA’s budget is woefully inadequate to 

take care of the Nation’s pressing water and wastewater infrastructure needs. What we have is a ticking time bomb, ready to blow 

up, but we continue to ignore our Nation’s needs. 

As we on this committee know, billions of dollars have already 

been spent and billions more are needed to upgrade the Nation’s 

aging waste treatment. I have people coming in here, $426 million 

to Akron and you have to get it done in 10 years; Cleveland in 

northeastern Ohio, $4 billion. The little Mayor of Fostoria came in 

and said, I have to spend $30 million and I have 12,000 people that 

live in my city. Either you have to back off with these orders that 

you are putting out there, or we have to come up with the money 

to help these people pay for this. You can’t have it both ways. 

The environmental groups that are represented here ought to 

know that. Sure, you can jam it to it, but the fact is these people 

can’t handle it. What we forget about, and some of our Senators 

know this, when we really did something about waste treatment 

around this country is when we had the 2575 program in the 

1970s. That is when we really did it. Today, that infrastructure is 

just falling apart. 

So what I would like to say to you is this, is that I know you 

have a tough job, but you have to start to think about some of the 

things that you are asking people to do, particularly on the local 

level. This is a big unfunded mandate, and the guys over at OMB 

say, oh that’s fine; we will just let them raise their rates, you 

know, 400 percent, 500 percent. 

These people can’t afford that. So you ought to come back and 

say, you know what? We are going to give you more time. In 

Akron, Ohio, they wanted 30 years; no, you can’t do it; you have 

to do it in 10 years or 15 years. 

Your folks are being unreasonable. If you can’t do it, then come 

back to us and we will maybe give you some more flexibility to do 

the job that we have asked you to do. 

Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

We are going back and forth by early bird. 

Senator Whitehouse. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF THE HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Chairman. 

Hello, Administrator. How are you? 

I was pleased to see that the EPA has recently promulgated 

some regulations about benzine in gasoline, although I am concerned that they don’t take full effect until 2030, which seems like 

a long way off. My understanding is the proposed regulations do 

not consider the other aromatics that are added to gasoline, toluene 

and xylene. I am wondering what your plans are to take any action 

with respect to those; whether you believe that they are dangerous; 

and where they rank in your priorities. Is there any hope of the 

benzine time frame being accelerated? 
12 

Senator Boxer. We are just making statements now. He can answer that later. We are doing opening statements. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. My opening statement is that I want to 

ask that question. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. Duly noted, Senator. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Senator Craig. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF THE HON. LARRY CRAIG, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO 

Senator CRAIG. Well, in that case, if I am the last, I will be brief 

because I think it is important we get to you, Mr. Johnson, and 

also get to our questions. 

I think you have heard the frustration that has been expressed 

by a variety of my colleagues as it relates to your budget, and asking constituent compliance in areas where we may be taking away 

from them some of the resources that they are going to need to 

gain that kind of compliance. 

I still have a large Superfund site in my State that we continue 

to work toward filling. One of the issues, and you and I have had 

that conversation, is a little issue called arsenic in drinking water, 

and small communities, and compliance, and 5,000 people, 3,000, 

2,000 on a system and requirements that standards be met. I could 

dispute the standards. I won’t because they are now the law of the 

land. But be that as it may, it is a compliance issue of considerable 

concern as to how we get to where we get in reasonable time. 

You have shown some flexibility. Everybody wants to get where 

we all want to get. At the same time, we have to have flexibility, 

cooperation. We are looking for affordability in so many issues. 

Another area that I have worked on, it is my understanding the 

agency may be working on proposed rules to help clarify air emissions reporting requirements for livestock operations. As you know, 

I have worked for some time to educate and to clarify the issue. 

I am always amazed that there are some that would like to call out 

the firemen and the AMTs and the police and the Federal emergency squads and FEMA because of a dairy farm in their community, even though they moved in yesterday and the dairy farm 

moved in a decade ago. 

Reality, though, says, and I believe it, that the Clean Air Act and 

the Clean Water Act and a myriad of other Federal and State environmental laws should continue to apply to agriculture. There is a 

threshold, though, that some are trying to cross, as you know, as 

it relates to pushing these cathodes into the Superfund and the 

Community Right To Know Acts. So your cooperation in working 

on that, and obviously we are gaining ground here in the Congress 

to support the reality of what we meant and intended under the 

original laws. Working with you is going to be awfully important 

on that. 

I could talk a little bit about Superfund. Now that I am the 

Ranking Member on the Superfund and Environmental Health 

Subcommittee, we will spend a little more time on that issue. But 

lastly, and as important, I understand your spending plan required 
13 

by the fiscal year 2007 continuing resolution will be coming out on 

the 15th. 

I want to make sure that you make available the $11 million for 

the National Rural Water Association, so that our circuit riders on 

the ground can continue to work with our rural communities and 

help ensure compliance in those areas. Those are tasks that are 

nearly impossible for our small communities to meet, and the circuit rider issue serves them well. So I hope that is going to be the 

case in the proposal we will see on the 15th. 

Thank you much, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much, Senator Craig. 

Administrator Johnson, you have 5 minutes, and please, we will 

put your entire statement in the record, which we have, and we 

hope you will summarize and get to the salient points. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN JOHNSON, ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ACCOMPANIED BY: 

BENJAMIN H. GRUMBLES, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF WATER, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and members of 

the committee. I am pleased to be here to discuss the President’s 

fiscal year 2008 budget request for the Environmental Protection 

Agency. The President’s $7.2 billion request builds upon EPA’s 

record of accomplishments and funds its role as our Nation enters 

the next phase of environmental progress. 

Over our 36 years, EPA has laid a strong foundation to shift 

America to a green culture. Our citizens are embracing the fact 

that environmental responsibility is everyone’s responsibility. So 

today, instead of having only 17,000 EPA employees working to 

protect the environment, we now have 300 million Americans as 

environmental partners. 

These are exciting times. Our air, water and land are cleaner 

today than they were a generation ago. With this budget, our 

progress will continue. The evolution of environmental progress has 

come in part because we have proven that a healthy environment 

and a healthy economy can, in fact, go hand in hand. 

As the economy continues to grow, so do our energy needs. In 

order to help meet the President’s ambitious clean energy and air 

goals, EPA’s budget requests over $82 million to support our Energy Policy Act responsibilities. This includes $8.4 million to implement the renewable fuel standards and $35 million for grants to 

cut diesel emissions from trucks and school buses. 

EPA also plays a vital role in advancing the Administration’s aggressive, yet practical strategy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The President has requested $117.9 million for EPA’s climate 

change programs, including $44 million for the successful Energy 

Star Program, $5 million for the Asia Pacific Partnership Initiative, 

and $4.4 million for the Methane to Markets Program. 

The evolution of environmental progress requires EPA to work 

effectively with our State and local partners. The President’s budget builds on this cooperation by providing $2.7 billion to help our 

partners improve their water quality. We are also promoting the 
14 

use of innovative tax-exempt private activity bonds for capital investments in drinking water and wastewater projects. 

Additionally, collaboration is the key to protecting America’s 

great water bodies. In order to strengthen the efforts of EPA and 

our partners, the President is requesting $28.8 million for the 

Chesapeake Bay, $56.8 million for the Great Lakes, $4.5 million for 

the Gulf of Mexico, and $1 million for Puget Sound. 

At EPA, we are working productively with our partners to deliver 

a healthier and more prosperous future. The President’s budget 

provides $1.2 billion for the Superfund Program to continue transforming hazardous waste sites back into community assets. 

After highlighting some of our cooperative initiatives, we must 

also recognize the necessity of vigorously enforcing our Nation’s environmental laws. The proposed 2008 enforcement budget, $549.5 

million, is the highest enforcement budget ever. 

As EPA helps shape America’s green culture, we understand the 

need to advance environmental science. The President’s commitment to sound science is reflected in his $134 million request, an 

increase of $9.4 million to fund human health risk, clean air, and 

nanotechnology research. 

Finally, I must mention EPA’s evolving role from being guardians of the environment to also guardians of our homeland. The 

President has requested $152 million for our homeland security responsibilities and water security and decontamination. 

While the Nation’s environmental progress continues to evolve, 

so does EPA’s role. This budget will fulfill EPA’s responsibilities of 

being good stewards of the environment and good stewards of our 

Nation’s tax dollars. By making smart use of our resources, we are 

not only building on our Nation’s environmental accomplishments, 

we are creating a lasting legacy for future generations of Americans. 

Thank you and I look forward to addressing your questions. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Stephen Johnson follows:] 

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN L. JOHNSON, ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ACCOMPANIED BY BENJAMIN H. GRUMBLES, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF WATER, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Madam Chairman and members of the committee, I am pleased to be here today 

to discuss the fiscal year (FY) 2008 budget request for the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). The President has requested $7.2 billion to support the work of EPA 

and our partners nationwide. This funding illustrates the Administration’s unwavering commitment to setting high environmental protection standards, while focusing 

on results and performance, and achieving the goals outlined in the President’s 

Management Agenda. 

The President’s request builds on EPA’s long record of accomplishments and funds 

its role as America enters into the next phase of environmental progress. These are 

exciting times for our Nation’s environment. Since its founding, EPA has laid a 

strong foundation of environmental progress. Our air, water and land are cleaner 

today than they were just a generation ago, and with this year’s budget, this 

progress will continue. 

While our Nation’s environmental results are significant, it is important to understand how they’re being achieved. Over our 36 years, EPA has laid a strong foundation to shift America into a ‘‘green’’ culture. Today, instead of having just 17,000 

EPA employees working to protect the environment, we now have over 300 million 

Americans as environmental partners. Americans from all sectors of society—busi-
15 

nesses, communities and individuals—have begun to embrace the fact that the environment is everyone’s responsibility, not just the responsibility of EPA. 

Madam Chairman, the FY 2008 budget will fund our new role in this next exciting phase of environmental progress. 

Our Nation is committed to balancing the budget, and EPA is a proud partner 

in this effort. EPA is not only a good steward of our environment, but it is a good 

steward of our nation’s tax dollars. We are accountable for spending the taxpayer’s 

money efficiently and effectively, while focusing on wisely investing in environmental results. 

CLEAN AIR AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

The FY 2008 President’s Budget requests $912 million for the Clean Air and Global Climate Change goal at EPA. EPA implements this goal through its national and 

regional programs that are designed to provide healthier air for all Americans and 

protect the stratospheric ozone layer while also minimizing the risks from radiation 

releases, reducing greenhouse gas intensity, and enhancing science and research. In 

order to carry out its responsibilities, EPA utilizes programs that include many common elements, including: setting risk-based priorities; facilitating regulatory reform 

and market-based approaches; partnering with State, tribal, and local Governments, 

non-governmental organizations, and industry; promoting energy efficiency; and utilizing sound science. 

The Clean Air Rules are a major component of EPA work under Goal 1 and include a suite of actions that will dramatically improve America’s air quality. Three 

of the rules specifically address the transport of pollution across State borders (the 

Clean Air Interstate Rule, the Clean Air Mercury Rule, and the Clean Air Nonroad 

Diesel Rule). These rules provide national tools to achieve significant improvement 

in air quality and the associated benefits of improved health, longevity and quality 

of life for all Americans. In FY 2008, EPA will be working with the States and industry to implement these rules. 

In order to address the Nation’s growing energy challenges, EPA’s request supports activities associated with the Energy Policy Act of 2005. These activities include the implementation of the Renewable Fuel Standards that will promote the 

use of renewable fuels, diversify our energy sources, and reduce our reliance on oil. 

EPA’s request provides $35 million to support the new Diesel Emission Reduction 

Grants program that is designed to reduce diesel emissions in trucks and school 

buses through retrofitting and replacing existing engines. This program will target 

projects in areas that don’t meet air quality standards to help ensure improvements 

occur in areas of the country where the benefits are needed most. 

In FY 2008, EPA’s climate protection programs will continue its Government and 

industry partnerships to achieve reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and contribute to the President’s goal of reducing greenhouse gas intensity by 18 percent 

in 2012. The President’s request for EPA’s voluntary partnership climate change 

programs and research on technology and science in FY 2008 is $118 million. The 

request includes $4 million for the Methane to Markets Partnership which promotes 

methane recovery and use in landfills, coal mines and natural gas facilities. In addition, EPA’s request provides $5 million to support the Asia Pacific Partnership-this 

partnership supports international efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 

creating new investment opportunities, building local capacity, and removing barriers to the introduction of more efficient technologies. EPA’s climate partnership 

and technology research efforts are components of the Administration’s Climate 

Change Technology Program. In addition, EPA’s Global Change research program 

coordinates its efforts and actively contributes to the Administration’s Climate 

Change Science Program. 

CLEAN AND SAFE WATER

The FY 2008 President’s Budget requests $2.7 billion to implement the Clean and 

Safe Water goal through programs designed to improve the quality of surface water 

and drinking water. EPA will continue to work with its State, tribal, and local partners to achieve measurable improvements to the quality and safety of the nation’s 

drinking water supplies as well as the conditions of rivers, lakes and coastal waters. 

The President’s request continues the Administration’s commitments to the Clean 

Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds. The President funds the Clean 

Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) at $688 million, supporting the cumulative 

capitalization commitment of $6.8 billion for 2004-2011 and enabling the CWSRF 

to eventually revolve at an annual level of $3.4 billion. The budget proposes $842 

million for the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF), essentially the 
16 

same as the 2007 level. This request keeps the Administration’s commitment of 

achieving a long-term $1.2 billion revolving level. 

EPA has worked with Treasury and other parts of the Administration to propose 

expanded use of tax-exempt Private Activity Bonds for capital investments in drinking water and wastewater projects. The President’s Budget proposes to exempt 

PABs from the private activity bond unified State volume cap. PABs are tax-exempt 

bonds issued by a State or local Government, the proceeds of which are used by another entity for a public purpose or by the Government entity itself for certain public-private partnerships. By removing drinking water and wastewater bonds from 

the volume cap, this proposal will provide States and communities greater access 

to PABs to help finance their water infrastructure needs and increase capital investment in the nation’s water infrastructure. 

This Water Enterprise Bond proposal would provide an exception to the unified 

annual State volume cap on tax-exempt qualified private activity bonds for exempt 

facilities for the ‘‘furnishing of water’’ or ‘‘sewage facilities.’’ To ensure the long-term 

financial health and solvency of these drinking water and wastewater systems, communities using these bonds must have demonstrated a process that will move towards full-cost pricing for services within 5 years of issuing the Private Activity 

Bonds. This will help water systems become self-financing and minimize the need 

for future subsidies. 

LAND PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION

The Agency’s FY 2008 budget request to Congress implements the Land Preservation and Restoration goal through EPA’s land program activities that promote the 

following themes: Revitalization, Recycling, Waste Minimization, and Energy Recovery; Emergency Preparedness and Response; and Homeland Security. 

The President’s budget provides $1.2 billion for the Superfund program to continue progress cleaning up the nation’s most contaminated hazardous waste sites. 

As of the end of FY 2006, cleanup construction has been completed at 1,006 National Priorities List (NPL) sites. The Superfund program often completes shortterm removal actions to mitigate immediate health threats at sites prior to completion of investigations and the start of long-term cleanup construction. EPA has continued its efforts to efficiently utilize every dollar and resource available to clean 

up contaminated sites and to protect human health. In FY 2006, EPA obligated 

$390 million of appropriated, State cost-share, and responsible party funding to conduct ongoing cleanup construction and post-construction work at Superfund sites 

that includes nearly $45 million to begin construction at 18 new Superfund projects. 

Based upon the construction schedules, EPA expects to complete construction of all 

remedies at 24 sites in FY 2007 and 30 sites in FY 2008. EPA expects to complete 

construction at 165 sites during the FY 2007 to FY 2011 time period, the goal established in the Agency’s FY 2006 to FY 2011 Strategic Plan. 

In FY 2008, the Agency is requesting $34 million for the Underground Storage 

Tank Program to provide assistance to States to help them meet their new responsibilities, that include: 1) mandatory inspections every 3 years for all underground 

storage tanks; 2) operator training; 3) prohibition of delivery to non-complying facilities; 4) secondary containment of financial responsibility for tank manufacturers 

and installers; 5) various compliance reports; and 6) grant guidelines. The Agency 

is also submitting new legislative language to allow States to use alternative mechanisms, such as the Environment Results Program, to meet the mandatory 3-year inspection requirement. This proposal provides States with a less costly alternative to 

meet the objectives of the Energy Policy Act. 

HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS

In FY 2008, EPA’s Budget carries out the Healthy Communities and Ecosystems 

goal via a combination of regulatory, voluntary, and incentive-based programs. A 

key component of the Healthy Communities and Ecosystems goal is to reduce risks 

to human health and the environment through community and geographically-based 

programs. 

In FY 2008, $162.2 million was requested for the Brownfields program to support 

research efforts with additional assessments, revolving loan fund, cleanup grants 

and workforce development programs. When leveraged with State and local resources, this Brownfield funding will help assess more than 1,000 properties, clean 

up more than 60 sites, and address petroleum contamination in more than 40 communities. 

EPA focuses on collaborative place-based programs to protect the great 

waterbodies—the Chesapeake Bay, the Great Lakes, the Gulf of Mexico and the 

Puget Sound. 
17 

The Chesapeake Bay is the largest estuary in the United States and a water resource of tremendous ecological and economic importance. The greatest success in 

the last five years has been the water quality initiative that has resulted in new 

water quality standards for the Bay, the adoption of nutrient and sediment allocations for all parts of the watershed that meet new standards, and tributary-specific 

pollution reduction and habitat restoration plans. To continue to carry out these 

functions, the FY 2008 President’s Budget requests $29 million in FY 2008, an increase of over $2 million from the previous President’s Budget request. Within the 

request is $8 million for competitive grants for innovative, cost-effective non-point 

source watershed projects, which reduce nutrient and/or sediment discharges to the 

Bay. 

The Great Lakes are the largest system of surface freshwater on earth, containing 

20 percent of the world’s surface freshwater and accounting for 84 percent of the 

surface freshwater in the United States. The goal of the Agency’s Great Lakes Program is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of 

the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem. The President’s FY 2008 budget commits $57 

million towards continuing efforts by EPA’s Great Lakes program, working with 

State, local, and tribal partners and using the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration 

Strategy as a guide to protect and restore the Great Lakes. The Agency will focus 

on working with partners to clean up and de-list eight Areas of Concern (AOCs) by 

2010, emphasizing clean up of contaminated sediments under the Great Lakes Legacy Act. EPA will continue to work towards reducing PCB concentrations in lake 

trout and walleye and keeping Great Lakes beaches open and safe for swimming 

during the beach season. 

The FY 2008 President’s Budget Request provides $4.5 million for the Gulf of 

Mexico program to support Gulf States and stakeholders in developing a regional, 

ecosystem-based framework for restoring and protecting the Gulf of Mexico. 

EPA efforts in the Puget Sound are focused on the Basin’s highest priority environmental challenges: air and water quality. The FY 2008 Budget provides $1 million for restoration activities to improve water quality and minimize the adverse impacts of rapid development. 

Another major focus of the Healthy Communities and Ecosystems goal is identifying, assessing, and reducing the risks from pesticides. In FY 2008, EPA will continue identifying and assessing potential risks from pesticides. In addition, EPA will 

set priorities for addressing pesticide risks and promoting innovative and alternative measures of pest control. EPA will continue to meet its pesticide-related 

homeland security responsibilities by identifying and reviewing proposed pesticides 

for use against pathogens of greatest concern for crops, animals, and humans. EPA 

will continue to work closely with other Federal agencies and industry to implement 

its Registration Review program that will review existing pesticide registrations on 

a 15-year cycle to ensure that registered pesticides in the marketplace continue to 

be safe for use in accordance with the latest scientific information. 

COMPLIANCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP

The EPA’s FY 2008 Budget request of $743.8 million for the Compliance and Environmental Stewardship goal provides funding for programs that monitor and promote enforcement and compliance with environmental laws and policies. The Agency 

will also support stewardship through direct programs, collaboration and grants for 

pollution prevention, pesticide and toxic substance enforcement, environmental information, and continuing an environmental presence in Indian country. 

In FY 2008, the budget for this goal also provides $56.9 million for GAP grants, 

which will build tribal environmental capacity to assess environmental conditions, 

utilize available Federal information, and build an environmental program tailored 

to tribes’ needs. The grants will develop environmental education and outreach programs, develop and implement integrated solid waste management plans, and alert 

EPA to serious conditions that pose immediate public health and ecological threats. 

Through GAP program guidance, EPA emphasizes outcome-based results. 

ENFORCEMENT

In FY 2008, the proposed total of $549.5 million represents the highest requested 

enforcement budget. This request for an increase of $9.1 million reflects the Administration’s strong commitment to the vigorous enforcement of our nation’s environmental laws and ensures that we will have the resources necessary to maintain a 

robust and effective enforcement program. 

EPA’s enforcement program continues to achieve outstanding enforcement results 

with settlements over the past 3 years resulting in commitments of nearly $20 billion in future pollution controls. As an outcome of EPA’s Superfund enforcement ac-
18 

tions in FY 06, parties held responsible for pollution will invest $391 million to 

clean up 15 million cubic yards of contaminated soil and approximately 1.3 billion 

cubic yards of contaminated groundwater at waste sites. These results show a 

strong and vigorous enforcement program that will be attainable under the FY 2008 

Request. 

RESEARCH

EPA conducts research that provides a scientific foundation for the Agency’s actions to protect the air that all Americans breathe. In FY 2008, EPA’s air research 

program will support implementation of the Clean Air Act, especially the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The NAAQS programs will focus on tropospheric ozone, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and lead. EPA also conducts research to improve understanding of the risks 

from other hazardous air pollutants, known as air toxics. EPA is also one of many 

Federal agencies that actively contribute to the Administration’s Climate Change 

Science Program. 

Other important areas of research in FY 2008 will include: 1) development of molecular microarrays for detection of bacterial pathogens and non-pathogenic microbes in drinking water source waters; 2) epidemiological studies on the illness 

rates resulting from untreated groundwater and distribution systems; 3) studies on 

the practices, such as blending, for handling significant wet weather events to identify ‘‘best practices’’ for preventing peak wet weather flows from overwhelming 

wastewater treatment facilities while protecting water quality; and 4) providing 

more efficient monitoring and diagnostic tools through continued research to develop 

methods of using landscape assessments for monitoring and assessing watershed 

conditions. These programs will help assess risks and priorities for ensuring clean 

water. 

EPA is requesting $10.2 million in FY 2008 for nanotechnology research, which 

will focus primarily on the potential implications of manufactured nanomaterials on 

human health and the environment. The Agency’s efforts are coordinated with other 

Federal agencies through the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), which the 

Administration has identified as a FY 2008 research and development budget priority. In FY 2008, EPA’s Science to Achieve Results (STAR) program will continue 

to fund exploratory grants on the potential implications of manufactured nanomaterials on the environment and human health, in collaboration with other Federal 

agencies. 

The Agency also will continue in-house nanotechnology research initiated in FY 

2007. The integrated programs will focus on: 1) assessing the potential ecological 

and human health exposures and effects from nanomaterials likely to be released 

into the environment; 2) studying the lifecycles of nanomaterials to better understand how environmental releases may occur; 3) developing methods to detect releases of nanomaterials; and 4) using nanotechnology to detect, control, and remediate traditional pollutants. 

Recognizing that environmental policy and regulatory decisions will only be as 

good as the science upon which they are based, EPA makes every effort to ensure 

that its science is of the highest quality and relevance, thereby providing the basis 

for sound environmental decisions and results. EPA uses the Federal Research and 

Development (R&D) Investment Criteria of quality, relevance, and performance in 

its decision-making processes through: 1) the use of research strategies and plans; 

2) program review and evaluation by the Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) and 

the Science Advisory Board (SAB); and 3) independent peer review. 

HOMELAND SECURITY

Following the cleanup and decontamination efforts after the terrorist incidents in 

2001, the Agency has focused on ensuring we have the tools and protocols needed 

to detect and recover quickly from deliberate incidents. The emphasis for FY 2008 

is on several areas including decontaminating threat agents, protecting our water 

and food supplies, and ensuring that trained personnel and key lab capacities are 

in place to be drawn upon in the event of an emergency. Part of these FY 2008 efforts will continue to include activities to implement a common identification standard for EPA employees and contractors such as the Smartcard initiative. 

EPA has a major role in supporting the protection of the nation’s critical water 

infrastructure from terrorist threats. In FY 2008, EPA will continue to support the 

Water Security Initiative (formerly known as Water Sentinel) pilot program and 

water sector-specific agency responsibilities, including the Water Alliance for Threat 

Reduction (WATR), to protect the nation’s critical water infrastructure. The FY 2008 

budget provides $22 million for the Water Security Initiative to continue operation 
19 

at the existing pilot systems and to begin deployment of the last pilot systems. Ultimately, an expansion of the number of utilities will serve to promote the adoption 

of Water Security within the water sector. Functioning warning systems, among 

several utilities of potentially divergent configurations, will afford a more compelling 

outcome than just one utility. After start-up of the remaining pilot systems in 2008, 

the program will ramp down as EPA shifts its focus to evaluation of the pilots. EPA 

will continue support of each pilot for three years, after which the host cities will 

assume maintenance of these systems and over time bring them to full-scale operation. By the end of FY 2007, EPA will issue interim guidance on design and consequence management that will enable water utilities to deploy and test contamination warning systems in their own communities. 

In FY 2008, the Agency, in collaboration with our water sector security stakeholders, will continue our efforts to develop, implement and initiate tracking of national measures related to homeland security critical infrastructure protection activities. 

In summary, this budget will enable us to carry out the goals and objectives as 

set forth in our Strategic Plan, meet challenges through innovative and collaborative 

efforts with our State, tribal, and private entity partners, and focus on accountability and results in order to maximize environmental benefits. The requested resources will help us better understand and solve environmental challenges using the 

best available science and data, and support the President’s focus on the importance 

of homeland security while carrying out EPA’s mission. 

RESPONSES BY STEPHEN JOHNSON TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

FROM SENATOR BOXER

GLOBAL CHANGE SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM

Question 1. Funding for the EPA’s Global Change Science & Technology Program 

was cut by $548,400 in from the FY06 enacted level to the President’s Budget FY08 

(See Appendix). Why was this program cut? 

Response. The President’s FY 2008 request includes $17 million for climate 

change research at EPA. In FY 2008, EPA’s global change research program will 

continue to play a major role in the interagency U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) and focus on developing the scientific understanding of how climate 

change will influence air and water quality, ecosystems, and human health. The 

program will also emphasize providing information and decision support tools that 

enable policymakers to respond effectively to global change. The budget reduction 

planned for FY 2008 will result in approximately one fewer research grant to study 

how global change will influence aeroallergens such as pollen and mold. 

Question 2. How do the above cuts exemplify the Bush administration’s and the 

EPA’s commitment to funding Climate Change science? 

Response. The President’s FY 2008 budget includes a commitment of $17 million 

for climate change research at EPA and, more generally, over $1.8 billion for the 

U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP). Together these agencies, with significant contributions from EPA, are implementing a coordinated strategy to improve our understanding of climate change and variability and strengthen the 

science that will be needed to address climate change. 
20 

INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE (IPCC) REPORT

Question 3. This IPCC report was strongly embraced by the Bush administration 

in the same press release, stating: 

The report confirms what President Bush has said about the nature of climate 

change and it reaffirms the need for continued U.S. leadership in addressing global 

climate issues. The report findings highlight the need for robust climate research 

and the development of new technologies to clean our air and deal with global climate change, while maintaining economic competitiveness. 

How do the above cuts fit with the Bush administration’s support of the IPCC report and the need for climate research? 

Response. The President’s FY 2008 budget includes a commitment of $17 million 

for climate change research at EPA and, more than $1.8 billion for the Federal participants of the interagency Climate Change Science Program which includes 13 

agencies and departments. Together these agencies, with significant contributions 

from EPA, are implementing a coordinated strategy to improve our understanding 

of climate change and variability and strengthen the science that will be needed to 

address climate change. 

$29 BILLION STUDIES

Question 4. On February 8, 2007, in an online forum at the White House, you are 

quoted as saying, ‘‘[S]ince 2001, the Bush administration has invested more than 

$29 billion to study climate change science, promote energy-efficient and carbon dioxide-reducing technologies, and fund tax incentive programs.’’ 

In September 2006, several of my colleagues and I sent a letter to James 

Connaughton, Director, White House Council of Environmental Quality asking questions regarding the $29 billion figure. This letter is attached. Because we have not 
21 

received a response from Mr. Connaughton, we would like you to answer these questions. Please answer each of the specific questions in the attached letter. 

Response. It is our understanding that CEQ is in the process of responding to the 

letter. Inasmuch, EPA will defer. 

PESTICIDES—LEAD RULE

Question 5. EPA’s Budget Justification says that the Agency is reducing funding 

to protect people from pesticides in order to fund work on a rule to reduce risks from 

lead. It seems clear that EPA needs more money to do its job of protecting public 

health. 

Describe the amount of money that EPA needs to both complete the lead rule and 

promptly review all of the pesticides that need to be reviewed to ensure their safety 

by the end of 2008. 

Response. EPA has requested $1,000,000 for the completion of the Lead Renovation and Remodeling (R&R) Rule in 2008. The FY 2008 President’s Budget provides 

sufficient funding to protect human health and the environment by reviewing pesticides to ensure their safety by the end of FY 2008, as mandated by FQPA and 

PRIA. 

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE—FUNDING

Question 6. The EPA is charged with ensuring environmental justice in its decisions and in the programs that it oversees. However, a 2004 EPA Inspector General 

(IG) report concluded that the Agency had not ‘‘consistently integrated environmental justice into its day-to-day operations, [and that the Agency had] not established values, goals, expectations, and performance measurements’’ for environmental justice. A 2006 IG survey ‘‘showed that EPA senior management has not sufficiently directed program and regional offices to conduct environmental justice reviews’’ in accordance with an executive order on environmental justice. The IG stated, ‘‘Consequently, the majority of respondents reported their programs or offices 

have not performed environmental justice reviews.’’ Clearly, EPA should be doing 

more—not less—to ensure environmental justice in its decisions and programs. 

However, the budget proposes to cut funding for environmental justice by more than 

$1.7 million, a 31 percent cut. 

Please describe: 

The amount of annual funding that EPA has provided to the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC) since 2001. Please also describe the level 

of Federal resources, measured by the number of fully staffed Full Time Equivalents, devoted to the NEJAC annually since 2001. 

Response. We are pleased to update you on the progress the Agency has made 

in addressing the concerns raised by the IG concerning the environmental justice 

program at EPA. Recently, we convened the Agency senior managers to complete 

the plan for developing and conducting environmental justice reviews for selected 

programs and activities. The Office of the Inspector General accepted the Agency’s 

plan stating that ‘‘we accept the proposed actions and appreciate your constructive 

approach to the issues raised in our report.’’ Developing and conducting environmental justice reviews is one component of many that the Office of Environmental 

Justice is undertaking to promote the integration of environmental justice into the 

day-to-day operations of the Agency. 

As indicated in the IG report, the ultimate goal is to integrate EJ into the Agency’s core programs. 

With respect to the budget for the EPA’s Environmental Justice program, the environmental justice base program is being reduced by a modest 1.0 FTE in the FY 

2008 budget request (from the FY 2007 Request). The reduction reflects efficiencies 

the program has been able to achieve from reducing the number of NEJAC subcommittees, requiring less Headquarters coordination and support. The decrease 

mentioned in your question refers to the earmark received in FY 2006, but not requested in FY 2008. As a matter of policy, the Agency does not sustain Congressional earmarks in its budget request. 

Although Congress did not provide an earmark in FY 2007, EPA increased funding by $850,000 for the environmental justice grant program. 

Staff support and funding for the NEJAC is provided by the Office of Environmental Justice as part of its mission. There is not a separate budget line item for 

the NEJAC activities. The following table provides funding for the Agency’s Environmental Justice program project between FYs 2001 and 2008. FTE reductions in 

recent years are largely associated with a reduction in the number of NEJAC Subcommittees, requiring less Headquarters coordination and support. 
22 

With regards to NEJAC meetings, EPA anticipates there will be three meetings 

held in FY 2008. 

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE—POLLUTION PREVENTION

Question 7. EPA’s process of reviewing Federal regulatory programs for pollution 

prevention opportunities by reducing the use and production of toxic chemicals as 

required the by the Pollution Prevention Act and endorsed by the NEJAC: Please 

provide a list of pollution prevention initiatives that seek to reduce the use and production of toxic chemicals in environmental justice communities that EPA has implemented since 2001. Please provide a description of initiative, its current status, 

and an assessment of its impacts in reducing the use and production of toxic chemicals. 

Response. The Office of Pesticides, Prevention, and Toxics has taken numerous actions since 2001 to reduce the use and production of toxic chemicals in environmental justice communities. Examples include: 

• In 2003, the Agency initiated a new program, Community Action for a Renewed 

Environment, or CARE, to assist communities—especially those with EJ concerns— 

to better understand risks of, and to utilize pollution prevention and other approaches to reduce exposure to toxic chemicals in their communities. This grant and 

technical assistance program helps communities build local partnerships to understand risks from all sources, set priorities, and take voluntary actions to reduce 

risks. Cross program, multimedia teams have been organized in the Agency to work 

with the CARE. The CARE program is now working with 51 communities in over 

25 States. 

• EPA has also been working with Tribes to address toxic chemicals concerns on 

tribal lands: 

-EPA’s Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) participates in the Forum 

for State and Tribal Toxics Actions (FOSTTA), which has conducted approximately 

three meeting per year concerning its Tribal Project. Further, the Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances has developed and is implementing an OPPTS 

Tribal Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2004-2008. 

-OPPT has also been engaged since FY 2002 with the Tribal Workgroup of the 

National Pollution Prevention and Toxics Advisory Committee (NPPTAC), chartered 

under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). The workgroup identified and 

framed two broad issues for consideration by the Committee: Green Buildings on 

Tribal Lands and Tribal Access to, and Utilization of, Publicly Available Chemical 

Hazard and Exposure Data. The Committee approved and provided to EPA two recommendations based on these issues. The Agency, in addition to supporting the 

Tribal workgroup, has begun to implement both of these recommendations. 

-OPPT is also developing a Tribal Green Building and P2 Technologies Guidance 

Document under a contract with a tribal owned business. The document seeks to 

provide information which can be used to guide decision-making for Tribal Governments in their business and economic development plans. This document includes 

a cost/benefit analysis on green building options and technologies, including rainwater run-off roofs, green landscaping, green building materials, etc. A draft of the 

document is currently being circulated for review among tribal communities, specifically seeking recommendations on its applicability in Indian County. 

-OPPT is working with the Department of Housing and Urban Development 

(HUD) to incorporate green building guidance into the Indian Housing Block Grants 

(IHBG) Program and other Tribal programs. HUD has indicated that they would in-
23 

clude green building information on their website; negotiations on changing their 

IHBG guidance to include an emphasis on green buildings are continuing. 

-OPPT has initiated discussions with the Indian Health Service (IHS) to implement greener health care practices in Indian health clinics and hospitals IHS has 

begun EMS pilot sites at two facilities-a hospital and a clinic. IHS has identified 

additional sites to implement the EMS program, and has asked OPPT and the Hospitals for a Healthy Environment (H2E) organization for technical assistance. 

To ensure that pollution prevention approaches are considered in the development 

of regulations and major Agency actions, EPA’s formal process for initiating and reviewing regulatory actions, known as the Action Development Process (ADP), includes a specific step to ensure that pollution prevention approaches are considered 

at the very beginning of the regulatory development process. The ADP includes the 

creation of a document known as an ‘‘analytic blueprint,’’ or ABP, for guiding the 

development of a major regulation or Agency action. The analytic blueprint is meant 

to specifically address the topic of pollution prevention (P2), and to examine potential P2 approaches, or to explain why P2 isn’t an appropriate option for the particular regulatory action under development. 

TITLE VI COMPLAINTS

Question 8. The number of Title VI complaints since 2001 that the Agency has 

received based on environmental justice concerns, the number of complaints investigated, the number of permits reviewed, and the outcome of such reviews. Please 

include a description of the type of investigation and review, and dates for the beginning and completion of each review process. 

Response. Since 2001, the Agency has received 84 complaints based on environmental justice concerns. Of those 84 complaints, 26 complaints are undergoing jurisdictional review and 8 complaints are under active investigation. Fifty of the complaints received since 2001 have been closed. Forty-one of the closed complaints 

were rejected on jurisdictional grounds. The most frequent grounds for rejection 

were untimeliness and lack of a financial assistance recipient. One complaint was 

referred to another Federal agency that likely had jurisdiction. Another complaint 

was informally resolved by the parties. 

EPA’s implementing regulations, found at 40 C.F.R. Part 7, state that it is EPA’s 

policy to seek informal resolution of Title VI complaints whenever possible. EPA has 

employed alternative dispute resolution (ADR) techniques in several of our Title VI 

cases. 

The informal resolution of a complaint has occurred when the parties (i.e. EPA, 

complainant, and recipient) involved have reached a resolution by informal voluntary negotiations. 

Seven of the complaints received and reviewed since 2001 were dismissed after 

acceptance (see chart below). The withdrawal of a complaint has occurred when a 

complainant notifies EPA that it would like to withdraw their complaint. This withdrawal therefore dismisses the complaint and renders the case resolved. None of 

these seven complaints involved permit reviews. 

From 2001 to the present, the Agency has closed a total of 103 complaints alleging 

discrimination by recipients of EPA assistance. Fifty-three of those complaints were 

received by the Agency prior to 2001, and 50 of the complaints were received since 

2001. 
24 

INSPECTOR GENERAL-STAFF

Question 9. Please describe whether the IG, given the demographics of the Office, 

should be hiring and training staff now to ensure that it maintains its output and 

expertise as staff retire. 

Response. The OIG maintains an ambitious level of technical and management 

training, as appropriate for its staff and in compliance with the rigors of Comptroller General’s Government Auditing Standards, which is certified through an 

independent peer review. This training, along with assignments designed to provide 

staff with developmental experience, increasing levels of responsibility, and supervisory opportunities, prepare them for greater challenges to build organizational 

competence at all levels. While approximately 11 percent of the EPA OIG staff are 

currently eligible for retirement, the OIG has built a strong core of young managers 

and has been highly successful in attracting and developing outstanding candidates 

when positions are available. The OIG constantly explores staffing and skill needs 

in relation to its strategic goals, specific assignments, and available resources to 

consider all options for accomplishing its mission, through the most efficient blend 

of permanent staff and specialized contract services. Within this overarching framework, the OIG plans to hire 5-10 new trainees each year. 
25 

EPA ENFORCEMENTquestion 10. epa proposes to cut $1.3 million for the superfund 

program’s enforcement budget for forensic support to track polluters and make 

them pay. epa also expects a decline in the money it recovers from polluters for 

past epa cleanups. epa should not be cutting enforcement resources at the same 

time that the agency’s budget proposed to provide fewer funds for cleanups and 

independent oversight activities by the inspector general. 

Please describe the forensic programs that could have their funding cut under the 

proposed budget, including any potential funding cuts for work that may be done 

by the National Enforcement Investigations Center. 

Response. The Agency’s FY 2008 request for the National Enforcement Investigations Center (NEIC), EPA’s forensics laboratory, is sufficient to continue providing 

specialized scientific and technical support for the nation’s most complex enforcement cases across all media. We are confident that the proposed FY 2008 budget 

achieves the appropriate balance between our programs. 

Most of the budget changes to the Forensics Support Superfund program represent a realignment of resources between appropriations and not a reduction to the 

program. EPA proposes to transfer resources from the Superfund appropriation to 

the Science and Technology appropriation to reflect a shifting workload between 

Superfund and non-Superfund activities. This shift is based on workload data used 

to establish a charging methodology for Superfund and non- Superfund activities. 

CLIMATE CHANGE PROGRAMS—ENERGY STAR

Question 11. During the Environment and Public Works Committee hearing on 

EPA’s Budget, you mentioned EPA’s Energy Star program numerous times, mentioning how successful a program it has been. According to your statement, in 2005 

alone, Americans ‘‘saved $12 billion in energy costs’’ from the Energy Star program. 

The FY 2006 enacted level was $49.5 million for Energy Star while the President’s 

FY08 Budget requests $43.9 million, a decrease of over $5.6 million. Why would 

such a successful program be cut? 

Response. The reductions to the Energy Star programs in FY 2007 and FY 2008 

reflect a decrease in Federal investment due to public and private industry adoption 

of these programs. For example, the acceptance of energy efficiency as an industry 

standard is now seen in building construction and in the manufacturing of hundreds 

of appliances. This decrease also included contract funding that reflects efficiency 

gains and shifting priorities. 

CLIMATE CHANGE PROGRAMS—ENERGY STAR GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Question 12. You also stated that you feel the budget provides ‘‘sufficient funds 

to be able to meet our fiscal year 2008 goals and objectives in Energy Star.’’ Are 

the standards for goals and objectives being lowered to compensate for the decreased 

funding? Please provide details on the goals and objectives of the Energy Star for 

FY08, specifically noting any changes that have been made to goals from FY07. 

Response. EPA still anticipates that ENERGY STAR will meet its goals of avoiding 33 MMTCE and 40 MMTCE of greenhouse gas emissions in 2007 and 2008. The 

goal for the Energy Star program includes ongoing work (that is work funded in previous years). This work is not dependent on the funding in the current year. The 

effects of the funding reduction in FY 2008 will be seen as EPA sets goals for future 

years. 

CLIMATE PROTECTION PROGRAM—S&T

Question 13. Though funding for the EPA Climate Protection Program Science & 

Technology program increased by $554,400 in the President’s Budget from FY07 to 

FY08, from the FY06 enacted level, the President’s FY08 Budget represents a cut 

of over $5.5 million. (See Appendix) Why was this program cut? 

Response. Reductions from FY 2006 to FY 2008 to the S&T portion of the Climate 

Change program reflects a phase down in Federal investment in hydraulic hybrid 

technology development as a result of transfer to private sector of hybrid and clean 

diesel technologies. The plan to transfer these technologies will be as follows: 

1. Innovations are first evaluated by EPA engineers in the laboratory. 

2. EPA then works with private industry to demonstrate that the concept evaluated in the laboratory will work in the real world. 

Finally, EPA collaborates with industry partners to transfer unique expertise and 

know-how about specified technology from EPA engineers to private industry. 
26 

GLOBAL CHANGE SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM

Question 14. Funding for the EPA’s Global Change Science & Technology Program 

was cut by $548,400 in from the FY06 enacted level to the President’s Budget FY08. 

3(See Appendix) Why was this program cut? 

Response. The President’s FY 2008 request includes $17 million for climate 

change research at EPA. In FY 2008, EPA’s global change research program will 

continue to play a major role in the interagency U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) and focus on developing the scientific understanding of how climate 

change will influence air and water quality, ecosystems, and human health. The 

program will also emphasize providing information and decision support tools that 

enable policymakers to respond effectively to global change. The budget reduction 

planned for FY 2008 will result in approximately one fewer research grant to study 

how global change will influence aeroallergens such as pollen and mold. 

Question 15. How do the above cuts exemplify the Bush administration’s and the 

EPA’s commitment to funding Climate Change science? 

Response. The President’s FY 2008 budget includes a commitment of $17 million 

for climate change research at EPA and, more generally, over $1.8 billion for the 

U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP). Together these agencies, with significant contributions from EPA, are implementing a coordinated strategy to improve our understanding of climate change and variability and strengthen the 

science that will be needed to address climate change. 

INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE (IPCC) REPORT

Question 16. This IPCC report was strongly embraced by the Bush administration 

in the same press release, stating: 

The report confirms what President Bush has said about the nature of climate 

change and it reaffirms the need for continued U.S. leadership in addressing global 

climate issues. The report findings highlight the need for robust climate research 

and the development of new technologies to clean our air and deal with global climate change, while maintaining economic competitiveness. 

How do the above cuts fit with the Bush administration’s support of the IPCC report and the need for climate research? 

Response. The President’s FY 2008 budget includes a commitment of $17 million 

for climate change research at EPA and, more than $1.8 billion for the Federal participants of the interagency Climate Change Science Program which includes 13 

agencies and departments. Together these agencies, with significant contributions 

from EPA, are implementing a coordinated strategy to improve our understanding 

of climate change and variability and strengthen the science that will be needed to 

address climate change. 

CLIMATE CHANGE PROGRAMS—ENERGY STAR AND SMALL BUSINESSES

Question 17. On March 8, 2007 EPA Acting Assistant Administrator William 

Wehrum testified regarding the Energy Star Program, before the Committee on 

Small Business and entrepreneurship. He noted that ‘‘in 2006, there were more 

than 130,000 visits to the Energy Star small business web site.’’ This program is 

needed to serve more than 26 million small businesses as well as other institutions 

like churches. Yet EPA is proposing to cut the Energy Star Budget. What is the 

budget for the Energy Star Small Business program, and how many exclusive staff 

does this expenditure support? What percentage of the overall Energy Star budget 

is devoted to small business and how much will the overall amount decrease under 

the proposed cut? 

Response. The annual EPA budget for ENERGY STAR activities aimed directly 

at small businesses and congregations is approximately $1 million. This represents 

approximately 2 percent of EPA’s overall ENERGY STAR budget. However, in addition to these dedicated resources, a number of other efforts within the ENERGY 

STAR program directly benefit small businesses not including benefits to small businesses from the Department of Energy, who is a partner with EPA in ENERGY 

STAR. EPA efforts include: 

• Maintaining an up-to-date website on energy efficient products and other energy saving information. 

• Implementing outreach campaigns on proper maintenance of heating and cooling equipment and other energy saving practices. 

• Technical tool development. 

• Promotion of energy efficiency to commercial real estate operators, who are the 

landlords for many small businesses. 
27 

Promotion of ENERGY STAR Commercial Food Service equipment to thousands 

of small businesses through the National Restaurant Association and other organizations. 

The ENERGY STAR small business program is supported by two full-time EPA 

staff, as well as part-time efforts from a number of additional EPA staff. 

We have not yet considered the FY 2008 budget for support of the ENERGY 

STAR small business program, therefore it is not possible to determine the specific 

funding level at this time. 

$29 BILLION STUDIES

Question 18. On February 8, 2007, in an online forum at the White House, you 

are quoted as saying,’’[S]ince 2001, the Bush administration has invested more than 

$29 billion to study climate change science, promote energy-efficient and carbon dioxide-reducing technologies, and fund tax incentive programs.’’ 

In September 2006, several of my colleagues and I sent a letter to James 

Connaughton, Director, White House Council of Environmental Quality asking questions regarding the $29 billion figure. This letter is attached. Because we have not 

received a response from Mr. Connaughton, we would like you to answer these questions. Please answer each of the specific questions in the attached letter. 

Response. It is our understanding that CEQ is in the process of responding to the 

letter. Inasmuch, EPA will defer. 

SUPERFUND TOXIC WASTE CLEANUP PROGRAM—NPL SITES BEGINNING 1993

Question 19. For sites listed under Superfund beginning in 1993 that do not have 

a Federal Government agency as the potentially responsible party (i.e. non-federal 

Superfund sites), please describe: Whether the site has a final Record of Decision, 

including the date of any such document. The expected date for any such document 

to be signed, if it has not yet been signed. The amount of cleanup work already completed at the site and the expected date for completing any remaining cleanup work 

at the site, and for all sites that Federal Superfund money is being used to conduct 

a cleanup, the expected amount of money needed to finish construction activities required for cleanup. 

Response. The table in Attachment 1 contains data for 215 non-federal, final National Priorities List (NPL) sites that were added to the NPL beginning in 1993 and 

that were not construction complete as of the end of FY 2006. Please note that: • If a site had a final remedy selected as of the end of FY 2006, the fiscal year 

of that decision is indicated in the attachment. • If a site did not have a final remedy selected as of the end of FY 2006, the latest 

planned completion date (FY) of any planned Records of Decision (RODs) is identified in the attached table. This date may not indicate the expected date of the final 

remedy decision, as additional RODs, ROD Amendments, or Explanations of Significant Difference may be necessary in the future that have not yet been planned. If 

no date was provided, then a future decision document planned completion date 

does not exist or was not currently available in the Agency’s data system. 

• Because site-wide cleanup is dependent upon multiple remedial and/or removal 

actions at potentially multiple subunits with differing costs and durations, EPA has 

not defined a measure to determine the percentage of total remedial work at a site 

that has been accomplished. For sites that have a Final Remedy Selected decision 

as of the end of FY 2006, the attached table provides the currently estimated construction completion date. Note that planning information in the Agency’s data system is dynamic, and estimates change frequently for a variety of reasons. 

• The amount of money needed to finish construction activities for cleanup at 

sites where Federal Superfund money is being used to conduct a cleanup is defined 

in this response as all FY 2007 and subsequent planned obligations for all Fundlead construction actions at sites that are not construction complete as of the end 

of FY 2006. These estimates include both appropriated resources as well as resources recovered from settlements with potentially responsible parties (PRPs) and 

State cost share resources. Estimates do not include costs associated with post-construction or oversight of PRP implementation, nor costs of construction activities 

that have not yet been planned, nor costs associated with remedies that have not 

yet been selected. Lack of planning data may be due to several reasons, such as 

remedy decisions are still pending, projects are still in the early phases of design, 

or EPA is still identifying, or negotiating with, PRPs to perform the cleanup. Sites 

where a PRP has the lead for any planned or ongoing construction (last column of 

table in Attachment 1) may not include a cost estimate. However, some of these 

sites may also have planned or ongoing Fund-lead construction actions and the cost 

estimates for those projects are included. 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 

SUPERFUND SITES—SHORT-TERM CLEANUPS

Question 20. Superfund limits EPA’s use of short-term cleanup actions (i.e. removal actions) to 12 months from the date of the initial cleanup action or 

$2,000,000, with certain exceptions. These limitations ensure that EPA uses its 

long-term cleanup authorities (i.e. remedial action), which may have more substantial safeguards than short-term cleanups. Please describe the: Number and location 

of short-term cleanups that EPA has conducted each year since 1996. Number of 

times that EPA has exceeded the statutory limitations described above on removal 

actions. Beginning and ending date, or the anticipated ending date, of all removal 

actions, and the amount of money that EPA spent on the removal action, or that 

the Agency anticipates spending on the removal action. 

Response. The Agency short-term clean-up action (removals) sites quickly address 

those releases that pose a threat to public health or welfare or the environment. 

Yearly, EPA uses its CERCLA removal response authority, to respond to hundreds 

of sites which pose immediate and substantial threats, such as chemical fires and 

spills, as well as illegal dumps and abandoned chemical plants. 

A removal action is generally short-term and addresses the most immediate site 

threats. Due to the nature of these responses and the unpredictability of the number, location and scope of those actions, the removal program is generally unable 

to predict the locality, duration, or total costs associated with a removal action, at 

the onset of the response action. 

In response to this question, by July 31, we will provide a listing of all fund lead 

removal actions taken since FY 1996. The list will also contain the requested start 

and/or completion dates, obligated funding and any exceptions to CERCLA statutory 

limitations. 

SUPERFUND SITES—CLEANUPS

Question 21. EPA’s listing of new Superfund sites for cleanup has declined by 33 

percent. Between 1995 and 2000, EPA listed an average of 27 sites. Between 2001 

and 2006, EPA listed an average of 18 toxic waste sites each year. Independent experts and the EPA recognize that there are enough unaddressed toxic waste sites 

to maintain the historic pace of listing through the end of this decade. Please provide the following information on EPA’s listing process since 2001: 

All sites that EPA has requested a governor’s concurrence to list under Superfund. 

Response. EPA does not track its requests for concurrence letters. The Agency 

only documents the receipt of concurrence letters since a site is not listed without 

such a letter. EPA believes it is important to have the State concur in the listing 

to ensure State support for the cleanup of the site. For a Fund-lead remedial action, 

the State will need to sign a Superfund State Contract (SSC) committing to costsharing the construction of the remedy and operating / maintaining the completed 

remedy. Since 2001, EPA has received Governor/State concurrence letters requesting the listing of 115 sites from 32 different States. 

Question 22. All sites that EPA has requested a governor’s concurrence to list 

under Superfund but that EPA has not yet listed, including the reason for EPA’s 

failure to list the site. 

Response. Of the 115 sites for which EPA has received governor/state concurrence 

letters since 2001, only 8 have not been proposed to the NPL. See the table below 

for the reasons that the eight sites have not been proposed for listing. 
39 

Question 23. All sites that State or local officials have formally or informally requested EPA to list for cleanup under Superfund. 

Response. EPA tracks formal concurrence letters from governors requesting the 

listing of sites. Since 2001, EPA has received 115 of these letters. EPA does not 

track informal requests for listing. 

Question 24. All sites that State or local officials have formally or informally requested EPA to list for cleanup under Superfund but that EPA has not yet listed, 

including the reason for EPA’s failure to list the site. 

Response. Of the 115 sites for which EPA has received formal concurrence letters 

since 2001, only 8 have not been proposed to the NPL. See the table above for the 

reasons that the eight sites have not been proposed for listing. 

NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL FOR ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY AND TECHNOLOGY

(NACEPT) REPORT

Question 25. A 2004 EPA National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and 

Technology (NACEPT) report found that in 2002 the Agency began using a new and 

additional layer of evaluation prior to listing a site under Superfund. EPA officials 

told NACEPT that a panel of Agency officials now considers various factors, including potential Superfund costs, prior to listing a site. The NACEPT reported stated 

that this was the first time that EPA has considered cost as a factor for listing sites. 

Please provide information on this process that describes the: 

Number of sites submitted to the panel on an annual basis. 
40 

Response. EPA considered 44 sites for proposal on the National Priorities List 

(NPL) in FY 2003, 16 sites in FY 2004, 21 sites in FY 2005, 22 sites in FY 2006, 

and 8 sites through March 2007. 

Question 26. Number of sites listed on an annual basis since the panel began reviewing sites for potential listing. 

Response. Sites proposed in any particular year may be added to the NPL in subsequent years. EPA added 20 sites to the NPL in FY 2003, 11 sites in FY 2004, 

18 sites in FY 2005, 11 sites in FY 2006, and 5 sites to date in FY 2007. EPA generally develops rulemakings for NPL listing twice a year, in March and September. 

Question 27. Name, location and contaminants of concern at sites that were submitted to the panel but that the panel did not recommend for listing, broken down 

annually. 

Response. The panel does not make decisions or recommendations about listing 

sites to the NPL. 

Question 28. Current status of sites that EPA decided not to list, including whether other State or Federal programs are actively cleaning up contamination at the 

site, including the name of the program currently conducting such cleanup activities. 

SUPERFUND ALTERNATIVE APPROACH

Question 29. EPA’s Use of the Superfund Alternative Site Process, signed by 

Chairman Boxer, Senator Clinton, Senator Baucus, Senator Lautenberg, and Senator Cardin. EPA describes its ‘‘Superfund Alternative’’ program as being designed 

to steer toxic waste sites away from being listed for cleanup under Superfund, even 

though they would normally qualify for listing. Please provide the following information on this program. A list of sites included within the program, including the number of sites added to the program annually, as well as each site’s name, location 

(city and State), contaminants of concern, and the name of the party responsible for 

cleaning up the contamination at the site. 

Response. The Superfund Alternative (SA) approach is consistent with EPA Superfund’s mission and practices by providing one more enforcement option for securing cleanup commitments from private parties in appropriate circumstances. This 

approach may be appropriate at sites that meet the following criteria: 

• require long-term response (i.e. remedial action [RA]), 

• are eligible for, but not listed on, the National Priorities List (NPL), and 

• a viable potentially responsible party (PRP) is willing to perform the RA. 

EPA does not require EPA regions to negotiate SA agreements nor does it have 

any targets for using the SA approach. To date, EPA has identified 22 sites that 

are actively using the SA approach. Specifically, these are non-NPL sites where an 

agreement with a PRP has been finalized since publication of the guidance in June 

2002. Please see Attachment A for detailed information on the 22 sites. 

In addition, a PRP-lead RA has begun at 3 of the 22 sites. These sites (and PRPs) 

are: 

• Weyerhaeuser Co. Plymouth Wood Treating Plant (Region 4; PRP: 

Weyerhaeuser Co.); 

• Highway 71-72 (Region 6; PRP: Canadian Oxy Offshore Production Co.); and 

• Kennecott (South Zone) (Region 8; PRPs: Kennecott Utah Copper Corp.). 

Question 30. The number of sites eliminated from the program, including the year 

a site was eliminated, the reason for the site being eliminated, the name of the 

cleanup program that the site went into, if any, and any follow-up activity by EPA 

on the site. 

Response. The SA approach is not a stand-alone ‘‘program’’; rather, it is a settlement approach for use in appropriate circumstances. Sites are not ‘‘eliminated from 

the [SA] program’’ nor does EPA track the sites where a Region anticipated using 

the SA approach and then decided to pursue a different approach. However, EPA 

evaluated the data on sites with the SA ‘‘flag’’ in the Comprehensive Environmental 

Response Compensation and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) as of February 2005 and found that there were a number of sites for which the SA flag 

should be removed. There were many reasons why these sites should not be flagged 

as SA, including, but not limited to, placement on the NPL listing path, plans to 

be addressed by the State, or were removal-only sites. 

Question 31. The amount of money that EPA has spent on this program and on 

each site within the program annually. 

Response. The SA approach is not a ‘‘program’’ along the lines of the removal or 

remedial programs. It is a settlement approach available for use in appropriate cir-
41 

cumstances to help achieve the over-arching cleanup program’s goals. Sites that currently have an SA agreement most likely had site screening and characterization 

activities that were initially paid for with Superfund money, but that are cost recoverable from the PRP. Some sites also had removal actions that were funded by 

Superfund; those funds are also cost-recoverable. The table in Attachment A has information on site expenditures. 

Question 32. The source of EPA funds spent at these sites, including whether the 

Agency could have used these funds for cleanup activities at listed Superfund sites. 

Response. EPA has spent appropriated funds at theses sites. In some instances, 

EPA has supplemented this appropriated funding with PRP settlement resources 

(please see the table in Attachment A). Prior to entering an agreement with a PRP 

to do work at any site, EPA uses Superfund money to perform activities such as 

site screening and characterization, and PRP searches. All such expenditures are 

cost recoverable. A majority of the SA agreements to date are for Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Studies (RI/FS). Work under SA agreements is funded by 

the PRP. 

The SA approach uses settlement authority to secure PRP-lead cleanups at sites 

that are eligible to be placed on the NPL. As PRPs pay for the work, the approach 

does not divert resources from other cleanup activities. 

Question 33. The types of activities conducted by EPA personnel at each site. 

Response. EPA personnel perform the same types of tasks at SA sites as at other 

Superfund sites. Activities include site screening and characterization, potentially 

responsible party searches, negotiations, and oversight. 

Question 34. The date that cleanup work began at the site. 

Response. Please see the table in Attachment A. 

Question 35.The extent of cleanup work completed at the site. 

Response. Please see the table in Attachment A. 

Question 36. The date that construction needed for all cleanup activities is expected to be completed. 

Response. EPA typically uses the planned construction completion date to estimate when all construction needed for cleanup activities will be completed. Since 

the programmatic measure of construction completions is only applied for Superfund 

sites listed as final or deleted on the NPL, information on planned construction completion dates for SA sites is not readily available. 

Question 37. Any critique of the program provided by EPA’s Inspector General, 

State or local officials, or EPA personnel, and the steps that the Agency took to 

make any changes to the program recommended by such individuals. 

Response. There are four reports that have reviewed the SA approach: 

1. June 2007 Office of Inspector General (OIG) Report—EPA Needs to Take More 

Action in Implementing Alternative Approaches to Superfund Cleanups (Report No. 

2007-P-00026). 

• A report on the SA approach by EPA’s OIG was released on June 7, 2007. 

2. 2007 Internal Superfund Evaluation. 

• An internal evaluation of the SA approach, undertaken jointly by OECA and 

OSWER, will also be released soon (expect summer 2007). This internal evaluation 

examined if the approach was being implemented consistent with the SA approach 

guidance. 

3. The April 2004 120-Day Study. 

An internal review of the Superfund program culminated in an April 2004 report. 

The report included a few recommendations that addressed the SA approach. A copy 

of this report can be found at http://www.epa.gov/superfund/action/120day/pdfs/ 

study/120daystudy.pdf. Since that time, the Revised Superfund Alternative Site 

(SAS) Guidance was finalized and a sample General Notice Letter was developed 

for Regions to send to potentially responsible parties at sites where the SA approach 

is being considered. 

4. April 2004 Superfund Subcommittee of the National Advisory Council on Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Final Report 

• The NACEPT report recommended that EPA’s SA approach should remain a 

small pilot program until significantly more input is received from a broad range 

of perspectives. A copy of this report can be found at http://www.epa.gov/oswer/docs/ 

naceptdocs/NACEPTsuperfund-Final-Report.pdf. 

• Partly in response to the NACEPT recommendation, in June 2004 EPA announced an 18-month pilot of the SA approach. As stated above, EPA Superfund’s 

subsequent internal evaluation examined if the approach was being implemented 

consistent with the SA approach guidance. 
42 
43 

SFSITE—LIBBY, MY

Question 38. EPA’s Inspector General (lG) issued a report on December 5, 2006 

that contained ‘‘significant issues’’ that are ‘‘critical to a successful cleanup’’ of asbestos at the Libby Superfund site in Montana. The IG concluded EPA had ‘‘not 

completed a toxicity assessment of amphibiole asbestos necessary to determine the 

safe level of human exposure; therefore, EPA cannot be sure that the Libby cleanup 

sufficiently reduces the risk that humans may become ill or, if ill already, get 

worse.’’ The Agency failed to conduct an assessment because ‘‘EPA did not approve 

the budget request and. . . [the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response] 

believed that they could obtain the information they needed to determine the toxicity of Libby asbestos based on other epidemiology studies. . . ’’ However, the IG 

disagreed with EPA’s characterization of and reliance on epidemiology work as a 

substitute for a toxicological assessment. The IG also found that EPA’s public information documents, ‘‘Living with Vermiculate’’ and ‘‘Asbestos in Your Home’’ are ‘‘inconsistent about safety concerns.’’ 

The IG recommended that the EPA ‘‘[f]und and execute a comprehensive 

amphibole asbestos toxicity assessment. . . [that includes] the effects of asbestos 

exposure on children. . . [and that the Agency] review and correct any statements 

that cannot be supported in any documentation mailed or made available to Libby 

residents regarding the safety of living with or handling asbestos until EPA confirms those facts through a toxicity assessment.’’ 

Please describe: 

a. The status of EPA’s implementation of the IG’s recommendations, including the 

status of any funding request for a toxicity assessment, and 

b. Whether EPA failed to approve the budget request for a toxicity assessment 

due to a lack of funds. 

Response. In response to the IG report, EPA agreed to immediately review and 

revise materials provided to Libby residents regarding the safety of living with or 

handling asbestos. EPA had already discontinued use of the fact sheets dealing with 

what to do if you encounter vermiculite, including the fact sheet, ‘‘Living with 

Vermiculite’’. Our overall message remains consistent—asbestos repair and removal 

should be performed by a trained professional. The advice in this document is being 

updated, and EPA will continue to work to ensure our communications with the 

public are clear and consistent. 

To ensure that EPA has all the information it needs to support a baseline risk 

assessment for Libby, in January 2007, EPA convened a group of more than 30 scientists from EPA, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) 

and the National Toxicology Program to identify data gaps and recommend additional studies. The meeting was hosted by EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD) National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory 

(NHEERL) in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. The scientists also considered information from the Libby Technical Assistance Group. 

Based on the recommendations developed from the January 2007 meeting, the 

EPA has identified and is implementing a comprehensive program of 12 studies to 

support the development of the Libby toxicity assessment. The description of these 

studies and the FY 2007 approved budget and projected funding needs for FY2008 

are attached. Additional funding is anticipated for fiscal year 2009 to complete the 

studies. Detailed work plans are currently being developed and will include consultation with other agencies (e.g., the ATSDR, National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health (NIOSH), and the National Toxicology Program (NTP)) and external peer reviews. 

The toxicity studies are anticipated to be completed by September 30, 2009; however, this date is tentative pending the completion of the detailed work plans. Results from the toxicity studies will be used to complete the baseline risk assessment, 

including the comprehensive toxicity assessment, by September 30, 2010. 

The Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response has approved a budget of 

$2,581,750 in fiscal year 2007 for the Libby Action Plan. Additional funding is anticipated in fiscal years 2008 and 2009 to complete the studies. 

With regard to the funding of the budget request mentioned in the IG report, EPA 

believes that the OIG may have been referring to a specific toxicological study of 

noncancer effects using rats. EPA decided to initiate the evaluation of epidemiological data which is soon going to be available for external peer review. 

SUMMARY OF TOXICITY ASSESSMENT SUPPORT STUDIES

a) Region 8/ORD National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA), Libby 

Amphibole Reference Concentration (LARC) Development. Region 8 is developing a 
44 

site-specific Reference Concentration (RfC, the non-cancer toxicity value) for Libby 

Amphibole based primarily on epidemiological information from the Marysville, OH 

cohort who were exposed to Libby Amphibole. NCEA will assist by evaluating options for quantitative analysis of the Marysville, Ohio cohort including additional 

statistical support. Additionally, a human dosimetry model, constructed by ORD’s 

National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory (NHEERL), will be 

used to predict internal dose and will be integrated into the site-specific RfC. This 

site-specific product will be subject to external peer review. NCEA will provide assistance with the peer review process. 

b) NCEA, Libby Amphibole Cancer Assessment. NCEA will conduct a cancer assessment specifically for Libby Amphibole for the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). As with all IRIS assessments, available studies (epidemiologic and animal toxicity) will be considered, as well as models both for dosimetry and risk assessment. This effort will go through Agency and Interagency review as a standard 

assessment for the EPA’s IRIS. 

c) United States Geological Survey (USGS), Preparation of Libby Testing Material. USGS will collect, prepare, and thoroughly characterize material from the 

Libby mine (under an Interagency Agreement with Region 8). This material will be 

used in the NHEERL laboratory animal toxicity studies and the analytical method 

studies. 

d) Region 8, Fiber Size Distribution in Libby Vermiculite. Region 8 will verify the 

fiber size distribution of Libby Amphibole fibers entrained from Libby vermiculite. 

This work is necessary to support the site-specific RfC in development. 

e) NHEERL, Dosimetry Model Development and Simulation Studies. NHEERL 

will develop a dosimetry model using existing data and available equations for deposition and clearance based on general fiber dimensions. This model will allow for 

estimation of internal tissue dose (lung burden) in a generic sense but will need to 

be updated with Libby Amphibole-specific data. A dosimetry model will allow quantitative prediction of internal dose across species to facilitate improved understanding of the exposure-response in humans. 

f) NHEERL, In Vitro Dissolution Assays. NHEERL will evaluate key physicochemical parameters of clearance mechanisms to refine the dosimetry model predictions of retained dose. The study is designed to make use of a vast existing 

NHEERL database on the dissolution and potency of asbestos and other similar fibers. 

g) NHEERL, In Vitro Toxicity Endpoints. NHEERL will evaluate potential key 

events and endpoints (e.g., cytotoxicity, oxidative burden, genotoxicity) for known 

asbestos samples of Libby Amphibole and other better studied fibers. 

h) NHEERL, Comparative Toxicology in Mice and Rats. NHEERL will conduct 

animal studies to determine the relative potency of Libby Amphibole compared to 

other types of asbestos; evaluate non-respiratory endpoints; and evaluate the potential for an increased susceptibility for children by examining, in utero (infantile) and 

early lifetime dosing vs. adult animal treatment. These studies will be applied to 

the dosimetry model. 

i) NHEERL, Inhalation Toxicology in Rats. NHEERL, through a contract with the 

Hamner Institutes for Health Science, will conduct a 90-day inhalation study (followed by various holding times) in the rat to examine a variety of toxicological 

endpoints. This study will also examine the relationship between duration of exposure and the nature and persistence of effects. The study will provide key data for 

the dosimetry model as well as long-term effects. 

j) Region 8/NCEA, New Epidemiologic Information from Libby Montana Cohort. 

Region 8 and NCEA will review recently available WR Grace information concerning 

historical worker asbestos exposures and associated asbestos-related abnormalities 

(pleural plaques, diffuse pleural thickening, asbestosis). This information will be included in the ongoing and future National Institute of Occupational Safety and 

Health (NIOSH) cohort updates and may include extended morbidity investigation 

of former WR Grace workers to evaluate the exposure-response relationship; review 

and incorporate NIOSH mortality information; and evaluate biomarker data. Additionally, lung tissue collection will be pursued to improve the understanding of 

Libby Amphibole exposure and lung fiber deposition dosimetry and to support exposure-response modeling. 

k) Region 8/NCEA, New Epidemiologic Information from Other Cohorts. Region 

8 and NCEA will work with NIOSH and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) to develop epidemiologic information from other cohorts exposed to Libby Amphibole. 

l) OSWER, Interim Risk Methodology for Quantification of Cancer Risk from Inhalation Exposure to Asbestos. OSWER is developing a methodology for estimating 

the risk of lung cancer and mesothelioma from inhalation exposure to different 
45 

forms of asbestos. This methodology combines data from epidemiological exposure 

response studies with surrogate estimates of exposure (based on Transmission Electron Microscopy, or TEM) that characterizes both the fiber type and dimensions. 

Use of this draft interim risk assessment methodology will allow for estimates of 

risks of these effects for a variety of complex mixtures of asbestos materials. A consultation with the EPA Science Advisory Board on the models is planned for FY 

2007. 

SUPERFUND CLEANUP—TROY, MT

Asbestos contamination affects areas throughout the Libby Superfund site. One 

such area is Troy, Montana. In 2006, EPA stated that it planned to cleanup Troy 

High School and then cleanup the residential and commercial areas of Troy. Please 

provide a description of EPA’s cleanup activities in the Libby Superfund site, including but not limited to Troy, which describes: 

Question 39a. The status of any EPA investigations or cleanup efforts involving 

areas where children may regularly visit or live. 

Response. EPA completed a Time Critical Removal Action at the Troy High School 

during the summer of 2006, after suspected Vermiculite Attic Insulation was noted 

in the school. EPA initiated a comprehensive Troy Asbestos Property Evaluation 

(TAPE) effort within the City of Troy (OU 7) during the spring of 2007. This is being 

conducted in coordination with the State of Montana. One purpose of the evaluation 

is to conduct a comprehensive sampling and analysis program to determine the nature and extent of contamination of residential and public areas within Troy. 
46 

EPA estimates that approximately 1430 residences and commercial properties in 

the city of Libby, MT may require response actions. As of the end of May 2007, EPA 

has completed response actions at 828 of those properties. 

The status of investigations and response activity for the rest of the Libby Superfund Site is presented in EPA’s written testimony for the public hearing held by the 

Committee in Libby on April 5, 2007. 

Question 39b. The number of residences and commercial buildings that need to 

be cleaned up, 

Response. This number cannot be finalized for Troy until the TAPE is complete, 

specifically the sampling and analysis of specific properties to determine if contamination is present. At present, EPA expects to sample approximately 1200 residential 

properties. The EPA expects that the evaluation process will take about 2 years. Because the sampling and analysis of properties have just begun, at this time we have 

no definitive estimate of the number of properties requiring response actions for 

cleanup of Libby asbestos contamination in Troy. 

In Libby, the estimated number of remaining properties that may require response action is approximately 602. The final number of properties that may require 

a response action is dependent on ongoing investigations and future Records of Decision. 

Question 39c. EPA’s timeline for completing necessary cleanups, including Agency 

records that pose several possible timelines based on potential funding levels and 

other factors, 

Response. A timeline for completing the necessary response actions for residences 

in the City of Troy can not be determined at this time. Working with the State of 

Montana, the EPA has to complete its TAPE process. This will give EPA the number of residences that need to be cleaned up. EPA estimates that it will take approximately 2 years to complete the TAPE process. 

EPA expects to complete the remaining removal actions for Libby properties at 

the rate of approximately 160 per year. Ongoing remedial investigations will be 

used to determine future remedial actions and their timelines. We are researching 

our records (both hardcopy and electronic) to determine if other possible timelines 

were considered. We expect to have this search completed by August 31, 2007. 

Question 39d. The anticipated costs of completing these cleanups, and 

Response. The EPA is still working to identify the total number of properties in 

the city of Troy that may or will need to be cleaned up. We do not have an accurate 

estimate. Between 2004 and 2006 in the town of Libby, EPA conducted between 170 

and 225 removal actions per year at a variety of commercial, residential and public 

properties through out various areas within the Libby Superfund site, budgeting 

$17M annually. 

The costs for completing all response actions at the site, including Troy, can not 

be determined until all of the Records of Decision are completed, which is tentatively planned for 2011. 

Question 39e. All EPA records, including any memoranda, email, meeting notes, 

telephone logs or other EPA records that describe actual or potential funding shortfalls since 2005 for cleanup work at the Libby Superfund site, including but not limited to investigation, characterization, and cleanup activities. 

Response. We are currently researching our records (both hardcopy and electronic) 

to identify all EPA Superfund records that may be responsive to this request. We 

expect to have this search completed by August 31, 2007. 

PESTICIDES

Question 40. The budget proposes to cut more than $7 million in funding that 

EPA needs to analyze and reduce the risks from pesticides. EPA’s Congressional 

Justification document admits that reducing this funding may ‘‘delay’’ EPA’s review 

of pesticide safety and impact the use of ‘‘safer alternatives.’’ Describe the amount 

of money that EPA would need to promptly review all of the pesticides that need 

to be reviewed to ensure their safety by the end of 2009. 

Response. The FY 2008 President’s Budget provides sufficient funding to evaluate, 

assess and review new pesticides before they reach the market and ensures that 

pesticides already in commerce are safe. The $7 million in reduced funding was distributed across the core pesticide program activities that are a result of streamlining 

and consolidating administrative management functions that maximize efficiency. 

PESTICIDES—LEAD RULE

Question 41. EPA’s Budget Justification says that the Agency is reducing funding 

to protect people from pesticides in order to fund work on a rule to reduce risks from 
47 

lead. It seems clear that EPA needs more money to do its job of protecting public 

health. 

Describe the amount of money that EPA needs to both complete the lead rule and 

promptly review all of the pesticides that need to be reviewed to ensure their safety 

by the end of 2008. Response. EPA has requested $1,000,000 for the completion of the Lead Renovation and Remodeling (R&R) Rule in 2008. The FY 2008 President’s Budget provides 

sufficient funding to protect human health and the environment by reviewing pesticides to ensure their safety by the end of FY 2008, as mandated by FQPA and 

PRIA. 

TOXIC CHEMICALS REGULATION

Question 42. Polychlorinated biphenyls are known to cause cancer and other 

harmful health impacts. EPA’s Congressional Justification document states, ‘‘Resources are not included in the FY 2008 budget for a major PCB rulemaking.’’ 

Which ‘‘major PCB rulemaking’’ is EPA delaying because of this budget? Provide 

written details of this rulemaking, including the types of risks the upcoming regulation is focused on addressing and EPA’s timeline for the completing the needed rulemaking. Please provide any EPA records, including any memoranda, email, meeting 

notes, telephone logs or other EPA records that describe concerned raised by Agency 

staff or other individuals or institutions over the delay or potential delay of this 

rulemaking. 

Response. In the FY 2008 Annual Plan proposal to Congress, EPA wrote that ‘‘Resources are not included in the FY 2008 budget for a major PCB rulemaking.’’ At 

various times, EPA has considered the need to revise the current PCB regulations. 

EPA included this statement in the Annual Plan proposal to make it clear that we 

do not intend to undertake a major rule in FY 2008 as part of the transfer of the 

disposal and remediation portions of the PCB program from the Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances (OPPTS) to the Office of Solid Waste and 

Emergency Response (OSWER). This does not preclude rulemaking, if desirable, in 

FY 2009 and beyond. 

Effective October 1, 2007, the Agency expects to transfer the management of the 

PCB cleanup and disposal program to OSWER from OPPTS. OSWER is the office 

within EPA that manages cleanup and disposal activities related to the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act, Superfund and land revitalization. The transfer will 

group together similar activities in one office leading to greater overall efficiencies 

in EPA’s cleanup and disposal activities. This transfer was referenced in the President’s FY 2008 Annual Plan proposal to Congress. 

To facilitate this transfer, effective October 1, 2007, EPA will publish a procedural 

rule to move the administration of the PCB cleanup and disposal program from 

OPPTS to OSWER. It is anticipated that OSWER will implement the TSCA PCB 

regulations as they currently exist, and that there is no need to change the PCB 

cleanup and disposal regulations immediately before or after the transfer. As stated 

above, any future changes to the PCB cleanup and disposal regulations, if found to 

be desirable, would not occur until after fiscal year 2008. 

With regard to historical considerations of possible regulatory activities, in May 

2004, the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG) nominated the TSCA PCB 

remediation waste regulations for reform in a letter to OMB. In 2005, EPA consulted with USWAG and also held a public meeting to solicit input on this issue 

from stakeholders. The Agency submitted a response to OMB in September 2005. 

The Agency discussed the need to streamline the PCB regulations, in order to address, in particular, the differing provisions, which USWAG nominated for reform, 

relating to disposal requirements for PCB remediation waste at concentrations of 

less than 50 parts per million. 

As a result of the transfer within EPA, we will explore how to gain efficiencies 

in the PCB remediation and disposal program through closer coordination with the 

hazardous waste programs, and we will certainly consider whether regulatory 

changes are appropriate. Stakeholders have not raised any concerns with the current approach to address their issues or the consideration of future regulatory activity. 

It should be noted that OPPTS will retain management of PCB use and manufacturing issues. 

ENDOCRINE DISRUPTORS

Question 43. Endocrine disrupting chemicals can affect health—including babies— 

at very low levels. The 1996 Food Quality Protection Act required EPA to implement 

an endocrine disruptor testing program by 1999. However, EPA has so far failed to 
48 

meet Congress’s deadline. In 2005, EPA’s Board of Science Counselors recommended 

that the Agency hire more people to work on endocrine disruptors. EPA’s Science 

Advisory Board recommended more funding for such work in 2006. But, EPA’s 2007 

and 2008 budget proposes to cut funding to this program. The 2008 Congressional 

Justification document acknowledges the slow pace of action in language justifying 

the budget cut by saying, ‘‘This decrease reflects the historic pace of program research and a shift to other priority areas in the Agency. The cut may postpone the 

validation of mammal assays, interlaboratory trials and initial screening of the first 

set of potential endocrine-disrupting chemicals.’’ 

Please describe the amount of money that EPA needs to complete validation for 

endocrine disruptor screening and testing, and to completely implement the screening and testing program by the end of 2008. 

Response. Money does not constrain full implementation of the program by the 

end of 2008. EPA anticipates initiating screening of approximately 73 pesticide 

chemicals using the Tier 1 battery in 2008. Depending on data generated in Tier 

1, Tier 2 tests will be required, which will provide the Agency with a more definitive 

assessment of a chemical’s endocrine effects as well as dose-response information 

needed for risk assessment. With the exception of the mammalian 2-generation tests 

(which the Agency considers validated), the other Tier 2 tests targeting fish and 

wildlife are still undergoing development and validation as required by the Food 

Quality Protection Act. 

The validation process includes several steps, including test development, optimization, inter-laboratory comparisons, and finally peer review. This process takes 

time and must proceed sequentially because results from one study are used to formulate the design of the next study. Based on current laboratory progress, it is anticipated that the remaining Tier 2 assays will complete validation in the FY 2009/ 

2010 timeframe. The President’s budget request for FY 2008 supports this timeframe. 

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE—FUNDING

Question 44. The EPA is charged with ensuring environmental justice in its decisions and in the programs that it oversees. However, a 2004 EPA Inspector General 

(IG) report concluded that the Agency had not ‘‘consistently integrated environmental justice into its day-to-day operations, [and that the Agency had] not established values, goals, expectations, and performance measurements’’ for environmental justice. A 2006 IG survey ‘‘showed that EPA senior management has not sufficiently directed program and regional offices to conduct environmental justice reviews’’ in accordance with an executive order on environmental justice. The IG stated, ‘‘Consequently, the majority of respondents reported their programs or offices 

have not performed environmental justice reviews.’’ Clearly, EPA should be doing 

more—not less—to ensure environmental justice in its decisions and programs. 

However, the budget proposes to cut funding for environmental justice by more than 

$1.7 million, a 31 percent cut. 

Please describe: 

The amount of annual funding that EPA has provided to the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC) since 2001. Please also describe the level 

of Federal resources, measured by the number of fully staffed Full Time Equivalents, devoted to the NEJAC annually since 2001. 

Response. We are pleased to update you on the progress the Agency has made 

in addressing the concerns raised by the IG concerning the environmental justice 

program at EPA. Recently, we convened the Agency senior managers to complete 

the plan for developing and conducting environmental justice reviews for selected 

programs and activities. The Office of the Inspector General accepted the Agency’s 

plan stating that ‘‘we accept the proposed actions and appreciate your constructive 

approach to the issues raised in our report.’’ Developing and conducting environmental justice reviews is one component of many that the Office of Environmental 

Justice is undertaking to promote the integration of environmental justice into the 

day-to-day operations of the Agency. 

As indicated in the IG report, the ultimate goal is to integrate EJ into the Agency’s core programs. 

With respect to the budget for the EPA’s Environmental Justice program, the environmental justice base program is being reduced by a modest 1.0 FTE in the FY 

2008 budget request (from the FY 2007 Request). The reduction reflects efficiencies 

the program has been able to achieve from reducing the number of NEJAC subcommittees, requiring less Headquarters coordination and support. The decrease 

mentioned in your question refers to the earmark received in FY 2006, but not re-
49 

quested in FY 2008. As a matter of policy, the Agency does not sustain Congressional earmarks in its budget request. 

Although Congress did not provide an earmark in FY 2007, EPA increased funding by $850,000 for the environmental justice grant program. 

Staff support and funding for the NEJAC is provided by the Office of Environmental Justice as part of its mission. There is not a separate budget line item for 

the NEJAC activities. The following table provides funding for the Agency’s Environmental Justice program project between FYs 2001 and 2008. FTE reductions in 

recent years are largely associated with a reduction in the number of NEJAC Subcommittees, requiring less Headquarters coordination and support. 

With regards to NEJAC meetings, EPA anticipates there will be three meetings 

held in FY 2008. 

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE—POLLUTION PREVENTION

EPA’s process of reviewing Federal regulatory programs for pollution prevention 

opportunities by reducing the use and production of toxic chemicals as required the 

by the Pollution Prevention Act and endorsed by the NEJAC: Please provide a list 

of pollution prevention initiatives that seek to reduce the use and production of toxic 

chemicals in environmental justice communities that EPA has implemented since 

2001. Please provide a description of initiative, its current status, and an assessment of its impacts in reducing the use and production of toxic chemicals. 

Question 45. The Office of Pesticides, Prevention, and Toxics has taken numerous 

actions since 2001 to reduce the use and production of toxic chemicals in environmental justice communities. Examples include: 

• In 2003, the Agency initiated a new program, Community Action for a Renewed 

Environment, or CARE, to assist communities—especially those with EJ concerns— 

to better understand risks of, and to utilize pollution prevention and other approaches to reduce exposure to toxic chemicals in their communities. This grant and 

technical assistance program helps communities build local partnerships to understand risks from all sources, set priorities, and take voluntary actions to reduce 

risks. Cross program, multimedia teams have been organized in the Agency to work 

with the CARE. The CARE program is now working with 51 communities in over 

25 States. 

• EPA has also been working with Tribes to address toxic chemicals concerns on 

tribal lands: 

-EPA’s Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) participates in the Forum 

for State and Tribal Toxics Actions (FOSTTA), which has conducted approximately 

three meeting per year concerning its Tribal Project. Further, the Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances has developed and is implementing an OPPTS 

Tribal Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2004-2008. 

-OPPT has also been engaged since FY 2002 with the Tribal Workgroup of the 

National Pollution Prevention and Toxics Advisory Committee (NPPTAC), chartered 

under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). The workgroup identified and 

framed two broad issues for consideration by the Committee: Green Buildings on 

Tribal Lands and Tribal Access to, and Utilization of, Publicly Available Chemical 

Hazard and Exposure Data. The Committee approved and provided to EPA two rec-
50 

ommendations based on these issues. The Agency, in addition to supporting the 

Tribal workgroup, has begun to implement both of these recommendations. 

-OPPT is also developing a Tribal Green Building and P2 Technologies Guidance 

Document under a contract with a tribal owned business. The document seeks to 

provide information which can be used to guide decision-making for Tribal Governments in their business and economic development plans. This document includes 

a cost/benefit analysis on green building options and technologies, including rainwater run-off roofs, green landscaping, green building materials, etc. A draft of the 

document is currently being circulated for review among tribal communities, specifically seeking recommendations on its applicability in Indian County. 

-OPPT is working with the Department of Housing and Urban Development 

(HUD) to incorporate green building guidance into the Indian Housing Block Grants 

(IHBG) Program and other Tribal programs. HUD has indicated that they would include green building information on their website; negotiations on changing their 

IHBG guidance to include an emphasis on green buildings are continuing. 

-OPPT has initiated discussions with the Indian Health Service (IHS) to implement greener health care practices in Indian health clinics and hospitals IHS has 

begun EMS pilot sites at two facilities - a hospital and a clinic. IHS has identified 

additional sites to implement the EMS program, and has asked OPPT and the Hospitals for a Healthy Environment (H2E) organization for technical assistance. 

To ensure that pollution prevention approaches are considered in the development 

of regulations and major Agency actions, EPA’s formal process for initiating and reviewing regulatory actions, known as the Action Development Process (ADP), includes a specific step to ensure that pollution prevention approaches are considered 

at the very beginning of the regulatory development process. The ADP includes the 

creation of a document known as an ‘‘analytic blueprint,’’ or ABP, for guiding the 

development of a major regulation or Agency action. The analytic blueprint is meant 

to specifically address the topic of pollution prevention (P2), and to examine potential P2 approaches, or to explain why P2 isn’t an appropriate option for the particular regulatory action under development. 

TITLE VI COMPLAINTS

Question 46. The number of Title VI complaints since 2001 that the Agency has 

received based on environmental justice concerns, the number of complaints investigated, the number of permits reviewed, and the outcome of such reviews. Please 

include a description of the type of investigation and review, and dates for the beginning and completion of each review process. 

Response. Since 2001, the Agency has received 84 complaints based on environmental justice concerns. Of those 84 complaints, 26 complaints are undergoing jurisdictional review and eight complaints are under active investigation. Fifty of the 

complaints received since 2001 have been closed. Forty-one of the closed complaints 

were rejected on jurisdictional grounds. The most frequent grounds for rejection 

were untimeliness and lack of a financial assistance recipient. One complaint was 

referred to another Federal agency that likely had jurisdiction. Another complaint 

was informally resolved by the parties. 

EPA’s implementing regulations, found at 40 C.F.R. Part 7, state that it is EPA’s 

policy to seek informal resolution of Title VI complaints whenever possible. EPA has 

employed alternative dispute resolution (ADR) techniques in several of our Title VI 

cases. 

The informal resolution of a complaint has occurred when the parties (i.e. EPA, 

complainant, and recipient) involved have reached a resolution by informal voluntary negotiations. 

Seven of the complaints received and reviewed since 2001 were dismissed after 

acceptance (see chart below). The withdrawal of a complaint has occurred when a 

complainant notifies EPA that it would like to withdraw their complaint. This withdrawal therefore dismisses the complaint and renders the case resolved. None of 

these seven complaints involved permit reviews. 

From 2001 to the present, the Agency has closed a total of 103 complaints alleging 

discrimination by recipients of EPA assistance. Fifty-three of those complaints were 

received by the Agency prior to 2001, and 50 of the complaints were received since 

2001. 
51 

CHILDREN’S HEALTH—STAFFING LEVELS

Question 47. EPA’s budget proposes to consolidate EPA’s Office of Children’s 

Health Protection and the Office of Environmental Education, while reducing funding for the new, combined office. The Agency also proposes to undercut the original 

purpose of the Office of Children’s Health Protection by diffusing its responsibilities 

to other EPA offices. 

Please describe the actual or anticipated staffing levels, measured in staffed FullTime Equivalents, for the Office of Environmental Education for 2005 and 2006, the 

Office of Children’s Health Protection for 2005 and 2006, and the staffing levels for 

environmental education activities and Children’s Health Protection activities, respectively in 2007 and 2008. 

Response. The Office of Children’s Health Protection and Office Environmental 

Education were combined as a result of a reorganization in 2006. 

The organizational entity that was the Office of Children’s Health Protection is 

currently the Child and Aging Health Protection Division (CAHPD) in the new office. The CAHPD FTE level for FY 2007 is 12.9 FTE. The proposed FTE level for 

FY 2008 is 13.9. The FTE for the Environmental Education Program was 19.7 (10 

of which were 1 FTE per Region) for fiscal years 2005, 2006, and 2007. The Agency 

is not requesting any FTE or dollar resources for Environmental Education in the 

President’s FY 2008 budget. 
52 

CHILDREN’S HEALTH PROTECTION ADVISORY COMMITTEE

The EPA established the Children’s Health Protection Advisory Committee in 

1997 to bring together representatives from industry, pediatric medicine, economists, community and environmental organizations, science and academia, nursing, 

Federal, State, local, and tribal Governments, and others to work on children’s 

health issues. The Committee is part of EPA’s Office of Children’s Health Protection, and it provides EPA with expert advice on children’s environmental health 

issues, including the evaluation of EPA standards, communications and outreach, 

and science. 

Question 48. In the past, EPA has requested the Committee review and provide 

recommendations for re-evaluating EPA standards to ensure they protect children’s 

health. However, in recent years EPA has issued regulations and guidance documents that fail to address issues raised by the Committee. Please describe: 

1) The process that EPA uses to consult with the Committee: 

Response. The Children’s Health Protection Advisory Committee (CHPAC) is 

chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). The Committee is 

managed by the Office of Children’s Health Protection and Environmental Education, and is a valued resource for the entire Agency on issues relating to children’s 

environmental health. The CHPAC often meets with Agency leaders and staff to discuss areas of concern. 

The full Committee meets approximately three times a year, with numerous conference calls and email between meetings. The Committee has also formed a variety 

of working groups, both standing workgroups (e.g. Emerging Chemicals of Concern 

workgroup) and short-term workgroups addressing specific issues. The topics that 

the Committee take up may come from specific requests from EPA, be driven by upcoming Agency actions such as development of rules that affect children, or they 

may be initiated by the Committee. 

2) The Committee’s recommendations: 

Response. The CHPAC recommendations are provided to the Agency via letters 

to the Administrator. All of the recommendations as well as the Agency responses 

are available on the Agency’s website at: 

http://yosemite.epa.gov/ochp/ochpweb.nsf/content/whatwe—advisory.htm. 

3) Whether EPA has implemented any of the Committee’s recommendations: 

Response. Many, but not all of the CHPAC’s recommendations have been implemented. As an advisory committee, the Agency welcomes the advice and insights of 

the Committee. However the CHPAC is only one of many groups whose recommendations the Agency uses and EPA must weigh those recommendations with 

many other considerations when making decisions. 

For example, in response to the committee’s December 2002 letter to Administrator Whitman on Smart Growth Efforts and children’s environmental health, the 

Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation’s Smart Growth Office incorporated children’s environmental health into its smart growth grants and has recently announced a request for proposals for reducing environmental and health impacts of 

school siting. 

4) The reason for EPA’s refusal to consult with or implement the Committee recommendations on the following decisions by the Agency: 

a. Merging the Office of Environmental Education and Children’s Health Protection, including budgetary and staffing decisions, 

b. The Preliminary Remediation Goal for Perchlorate, 

c. The National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter, 

d. The National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Ozone, 

e. The National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Lead, 

f. The Agency’s actions to address mercury air emissions since 2001, 

g. The Voluntary Children’s Chemical Evaluation Program, 

h. The need to address children’s environmental health concerns from global 

warming, 
53 

i. The need to address children’s environmental health concerns from pesticides, 

and 

j. The need to protect children from potentially dangerous exposures to toxic substances, including but not limited to polybrominated diphenyl ethers. Please limit 

response to this question to the years, 2001 through 2007. 

Response. Again, there is never been a refusal by EPA to consult with or consider 

the recommendations of CHPAC. The recommendations of the committee must be 

considered and weighed against other, often competing opinions on how these various programs are to be managed. The Agency did consult with the Committee on 

several of the referenced topics, including perchlorate, mercury air emissions, the 

Voluntary Children’s Chemical Evaluation program. All of the recommendations 

made by CHPAC, as well as the responses by the Agency, are available on website 

cited above. 

INSPECTOR GENERAL—STAFF

Question 49. Please describe whether the IG, given the demographics of the Office, 

should be hiring and training staff now to ensure that it maintains its output and 

expertise as staff retire. 

Response. The OIG maintains an ambitious level of technical and management 

training, as appropriate for its staff and in compliance with the rigors of Comptroller General’s Government Auditing Standards, which is certified through an 

independent peer review. This training, along with assignments designed to provide 

staff with developmental experience, increasing levels of responsibility, and supervisory opportunities, prepare them for greater challenges to build organizational 

competence at all levels. While approximately 11 percent of the EPA OIG staff are 

currently eligible for retirement, the OIG has built a strong core of young managers 

and has been highly successful in attracting and developing outstanding candidates 

when positions are available. The OIG constantly explores staffing and skill needs 

in relation to its strategic goals, specific assignments, and available resources to 

consider all options for accomplishing its mission, through the most efficient blend 

of permanent staff and specialized contract services. Within this overarching framework, the OIG plans to hire 5-10 new trainees each year. 

EPA ENFORCEMENT

Question 50. EPA proposes to cut $1.3 million for the Superfund program’s enforcement budget for forensic support to track polluters and make them pay. EPA 

also expects a decline in the money it recovers from polluters for past EPA cleanups. 

EPA should not be cutting enforcement resources at the same time that the Agency’s budget proposed to provide fewer funds for cleanups and independent oversight 

activities by the Inspector General. 

Please describe the forensic programs that could have their funding cut under the 

proposed budget, including any potential funding cuts for work that may be done 

by the National Enforcement Investigations Center. 

Response. The Agency’s FY 2008 request for the National Enforcement Investigations Center (NEIC), EPA’s forensics laboratory, is sufficient to continue providing 

specialized scientific and technical support for the nation’s most complex enforcement cases across all media. We are confident that the proposed FY 2008 budget 

achieves the appropriate balance between our programs. 

Most of the budget changes to the Forensics Support Superfund program represent a realignment of resources between appropriations and not a reduction to the 

program. EPA proposes to transfer resources from the Superfund appropriation to 

the Science and Technology appropriation to reflect a shifting workload between 

Superfund and non-Superfund activities. This shift is based on workload data used 

to establish a charging methodology for Superfund and non- Superfund activities. 

EPA LABORATORY FUNDING CUTS

Question 51. EPA’s laboratories play a vitally important role in ensuring the 

Agency appropriately safeguards public health and facilitating enforcement actions 

against polluters that violate such protections. A March 30, 2006 EPA Science Advisory Board report concluded, ‘‘Between 2004 and the [budget] proposal for 2007, the 

inflation adjusted budget for EPA’s Office of Research and Development has declined by just over 16 percent. . . The erosion of research and development remains 

a serious impediment to the Agency’s ability to meet its mission of protecting 

human health and the environment through science based initiatives. . . It is the 

opinion of the Board that EPA’s research and development resources are grossly inadequate to address the scientific complexities of the Nation’s environmental protection needs.’’ 
54 

1. A June, 2006 memo from EPA’s Chief Financial Officer directs EPA staff to 

‘‘consolidate’’ laboratories by developing ‘‘a plan for reducing the Agency’s laboratory 

physical infrastructure costs by a minimum of 10 percent by 2009 and another 10 

percent by 2011.’’ The memo also directs Assistant Administrators to identify longtime, high-level employees for early retirement. 

2. Please provide a written status update on the Agency’s plans or actions to consolidate or reduce laboratory space or to reduce staff or freeze the hiring of new staff 

in the Office of Research and Development. Please include any draft or finalized reports that describe the steps that the Agency may take or has already taken to consolidate or to reduce staff in the Office of Research and Development. 

Response. As part of the FY 2008 budget process, the Office of Research and Development (ORD) was asked to work with the National Program Offices (NPOs) and 

10 Regional offices to develop a plan to implement a study of the Agency’s laboratory infrastructure requirements, capabilities, and operations. Similar studies have 

been carried out by the Agency in the past, with the most recent comprehensive laboratory study completed in July 1994. The goal of this review is to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of EPA’s laboratory network (i.e., 39 laboratories in 30 cities) in order to ensure our ability to meet the environmental challenges of the future. This review will not result in the creation or closure of laboratories during the 

Administrator’s tenure. 

In the near term, the study will focus on identifying efficiency and effectiveness 

opportunities at individual laboratories. Workgroups are working to more clearly 

frame and determine the scope of the laboratory infrastructure review and encourage each laboratory to brainstorm efficiency and cost saving measures. Savings and 

efficiency data are currently being requested from all the Agency’s laboratories. A 

report from the near term study is anticipated in September of 2007. 

For the long term study, the Agency plans to engage an outside expert panel that 

will assess and evaluate the ability of EPA’s laboratory network to address the 

Agency’s mission over the next 10 years. Efforts are underway to identify options 

for working with an outside expert panel. 

In addition to the laboratory study, we have begun an effort to analyze administrative service delivery and identify ORD-wide organizational alignment options and 

implementation approaches to achieve efficiencies in administrative support costs. 

We have not instituted a formal hiring freeze. 

Question 52. Please provide a written description of each EPA laboratory’s annual 

funding level and the amount of staff resources, measured in staffed Full-Time 

Equivalent, for 2004 through 2008. 

Response. See following pages. 

Illegible response received however, the submitted document may be found in 

Committee files. 

CONCENTRATED ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATIONS

Question 53. EPA plans to exempt pollution releases from Concentrated Animal 

Feeding Operations from Superfund’s reporting requirements. In 2005, EPA said 

that these facilities ‘‘can have a negative impact on nearby residents, particularly 

with respect to. . . odors and other nuisance problems. . . [and] that concerns 

have been raised recently regarding the possible health impacts from [these facilities’] emissions.’’ EPA entered into a settlement agreement with 2,568 facilities that 

agreed to help determine how much air pollution they emit and to certify that they 

are complying with Superfund and other public health laws. 

Exempting these facilities from pollution reporting requirements could reduce 

needed data on the nation’s largest source of ammonia. Ammonia emissions contribute to the formation of smog and particulate matter pollution. Pollution from 

these facilities also facilitates the deposition of nitrogen into water bodies, which 

contributes to water quality problems. 

1. The EPA’s Office of Inspector General (IG) reported in February 2007 that the 

Agency will not meet its goal of cleaning up the Chesapeake Bay by 2010, potentially due to continuing nitrogen deposition from regional sources. The IG recommended that EPA ‘‘use the results of animal feeding operations emissions monitoring studies to determine what actions and strategies are warranted to address 

nitrogen deposition to the Bay from such operations.’’ The IG noted that ‘‘EPA concurred’’ with this recommendation. Please describe whether exempting concentrated 

animal feeding operations from Superfund reporting could reduce or delay the creation of data on ammonia emissions nationwide by impacting the number of facilities that are working with EPA or other agencies to determine their levels of emissions and to certify that they are complying with all other public health laws. 
55 

Response. EPA’s promulgation of an exemption from Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) section 103 and 

Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-know Act (EPCRA) section 304 notification requirements for releases to the air of ammonia and hydrogen sulfide from 

animal waste (manure) at animal agricultural operations will not reduce or delay 

the creation of data on ammonia emissions nationwide under the terms of the air 

compliance agreement. Any possible exemption will not impact the number of facilities that are working with EPA or other agencies to determine their levels of emissions. Facilities that chose to participate in the air compliance agreement with EPA 

are legally bound to the conditions in the agreement. 

COAL COMBUSTION WASTE

Question 54. Each year, more than 120 million tons of waste is produced in the 

United States from the burning of coal. In 2000, EPA committed to creating regulatory safeguards to protect public health when this waste is disposed of in surface 

impoundments, landfills, and mines. In 2006, the National Research Council acknowledged that disposal of this waste had in many cases ‘‘caused considerable environmental damage. ‘‘The Council concluded ‘‘that the presence of high contaminant 

levels in many [coal combustion residue] leachates may create human health and 

ecological concerns...’’ Please describe the actions that EPA has undertaken to develop national regulations and the anticipated date for the Agency’s issuance of the 

proposed protections, and 

Response. EPA’s primary efforts since the Regulatory Determination have been 

associated with development of additional information on the disposal of coal combustion wastes (CCWs) in landfills, surface impoundments, and mine lands. 

To inform the public of this information on landfills and surface impoundments 

and its availability for their consideration, EPA is planning to issue a Notice of Data 

Availability (NODA) next month. The NODA will make the following information 

available for public review and comment: 

• Joint U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and EPA report entitled, Coal Combustion Waste Management at Landfills and Surface Impoundments, 1994-2004; 

• Revisions to the Risk Assessment conducted by EPA on the management of 

CCW in landfills and surface impoundments; and 

• An update to EPA’s damage case assessment. 

The NODA also will make additional information available for public comment. 

Specifically, a rulemaking petition submitted by citizens’ groups and two possible 

approaches to address coal combustion wastes: one prepared by the electric utility 

industry and the other prepared by citizens’ groups. The Agency is seeking public 

comment on how, if at all, this additional information should affect the Agency’s decisions as it continues to follow-up on its Regulatory Determination for CCW disposed of in landfills and surface impoundments. 

On the question of mine lands, EPA has been working with the Office of Surface 

Mining (OSM). OSM issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on March 

14, 2007. The comment period for the Advanced Notice closes on June 13, 2007. 

Question 55. Please describe the meetings that EPA personnel have had 

on this issue with other Federal agencies, including but not limited to the Office 

of Management and Budget, and stakeholders, including but not limited to the Utilities Solid Waste Activities Group. 

Response. Following the Regulatory Determination of May 2000, the Agency had 

a series of public meetings; meetings with the utilities industry to discuss their voluntary action plan; interaction with DOE to scope and then conduct a study on 

CCW management practices; meetings with OSM to coordinate and define the respective agencies’ responsibilities in the wake of the National Academies of Sciences 

(NAS) report recommendations on minefilling of CCW; and meetings with citizen 

groups to discuss their concerns about CCW disposal. In addition, since the draft 

NODA was submitted to OMB for review, there have been conference calls to discuss OMB’s review comments and proposed revisions. The substantive meetings are 

discussed in greater detail below. 

The Interstate Mining Compact Commission (IMMC) conducted four meetings 

concerning the Mine Placement of Coal Combustion Waste among State and tribal 

mining regulators, Department of Interior and EPA representatives in order to collect and analyze technical and regulatory information related to minefilling of coal 

combustion waste. These meetings took place on the following dates: 

• May 15 - 16, 2001 

• November 14 - 15, 2001 

• April 15 - 16, 2002 
56 

• October 29 - 30, 2002 

Subsequent to the 2000 regulatory determination, EPA held a series of public 

meetings, attended by citizen groups, industry, and State representatives. These 

meetings provided opportunities for citizens, States, and industry to express views 

about coal combustion waste disposal practices. The meetings allowed stakeholders 

to express their concerns about damage cases associated with CCW management 

practices, and on the beneficial uses of coal combustion byproducts. Specifically: 

A stakeholders’ meeting took place at EPA headquarters in Washington, DC on 

May 19-20, 2003, to address Minefill Practices for Coal Combustion Residues. The 

meeting was attended by representatives from citizen and environmental interest 

groups, industry, States, and other Federal agencies. 

Public meetings took place in Texas, Indiana and Pennsylvania (two meetings), 

on the following dates (Note: These public meetings were held specifically at the request of citizen’s groups who wanted EPA to hear the concerns of citizens in various 

parts of the country): 

• March 23, 2004 - Pennsylvania • April 13, 2004 - Texas • April 22, 2004 - Indiana • May 5, 2004 - Pennsylvania 

Two meetings took place between citizen groups and EPA’s Assistant Administrator for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. In May 2003, there 

was a meeting of citizen groups with Marianne Horinko and on October 26, 2006 

there was a meeting with Susan Bodine. The latter meeting was preceded by a 

meeting between the citizen groups and OSM representatives, where OSW staff and 

management also participated, to discuss their view on the rulemaking of CCW 

placement in mines. 

In the development of the joint DOE/EPA report, between October 2004 and July 

2006, there were about half-a-dozen meetings between EPA and DOE to scope the 

study, discuss its implementation, guide the contractor in its preparation and revision, and prepare a charge for peer review. The peer review process involved the 

following external experts: 

• Keith Belton of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB); 

• Lisa Evans of the Clean Air Task Force (CATF); 

• Tim Lohner, Donna Hill and Elizabeth Aldridge of the Utility Water Act Group 

(UWAG); and 

• K. Nelson, B. Docto, J. Myrom and R. Thompson of the Association of State and 

Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials (ASTSWMO). 

With regard to the USWAG’s voluntary plan, there were several meetings with 

the representatives of USWAG. Between 2003 and 2005, there were about half-adozen meetings between USWAG and EPA Office of Solid Waste (OSW) staff. EPA 

also met with a State official and had telephone conversations, email exchanges and 

written correspondence with citizen groups regarding this matter. In addition, 

USWAG representatives came in to discuss their voluntary plan, meeting once with 

each of the following Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) Assistant Administrators (AAs): Marianne Horinko, Tom Dunne, and Susan Bodine. 

On March 1, 2006, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) issued a report on 

the placement of CCWs in coal mines. The work by the NAS was funded by EPA 

and involved public meetings which included representatives from industry, citizen 

groups, and states. OSW staffers and first line supervisors also met with the NAS 

and were present during many of the meetings NAS held during the development 

of the report. Since the report was issued, EPA has been working with OSM to better address minefilling in coal mines. The meetings took place as follows: 

• July 26, 2006, OSM and EPA met with Interstate Mining Compact Commission 

representatives to hear IMCC comments on NAS minefill report 

• Aug. 17, 2006, EPA and OSM staff met at OSM to discuss plans to coordinate 

the OSM ANPR and EPA NODA 

• Jan 11, 2007, EPA staff and OSM staff met at OSM to discuss progress on the 

OSM ANPR and EPA NODA; and 

• February 28, 2007, National Mining Association Meeting to discuss ongoing 

OSW activities regarding CCW disposal and Mine Placement. 

Teleconferences with OMB and other agencies focused on two products: the joint 

DOE/EPA report on CCW management practices, in the context of which there were 

two teleconference meetings in early 2006 to discuss the first draft report and its 

revision. The second series of teleconference meetings has been associated with 

OMB’s interagency review of the CCW NODA and its auxiliary documents. The 

three teleconferences to discuss the NODA took place as follows: 
57 

• April 13, 2007 

• April 26, 2007 

• May 9, 2007. 

REPONSES BY STEPHEN JOHNSON TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

FROM SENATOR INHOFE

AIR—PM STANDARD

Question 1. Administrator, last year, we heard testimony from a member of the 

Clean Air Science Advisory Committee, who essentially supported your decision for 

selecting a particular lower daily fine PM standard as part of the periodic national 

ambient air quality standards review. Please tell us why, in your discretion and 

judgment as Administrator, you selected that standard? 

Response. EPA places great importance on the advice of the Clean Air Science Advisory Committee (CASAC). With regard to the 24-hour PM2.5 National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS), EPA revised the level of the standard to 35 g/m3, 

which was within the range recommended by CASAC (30-35 g/m3). The preamble 

for the final rule discussed in detail the rationale for the Administrator’s final decision (71 FR 61144). Specifically, section II.F.1 discussed the selection of the level 

of the 24-hour PM2.5 standard (71 FR 61168 to 61172). 

In summary, EPA’s final decision relied on an evidence-based approach that considered the much expanded body of evidence from short-term exposure PM2.5 studies 

as the principal basis for selecting the level of the 24-hour standard, with such 

standard aimed at protecting against health effects associated with short-term exposures to PM2.5. Based on the information presented in the PM Staff Paper and Criteria Document and in supporting analyses, EPA observed an overall pattern of statistically significant associations reported in studies of short-term exposure to PM2.5

across a wide range of 24-hour average 98th percentile values. More specifically, 

EPA observed a strong predominance of studies with 98th percentile values down 

to about 39 g/m3 reporting statistically significant associations with mortality, hospital admissions, and respiratory symptoms. Within the range of 24-hour average 

98th percentile PM2.5 concentrations of about 35 to 30 g/m3, EPA no longer observed 

this strong predominance of statistically significant results. Rather, within this 

range, one study reported statistically significant results, while other studies reported mixed results in which some associations, reported in the study, were statistically significant and others were not. Other studies reported associations that were 

not statistically significant. 

Further, EPA concluded that the very limited number of studies in which the 98th 

percentile values were below this range do not provide a basis for reaching conclusions about associations at such levels. Thus, in our view, this body of evidence provided confidence that statistically significant associations are occurring down close 

to this range, and it provided a clear basis for 

concluding that this range represents a range of reasonable values for a 24-hour 

standard level. 

It was further noted that focusing on the range of 35 to 30 g/m3 was consistent 

with the interpretation of the evidence held by most CASAC Panel members as reflected in their recommendation to select a 24-hour PM2.5 standard level within this 

range. EPA recognized, however, the separate point that most CASAC Panel members favored the range of 35 to 30 g/m3 for the 24-hour PM2.5 standard in concert 

with an annual standard set in the range of 14 to 13 g/m3, as discussed in section 

II.F.2 of the preamble to the final rule (see 71 FR 61172 to 61177). 

EPA viewed the quantitative risk assessment as providing supporting evidence for 

the conclusion that there was a need to revise the current suite of PM2.5 standards, 

but judged that it did not provide an appropriate basis to determine which specific 

quantitative revisions were appropriate. 

EPA carefully considered comments from CASAC and others, received during the 

public comment period, for the proposed decision and decided to set the level of the 

primary 24-hour PM2.5 standard, as proposed, at 35 g/m3. In our judgment, based 

on the currently available evidence, a standard set at this level will protect public 

health with an adequate margin of safety from serious health effects, including premature mortality and hospital admissions for cardiorespiratory causes that are likely causally associated with short-term exposure to PM2.5. A standard set at a higher 

level would not likely result in improvements in air quality in areas across the country in which short-term exposure to PM2.5 can reasonably be expected to be associated with serious health effects. A standard set at a lower level would only result 

in significant further public health protection if, in fact, there is a continuum of 
58 

health risks down to the lower end of the ranges of air quality observed in the key 

epidemiologic studies and if the reported associations are, in fact, causally related 

to PM2.5 at those lower levels. Based on the pattern of results observed in the available evidence, EPA is not prepared to make those assumptions. 

On balance, EPA does not believe that a lower standard is necessary to provide 

the requisite degree of public health protection. This judgment appropriately considered the requirement for a standard that is neither more nor less stringent than 

necessary for this purpose and recognized that the Clean Air Act does not require 

that primary standards be set at a zero-risk level, but rather at a level that reduces 

risk sufficiently so as to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety. 

CHILDREN’S HEALTH

Question 2. Administrator Johnson, can you please clarify for the Committee what 

changes EPA has made to the Office on Children’s Health? Is there still such an 

office? 

Response. The Office of Children’s Health Protection, which was established in 

1997, was merged into a new Office of Children’s Health Protection and Environmental Education as a result of a 2006 reorganization. The organizational entity 

that was the Office of Children’s Health Protection is currently the Child and Aging 

Health Protection Division in the new office. 

HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT

Question 3. This budget includes an increase for Human Health Risk Assessment. 

Last year, the GAO issued a report, upon my request, regarding risk assessment 

practices at EPA in which it was recommended that EPA ‘‘enhance early planning 

of each risk assessment’’ and ‘‘identify and communicate data needs to the public 

and private research community.’’ I would like your commitment that some of the 

increase be dedicated to ensuring a more open, transparent, and participatory risk 

assessment process at EPA and that EPA seek out, early in the process, information 

and data from academia, researchers, other Federal agencies, environmental groups, 

industry and any other interested parties, as recommended by the GAO. Will you 

make that commitment? 

Response. Yes. EPA commits to dedicating some of the proposed budget increase 

to ensuring a more open, transparent, and participatory risk assessment process 

and to seeking out, early in the process, information from academic researchers, 

other Federal agencies, environmental groups, industry and other interested parties. 

EPA has initiated a series of enhancements and activities with those objectives in 

mind. For example, EPA contracted for expert consultations with the National Academy of Sciences on issues affecting risk assessment, such as interpretation of data 

from studies in animals. These panels have included input from scientists working 

in the public and private research communities. This kind of outreach to academic, 

public and private sector researchers ensures open, transparent, and broad participation in the evaluation of scientific evidence. 

EPA LIBRARIES

At an Environment and Public Works Committee hearing held on February 6, 

2007, I highlighted some items that EPA needs to weed from its library collection. 

I also referred to a substantial decline in the numbers of people actually walking 

into any of the EPA network of libraries in Washington, DC and throughout the 

country such as three people walking into the EPA Regional library in Dallas per 

month over the past three years, 20 people walking into the EPA Regional library 

in Kansas City over a seven month period last year, reportedly most people walking 

into the EPA Regional library in Chicago were simply looking for direction to other 

offices, and that at the library here in Washington, EPA’s own employees use has 

dropped 71 percent over the past two years simply because more of the information 

the public or EPA employees use is now online. However, it is necessary to clarify 

some remaining issues from the February 6 hearing. 

Question 4. EPA maintains large amount of scientific and environmental information. What information does not continue to be available to EPA employees or the 

public online, through interlibrary loan, or otherwise upon the request of EPA employees or the public? 

Response. The Agency does not believe any information has been lost through our 

process to transform EPA’s libraries. Materials held by libraries in the EPA Library 

Network continue to be available to EPA employees and the public. Digitized EPA 

documents can be accessed via National Environmental Publications Internet Site 

(NEPIS) http://epa.gov/ncepihom/, and hardcopy materials will continue to be acces-
59 

sible through interlibrary loans via any of the 57,000 libraries in the US and abroad 

which participate in the Online Computer Library Center (OCLC). EPA continues 

to offer core library services to all employees. 

EPA LIBRARIES-LIBRARY PLANS

At the February 6 hearing, you were asked to respond to a few emails, that you 

had not had the opportunity to review, the majority had received from EPA employees critical of EPA’s library plan. To clarify two more specific issues raised: 

Question 5. Is the Regional library located in Atlanta closed, and what library 

services remain available at the Region 4 library? 

Response. The Region 4 library in Atlanta, GA. is open. Library services (interlibrary loans and reference/research) are being provided to Region 4 staff by the onsite library contractor staff and supplemented by the OARM Cincinnati Library, 

which is one of the Centers of Excellence in the EPA Library Network. In addition, 

Region 4 staff have full access to the online services (OLS, NEPIS, and Desktop Library) provided by the EPA Library Network 

Question 6. You were also asked about the closing of the EPA lab library at Fort 

Meade. However, is it not true at this particular ‘‘library’’ is simply a 10ft. by 20ft. 

reference room, and all reference information remains available through the Region 

3 library? 

Response. The Ft. Meade Library collection remains intact and onsite in this 

small reference room, and is available to Ft. Meade staff on a walk-in/self-service 

basis. However, all EPA staff in Ft. Meade and Region 3 are being provided with 

core library services, such as research and document delivery, by the Region 3 Library staff in Philadelphia. 

LABORATORY INFRASTURCTURE REVIEW

Question 7. We understand that the Agency is conducting a Laboratory Infrastructure Review. This review is of great interest to me because EPA has a lab in Ada, 

Oklahoma called the Kerr Lab. I believe they do excellent work and have become 

a vital part of Ada. Can you tell the Committee more about the review? 

Response. As part of the FY 2008 budget process, the Office of Research and Development (ORD) was asked to work with the National Program Offices (NPOs) and 

10 Regional offices to develop a plan to implement a study of the Agency’s laboratory infrastructure requirements, capabilities, and operations. Similar studies have 

been carried out by the Agency in the past, with the most recent comprehensive laboratory study completed in July 1994. The goal of this review is to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of EPA’s laboratory network (i.e., 39 laboratories in 30 cities) in order to ensure our ability to meet the environmental challenges of the future. This review will not result in the creation or closure of laboratories during the 

Administrator’s tenure. 

In the near term, the study will focus on identifying efficiency and effectiveness 

opportunities at individual laboratories. Workgroups are working to more clearly 

frame and determine the scope of the laboratory infrastructure review and encourage each laboratory to brainstorm efficiency and cost saving measures. Savings and 

efficiency data are currently being requested from all the Agency’s laboratories. A 

report from the near term study is anticipated in September of 2007. 

For the long term study, the Agency plans to engage an outside expert panel that 

will assess and evaluate the ability of EPA’s laboratory network to address the 

Agency’s mission over the next 10 years. Efforts are underway to identify options 

for working with an outside expert panel. 

CLEAN WATER FUNDING

Question 8. I appreciate EPA’s effort to reduce some of the burden from the Clean 

Water106 account through its recent proposed rule to create a State incentive fund. 

However, I have significant concerns about the proposal. The answer to the financial 

pressures on the program is not just raising fees but providing other incentives and 

most importantly reducing the regulatory burden on the States and the permittees. 

There is much more than can be done without requiring States to tax municipal 

Governments in order to pay for mandates imposed by the Federal Government. I 

would like to work with you and your staff on finding other solutions to the financial 

pressures on the 106 account. I have a few questions about the proposal: 

Why did you settle on requiring States to tax municipal Governments as the only 

option to relieve these financial pressures? 

Response. The permit fee incentive program is not a tax on municipal Governments, it is a voluntary program; no State is mandated to change its business prac-
60 

tices to retain Section 106 base funding. A modest incentive pool will be created 

from Section 106 grant fund increases. The President’s FY 2008 Budget provides an 

increase in 106 funds to ensure that the incentive pool does not reduce States 106 

base funding. In developing our FY 2007 Operating Plan, we also ensured 106 funds 

increased sufficiently to protect base funding. It is not EPA’s intention to reduce 106 

funding as a result of increased State NPDES revenues. 

Encouraging States to use strong business practices, including the leveraging of 

all available revenue streams, is consistent with the Agency’s approach to sustainable infrastructure management. EPA continually emphasizes the four pillars of 

water infrastructure—Better Management of Water and Wastewater Utilities, Rates 

that Reflect the Full Cost Pricing of Services, Efficient Water Use, and Watershed 

Approaches to Protection. The establishment of a permit fee program incentive is 

just one of a number of actions the Agency is taking to promote sustainability. 

States will need to meet designated thresholds based on the percentage of permit 

program costs recovered through permit fee collections in order to receive funding 

through this incentive program. EPA has taken several steps to ensure that base 

funding is protected. These include: creating the incentive pool only from new funding; limiting the incentive pool to approximately $5.2 million; redistributing unearned incentive funds through the existing distribution formula; and maintaining 

the current formula ceilings on incentive program increases (no State may receive 

a one-year increase of more than 50 percent of its previous year’s allocation). 

Question 9. What other options were considered before you published your proposed rule? 

Response. During the development of this rule, EPA took steps to engage the 

States, including soliciting input on other options beyond financial incentives to reduce program burdens. States identified the reduction of reporting and regulatory 

flexibility as alternatives. While much more work will need to be done by the States 

and EPA to develop viable options for regulatory flexibility, EPA currently is engaged in discussions with the States regarding opportunities to reduce reporting requirements. 

Question 10. Do you plan to finalize the rule and why? 

Response. The Agency held a public meeting in February 2007. In addition, EPA 

extended the comment period an additional 60 days (through May 5, 2007) to allow 

additional opportunity for comments. After considering the comments, EPA expects 

to issue a final rule. Through the use of fees, States may generate revenue streams, 

other than taxpayer general revenues, to support water quality program implementation. Maintaining sustainable programs enables both EPA and the States to 

achieve our environmental goals. 

PERCHLORATE

Question 11. You explained during the hearing that EPA has enough data on the 

presence of perchlorate in drinking water and so as to avoid any future delays, you 

opted not to include perchlorate on the UCMR2 which will not be completed until 

2011. If you have enough drinking water data, what other data does EPA need? Is 

there evidence that people are being exposed to perchlorate from sources other than 

water? Why is that information important to your decision whether or not to establish and MCL under the Safe Drinking Water Act for perchlorate? 

Response. EPA believes more data are needed to fully characterize perchlorate exposure to determine whether regulating perchlorate in drinking water presents a 

meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction in accordance with Section 

1412(b)(1)(A) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). EPA believes that currently 

available data show that food may be an important source of human exposure to 

perchlorate. EPA believes that current data are not adequate to estimate perchlorate exposure from food versus drinking water. EPA continues to work with 

both the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention to obtain data regarding human exposure to perchlorate from food. 

ASIA-PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP

Question 12. EPA has budgeted $5 million for the Asia Pacific Partnership. As I 

understand it, through technology transfers and information sharing, this partnership will work with other major developed and developing nations in the Asia-pacific 

and through technology transfers and information sharing -foster energy growth 

within the context of reduced air pollution and even greenhouse gases. Is this correct? 

Response. Yes. EPA is working with the other U.S. Government agencies to support six of the eight technical Task Forces under the Asia Pacific Partnership (APP). 

In each case, EPA is building on expertise developed through it’s public private 
61 

partnerships, such as ENERGY STAR and our domestic methane and industry programs, and is focused on sharing our experience and technologies internationally. 

We expect that these efforts will lead to reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, improvements in air quality, as well as economic and energy benefits. 

REGIONAL ENFORCEMENT

Question 13. Region 9 has been misusing an MOA between the Corps and the 

EPA regarding Aquatic Resources of National Importance (ARNI). This abuse has 

been stopped but, in the future, how can you prevent a Region from misusing their 

authorities? Further, how can you ensue that similarly situated businesses are 

treated similarly across the nation? 

Response. In order to address potential concerns with implementation of the 

Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), EPA issued a memorandum in October 2006 requiring improved coordination between Regions and Headquarters on actions taken 

under the MOA. Pursuant to the memorandum, EPA Regional offices must provide 

Headquarter staff with a copy of all 404(q) letters prior to issuance pursuant to the 

provisions of Part IV of the Section 404(q) MOA. Headquarters review is intended 

to ensure that the MOA is being used in a predictable, transparent, and consistent 

manner nationwide. We believe this process has improved the use of the MOA in 

providing greater certainty and predictability for the regulated community. We expect to extend this coordination between Headquarters and the Regions for as long 

as is necessary to ensure these improvements continue. 

REGIONAL ENFORCEMENT-REGION 9

Question 14. As you know, by design, the EPA is divided into ten different regions 

to implement and enforce our environmental laws. Regions often abuse this design 

to advance their own agendas. Region 9, for example, is notorious for trying to manage the Region as if they only answer to the San Francisco liberals where it is located. 

What will you do to ensure that States like Arizona and New Mexico, which are 

in Region 9 and have much different environmental concerns and solutions than 

San Francisco, are not penalized because they are overseen by an office with little 

understanding of their needs? 

Response. EPA is committed to ensuring compliance with the nation’s environmental laws and to improving public health and the environment. The Agency’s goal 

is fair and consistent enforcement of Federal environmental laws as balanced with 

the flexibility to respond to region and State-specific environmental problems. 

To ensure EPA Regional Offices conduct consistent oversight of States, and that 

States are consistently implementing environmental enforcement programs, OECA 

has implemented the State Review Framework (SRF). 

The SRF is a tool developed in collaboration with the Environmental Council of 

the States (ECOS) to promote consistency and a level playing field for the regulated 

community. The Framework was developed in 2003 and piloted in 10 States. A FY 

2004 evaluation validated the basic foundation and protocols of the Framework. 

Based on the results of the evaluation, the Framework was revised and, since June 

2005, is being implemented in all States. 

The process of evaluating all States for the first time under the Framework will 

be complete by the end of FY 2007. Upon completion, another evaluation will be performed to identify whether the Framework was successful in improving the level of 

consistency in enforcement programs across States and in the regional oversight of 

State programs. This evaluation is expected to lead to additional improvements in 

the SRF before initiating the next round of reviews. 

LEAD RENOVATION, REPAIR, AND PAINTING PROGRAM PROPOSED RULE

Question 15. Early last year EPA proposed the Lead Renovation, Repair, and 

Painting Program rule with the goal of reducing exposure to lead hazards created 

by renovation, repair, and painting activities that disturb lead-based paint. EPA has 

demonstrated that disturbing lead-based paint can generate large amounts of lead 

dust. However, the clearance test requirement in the proposed rule would seemingly 

impose liability for any lead paint regardless of its origin solely on the professional 

conducting the home remodeling work. How will EPA consider this imposition of liability in the proposed rule and still ensure that trained professionals conduct remodeling work and avoid the health hazards contemplated in the proposed rule? 

Response. EPA conducted extensive outreach with the renovation community 

prior to the publication of the Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program proposed 

regulation. During public meetings in 1998 and 1999, as well as during the 

SBREFA panel process, contractors pointed out that, if post-renovation dust clear-
62 

ance sampling were required, the contractors would have to protect themselves by 

collecting pre-renovation dust samples, to ensure that they would not be held liable 

for pre-existing hazards. To address this concern, EPA’s proposal includes an innovative cleaning verification process rather than dust clearance sampling. The proposed cleaning verification process involves wiping surfaces with disposable cleaning 

cloths and comparing them to a cleaning verification card. 

On the one hand, while not quantitative, EPA studies indicate that in the great 

majority of cases when following this protocol, a contractor would achieve the level 

required to pass dust clearance sampling. On the other hand, the cleaning 

verification protocol puts reasonable limits on the amount of cleaning required of 

the renovator. On balance, EPA believes that this cleaning protocol is a safe, reliable and effective system of ensuring that renovation activities do not result in an 

increased risk of exposure to lead-based paint hazards created by renovation activities while at the same time not increasing renovators’ liability for the removal of 

all lead-based paint hazards. 

Again, EPA believes that adherence to this post-renovation cleaning verification 

protocol, in combination with the proposed training, containment, and cleaning requirements, is a safe, reliable and effective system of ensuring that renovation activities do not result in an increased risk of exposure to lead-based paint hazards. 

Further, the Agency believes that contractors will embrace these practices because 

they should be easy to implement, and because consumers will appreciate the results and come to expect a clean work area following all renovation activities. 

RESPONSES BY STEPHEN JOHNSON TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

FROM SENATOR VITTER

LANDFILLS—OLD GENTILLY

Question 1. In regard to hurricane debris at the Old Gentilly Landfill, at what 

point will standard requirements for disposing of asbestos containing material be required as outlined by RCRA? 

Response. There are no specific requirements for disposal of asbestos containing 

material in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Rather, disposal is regulated under the Clean Air Act National Emissions Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) regulations. Following the devastation from Hurricanes Katrina 

and Rita, the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) allowed the 

option for landfills receiving clean-up debris to apply for a permit to ‘‘enhance’’ specific cells within the landfills to receive Regulated Asbestos Containing Waste material from residential clean-up only. These LDEQ permitted ‘‘enhanced’’ cells must 

meet all the requirements in the Louisiana Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants (LESHAP) asbestos landfill section, as well as the EPA’s NESHAP asbestos landfill requirements section at 40 CFR 61.150. 

LANDFILLS—MISSISSIPPI RIVER GULF OUTLET (MRGO) LEVEE

Question 2. Who has the liability if Old Gentilly Landfill does undermine the 

MRGO levee as suggested by the FEMA study and all the national experts who 

have reviewed the situation? 

Response. The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is the lead Federal agency on the safety of the MRGO levee. On November 15, 2006, EPA’s Region 

6 Office facilitated a meeting that included the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ), the Federal Emergency Management Agency, USACE, the 

Louisiana Environmental Action Network, and several consultants. The purpose of 

this meeting was to discuss levee stability issues. It was agreed that USACE would 

work with LDEQ on the issue. The USACE has stated that it will conduct an analysis to assure stability of the MRGO levee. 

LANDFILLS—NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (NEPA) ALTERNATIVE

ARRANGEMENTS

Question 3. NEPA alternative arrangements are being developed for activities related to levees. Why are there no NEPA alternative arrangements for debris disposal? 

Response. Debris disposal is being undertaken under the Stafford Act, which 

waives the applicability of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). In contrast, 

levee construction will take place under the authorities of the US Corps of Engineers. The NEPA alternative measures for activities related to levees are designed 

and intended to allow early and expedited consideration of segregable portions of 

levee improvements so that construction work can commence on such portions with-
63 

out awaiting completion of NEPA review on entire levee systems. Those alternative 

arrangements have been approved by the President’s Council on Environmental 

Quality. 

Question 4. At what point will the agencies evaluate the consequences of debris 

disposal with a rigorous alternative analysis such as a NEPA or an IT analysis for 

activities in Louisiana? 

Response. The Louisiana public trust doctrine, a.k.a., IT Doctrine, arises under 

the Louisiana Constitution. Its application to emergency debris disposal actions undertaken or authorized by State agencies is a matter of State law on which EPA 

has no particular expertise. 

EPA’s Region 6 office is aware of no Federal agency planning to evaluate the consequences of debris disposal with a rigorous alternative analysis such as a NEPA 

analysis. 

LANDFILLS—HURRICANE DEBRIS

Question 5. For hurricane debris should agencies use emergency powers to dispose 

of waste in environmentally-less preferable alternatives when other alternatives 

exist? 

Response. EPA has the authority under 42 USC Section 6973, in general, to respond to solid waste releases that may present an imminent and substantial 

endangerment to human health or the environment. In an appropriate case, when 

all of the elements of liability and the existence of an endangerment can be demonstrated, EPA may exercise this or other Federal authorities to abate an 

endangerment. Such action would have to be protective of human health and the 

environment. As a general matter, States regulate non-hazardous solid wastes 

under their own standards. Federal regulations set minimum performance standards for municipal solid waste (including household wastes), but these are implemented by approved State programs. States generally regulate non-hazardous construction and demolition debris under their State standards. EPA is coordinating 

with the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, the US Corps of Engineers and the Federal Emergency Management Authority to ensure that the environmental safeguards are set in place to enable the proper disposal of hurricane debris. 

LANDFILLS—DEBRIS REMOVAL

Question 6. Compare the use and bounds of emergency powers as applies to the 

waiver of State and Federal environmental laws for debris removal in the following 

situations: Katrina and Rita in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and September 

11th in New York. Which laws governing debris removal were waived, to what extent, and for how long? 

Response. EPA did not offer any waivers of Federal or State law for debris removal in response to the collapse of the World Trade Center, or Hurricanes Katrina 

and Rita. However, on October 21, 2005, February 3, 2006, February 24, 2006, and 

April 28, 2006, EPA issued No Action Assurance letters to provide flexibility under 

the Federal asbestos National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

program to address the widespread devastation from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. 

The No Action Assurances dealing with demolition practices were extended on February 2, 2007, February 23, 2007, and March 9, 2007 to be effective through September 30, 2007. These actions allow Louisiana and Mississippi to move forward 

more expeditiously with certain residential demolition and disposal activities, while 

still protecting public health and the environment. 

The No Action Assurances provide flexibility to: 

• allow limited residential demolition to proceed without inspections and asbestos 

removal prior to demolition, as long as emission control practices remain in place, 

• allow the State or local Government to issue demolition orders for groups of 

residences, and 

• evaluate possible regulatory flexibility for burning or grinding of residential 

demolition debris prior to disposal. 

LANDFILLS—NEW ORLEANS

Question 7. How much debris, and of what types, is estimated to remain in Louisiana? 

Response. The United States Army Corps of Engineers and the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) maintains this data and would have the 

best estimates of the quantity and type of waste remaining. 
64 

Question 8. What is the current capacity of area landfills for debris disposal in 

New Orleans? 

Response. Information of the current capacity of New Orleans area landfills may 

be available from LDEQ. 

LANDFILLS—TYPE III LANDFILLS

Question 9. List the standard requirements and procedures for permitting a Type 

III landfill and compare to the requirements and procedures followed for the 

Gentilly Type III landfill. 

Response. While Federal law addresses solid waste management generally, and 

EPA approves State municipal solid waste programs, the permitting and direct regulation of solid waste landfills are primarily State responsibilities to be conducted 

pursuant to State law. Consequently, the requirements and procedures for permitting landfills vary from State to State. 

The Gentilly landfill is a Type III solid waste landfill pursuant to Louisiana’s solid 

waste regulations and laws. As a result, EPA’s Region 6 office did not participate 

in the Gentilly permit application process. 

Question 10. Address all aspects of the permitting and operating process including: public involvement; permit requirements including design requirements, landfill 

operations and financial assurances; and all other potentially applicable permits 

such as water discharge. 

Response. In terms of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 

discharge permitting requirements, Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) has a general permit to authorize discharges from Construction and Debris landfills. This permit expired in August 2006, but has been administratively 

continued; landfills that were covered under this permit prior to its expiration remain covered. In the meantime, a new permit has undergone public notice and 

should be reissued soon. 

New landfills that started operations after the hurricane have been operating 

under LDEQ’s emergency order, which requires that they meet the general permit 

requirements. Some of these facilities have already terminated operations and no 

further NPDES coverage is needed. Facilities that remain in operation are required 

to seek coverage under the soon-to-be-reissued landfill general permit. 

We are advised that LDEQ will be issuing individual permits to some facilities, 

like the Gentilly Landfill. For facilities that have ceased operations but have not 

been officially closed by LDEQ’s Solid Waste Permitting Section, Multi-Sector General Permit coverage is required until the time that official closure is approved. 

In terms of CWA Section 404 permitting requirements, the U. S. Army Corps of 

Engineers is the permitting authority. However, it is our understanding that the 

Gentilly Landfill did not require a Section 404 permit. 

Question 11. For the Gentilly Type III landfill, list the original date the process 

or permit requirement was proposed, any changes that were made to the process 

or requirement, and the date the process or requirement was completed. 

Response. In 2002, the City of New Orleans submitted an application to the 

LDEQ for a Type III landfill. After an opportunity for review and public comment, 

LDEQ issued the permit in December 2004. Groundwater monitoring and 

geotechnical monitoring is being performed at the Gentilly site; the State does not 

usually require this monitoring at Type III landfills. The old landfill predated the 

current State rules that established Type I, II and III landfills. 

Question 12. Also provide the same comparison for the closure process and monitoring requirements for a standard Type I landfill and for the process as originally 

proposed, any changes that were made, and the actual arrangements and completion date of the activity for the Gentilly Type I landfill. 

Response. In Louisiana, a Type I landfill is used for disposing of industrial solid 

wastes. A Type III landfill is used for disposing or processing of construction/demolition debris or woodwaste, composting organic waste to produce a usable material, 

or separating recyclable wastes (a separation facility). The LDEQ reported that the 

old Gentilly landfill was not a Type I landfill. For more details regarding the permit 

conditions for the Gentilly landfill, please contact the LDEQ. 

LANDFILLS—CHEF MENTEUR LANDFILL

Question 13. How will closure on the Chef Menteur landfill proceed? 

Response. The closure plan for the Chef Menteur site is currently being reviewed 

by the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ). Once a closure 

plan is approved, LDEQ will be responsible for monitoring the closure. EPA will provide technical assistance upon request by LDEQ. 
65 

LANDFILLS—NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (NEPA) ANALYSIS

Question 14. Do you believe that a NEPA analysis should be required for debris 

disposal when Federal funds are paying for all work after Hurricanes Katrina and 

Rita? If so, why has this not applied to certain landfills in the New Orleans area? 

Response. Debris removal actions funded or undertaken under Section 407 of the 

Stafford Act are excluded by Section 316 of the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) from review. Presumably, this represents a Congressional determination 

that such actions should be performed without the delays inherent in NEPA review. 

LANDFILLS—CHEF MENTEUR LANDFILL CLOSURE

Question 15. The closure of the Chef Menteur landfill is a first step; however, dangerous waste is potentially being stored there and a threat to the community and 

environment. What steps will EPA take to ensure the testing, protection and clean 

closure of this waste field? 

Response. States have the primary responsibility to implement the regulations for 

the disposal of solid waste. Thus, the closure plan for the Chef Menteur site is currently being reviewed by the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality 

(LDEQ). Once a closure plan is approved, LDEQ will be responsible for monitoring 

the closure. EPA has no direct responsibility to ensure the testing, protection and 

clean closure of this waste field. 

Question 16. Can you explain what other steps and enforcement actions the EPA 

has taken to address these problems? 

Response. Upon request by LDEQ, EPA will provide technical assistance. 

POST KATRINA NPDES SECTION 402 PERMITS

Question 17. What is the status of Section 402 (point source pollution) permits on 

the various landfills being used for hurricane debris? 

Response. The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) has 

issued a general permit to authorize discharges from construction and debris landfills. The permit expired on August 2006, and was administratively continued. Landfills that were covered under this permit prior to the expiration remain covered. 

New landfills that started operation after the general permit expired have been operating under an emergency order issued by the LDEQ. This order requires facilities 

to meet the same requirements that are in the expired landfill general permit. 

LDEQ will be issuing individual permits to some facilities. 

Facilities that have terminated operations, installed a final cover, and have been 

officially closed by LDEQ no longer need coverage under the permit. Facilities that 

have ceased operations (including a final cover), but have not been officially closed 

by the LDEQ are required to be covered by a general permit for industrial storm 

water discharges until official closure is approved. A new draft permit has undergone public notice and should be reissued soon. 

In Mississippi, emergency landfills used for disposal of debris from Hurricane 

Katrina are not allowed to discharge contaminated storm water, and hence, and 

NPDES permit is not required. The Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) worked with local Governments in the coastal counties and approved 

13 temporary emergency disposal sites in addition to 6 permitted landfill sites that 

existed prior to the hurricane. All but one debris disposal site have been closed. 

MDEQ implemented a number of policies to manage the debris to protect groundwater quality, wetlands and nearby surface water quality. In addition, the State 

worked to segregate improper wastes from debris. MDEQ worked with FEMA to install a groundwater monitoring system at each of the 13 emergency disposal sites. 

RURAL WATER FUNDING

Question 18. With over 1,800 rural water systems in Louisiana, funding for rural 

water assistance is very important to me. After Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, Louisiana Rural Water Association assisted 700+ water systems in ensuring that safe 

drinking water was provided to the affected communities in a short period of time. 

These communities would not have been able recover if it would not have been for 

rural water. 

Small communities in Louisiana rely on rural water assistance to comply with the 

EPA rules and regulations, and for maintaining the required training (which rural 

water provides for free.) For complying with the complex regulations at the local 

level, rural water provides assistance to help small communities comply. There is 

no one else in the State offering this assistance, and as far as the small communities are concerned, this is very helpful and a beneficial use of EPA spending at 

the local level. Rural water represents less than one percent of the EPA’s environ-
66 

mental programs management spending that was provided to EPA in the Continuing Resolution. It is $11.0 million for rural water’s 3 environmental initiatives 

(source water protection, ground water protection, and training and technical assistance). 

Would you comment on what the EPA thinks about the importance of rural water 

funding and the value in what the National Rural Water Association does for providing assistance at the local level? 

Response. EPA agrees that small drinking water systems require training and 

technical assistance to ensure that they are able to comply with standards under 

the Safe Drinking Water Act. We are aware that, in many States, technical assistance providers (including State Rural Water affiliates) play an important role in 

supporting small public water systems. States can use 2 percent of their Drinking 

Water State Revolving (DWSRF) fund allotment within the State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) appropriation to provide technical assistance to small systems. 

Since the program began, the State of Louisiana has reserved 1.2 percent for small 

system technical assistance. In FY 2006, more than $156,000 was expended in technical assistance to small systems. The State also expended more than $360,000 for 

other DWSRF set-aside activities that benefit small systems. 

In addition, the Agency’s FY 2007 Enacted Operating Plan includes $8.0 million 

for competitive grants to support technical assistance for rural water systems. 

RESPONCES BY STEPHEN JOHNSON TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

FROM SENATOR VOINOVICH

GREAT LAKES—INTERAGENCY TASK FORCE

Question 1. Under the President’s 2004 Great Lakes Executive Order, the EPA 

was designated as the lead agency of the Great Lakes Federal Interagency Task 

Force. The Interagency Task Force includes 9 cabinet departments as well as the 

Council on Environmental Quality. However, there have been 2 Federal actions in 

the last few months that have undermined the purposes of this Interagency Task 

Force. The first action was the proposal by the U.S. Coast Guard to establish livefire testing areas throughout the Lakes, and the second action was the order from 

the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) which suspended 

the interstate movement of certain species of Great Lakes fish. It is my understanding that neither the Coast Guard nor APHIS consulted with the Interagency 

Task Force before acting. How does the EPA intend to address this problem in the 

future? 

Response. The Interagency Task Force (IATF), through the efforts of the Regional 

Working Group (RWG), is actively coordinating and discussing issues such as these. 

Whenever possible and appropriate, the IATF/RWG discusses such issues in advance. As the chair of the Interagency Task Force, EPA will continue to work as 

part of the IATF/RWG to improve Federal coordination, and to implement all requirements of Executive Order 13340 on the Great Lakes. 

WATER INFRASTRUCTURE

Question 2. How do you expect cities like Akron, Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnatiwho are under enforcement actions from the EPA—to spend millions of dollars for 

water infrastructure upgrades when the Administration proposes to cut funding for 

the Clean Water SRF program? 

Response. In 2004, the President’s budget presented a long-term plan to address 

national water infrastructure needs which included an extension of Federal funding 

of the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) through 2011. The Administration 

continues to reinforce this Federal commitment to provide $6.8 billion over 2004- 

2011 so that the Clean Water SRFs will provide an average $3.4 billion a year in 

financial assistance over the long term. 

For nearly 20 years the Clean Water SRF has played a significant role in helping 

to finance wastewater infrastructure. Over this time period, EPA has provided more 

than $24 billion to help capitalize the State-operated programs. By combining the 

Federal funds with State monies and recycled loan repayments, Clean Water SRFs 

have been able to fund $61 billion in crucial water quality projects. As intended by 

Congress, the revolving nature of the programs has established the Clean Water 

SRFs as self-sustaining entities that will continue to be an important source of 

funding long into the future. 

While the Clean Water SRF is now and will continue to be a critical tool, it was 

never intended to be the only source of funds for addressing the nation’s wastewater 

infrastructure needs. The nation’s success in addressing our wastewater infrastruc-
67 

ture needs will also depend on contributions of other financing vehicles, rates that 

reflect the full cost of services, and sustainable practices that reduce the costs and 

lessen the burden on the utility sector. EPA’s Sustainable Infrastructure Strategy, 

developed in collaboration with communities, utilities, and other stakeholders, represents a suite of approaches that are an important part of the solution to the infrastructure needs of communities like Akron, Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati. 

These program areas focus on the means by which we can reduce: 1) the demands 

placed on infrastructure, 2) the need for new infrastructure, and 3) the total cost 

of maintaining infrastructure over the long term. 

To provide additional opportunities to communities for financing needed wastewater infrastructure, Congress should enact the Administration’s FY 2008 Water 

Enterprise Bond proposal, which would provide an exception to the unified annual 

State volume cap on tax-exempt qualified private activity bonds for wastewater and 

drinking water projects. To ensure the long-term financial health and solvency of 

these drinking water and wastewater systems, communities using these bonds must 

have demonstrated a process that will move toward full-cost pricing for services 

within five years of issuing the Private Activity Bonds. Consequently, this proposal 

will attract more private capital to meet the infrastructure needs of these sectors, 

help water and wastewater systems become self-financing, and minimize the need 

for future subsidies. 

WATER INFRASTRUCTURE—AFFORDABILITY

Question 3. Two years ago, the EPA announced that affordability is an issue for 

communities facing the costs of significant capital improvements, why has EPA enforcement failed to consider affordability issues in their approach to achieving compliance? 

Response. EPA has always included affordability issues in the consideration of 

timing of expenditures for municipalities needing to make significant capital improvements in order to comply with environmental laws. Both CSO (Combined 

Sewer Overflow) and SSO (Sanitary Sewer Overflow) enforcement cases frequently 

require remedies with significant capital improvements. The Agency’s approach for 

evaluating such affordability issues in the context of municipal wastewater compliance costs is specifically addressed in the 1997 ‘‘Combined Sewer Overflows-Guidance for Financial Capability Assessment and Schedule Development.’’ This Guidance addresses how to determine the financial capability of a municipality and how 

to adjust the implementation schedule in situations where the CSO control measures will result in a high financial burden. 

In addition, the Enforcement Management System guidance for Clean Water Act 

violations directs that schedules of compliance which require addressing significant 

capital investments should take into account the financial capabilities of the specific 

municipality. (The Enforcement Management System, National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (Clean Water Act), ‘‘Chapter X: Setting Priorities for Addressing 

Discharges from Separate Sanitary Sewers,’’ page 2). EPA has and will continue to 

apply these concepts to adjust the length of implementation schedules in the CSO 

and SSO judicial and administrative enforcement actions taken by the Agency. 

WATER INFRASTRUCTURE—SSO ENFORCEMENT

Question 4. Why has the EPA allowed the Regional EPA offices to initiate SSO 

enforcement when there are no national SSO regulations, policy or standard? 

Response. There are a number of Agency policy statements that articulate the 

Agency’s longstanding position that Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSOs) are illegal and 

that enforcement to address SSOs is appropriate. In 1989, EPA published the ‘‘National Combined Sewer Overflow Control Strategy,’’ in which the Agency unequivocally stated that ‘‘[d]ischarges from separate sanitary sewer systems with less than 

secondary treatment are prohibited.’’ 54 Fed Reg. 37.370 (EPA Sept. 8, 1989). 

In a March 7, 1995 policy statement issued by Steven A. Herman, Assistant Administrator, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, and Robert 

Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator, Office of Water, entitled ‘‘Enforcement Efforts 

Addressing Sanitary Sewer Overflows,’’ the Agency reiterated this position and the 

need to continue SSO enforcement. This policy statement provides that: ‘‘SSO discharges to waters of the United States are prohibited by the Clean Water Act.’’ In 

addition, the policy statement addressed the question of what EPA should do regarding enforcement of SSO violations in light of a then ongoing SSO Federal Advisory Committee that was assisting in the developing of a proposed SSO rule. The 

policy statement declared: ‘‘The EPA believes that a delay in enforcement is unwarranted because of the seriousness of many of these discharges to public health and 

water quality.’’ In 1996, EPA revised ‘‘The Enforcement Management System, Na-
68 

tional Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (Clean Water Act)’’ by adding ‘‘Chapter X: Setting Priorities for Addressing Discharges from Separate Sanitary Sewers.’’ 

This policy provides guidance on when and how to use enforcement actions to address SSO violations. 

More recently, in an April 10, 2005 document entitled ‘‘Guidelines for Federal Enforcement in CSO/SSO Cases’’ developed jointly with the Environmental Council of 

States, the Agency reiterated that ‘‘[c]ombined sewer overflows (CSOs) and sanitary 

sewer overflows (SSOs) are national environmental problems with significant environmental impacts.’’ This document enumerated circumstances in which Federal enforcement would be appropriate to address CSO and SSO violations, and it encouraged EPA regions to work with States with approved NPDES programs whenever 

possible to leverage limited Federal and State resources. 

EPA has continued to bring enforcement actions for SSOs to the extent that they 

constitute unauthorized discharges to waters of the United States or violations of 

permit conditions for proper operation and maintenance, in violation of Section 301 

of the Act, or to the extent that they are presenting an imminent and substantial 

endangerment under Section 504 of the Act. The vast majority of judicial actions 

for SSOs have been brought jointly with approved States. 

RESPONSES BY STEPHEN JOHNSON TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

FROM SENATOR CARDIN

CHESAPEAKE BAY

Question 1. In October 2005, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued 

a report entitled: Chesapeake Bay Program: Improved Strategies Are Needed to Better Assess, Report and Manage Restoration Progress. The GAO report found, among 

other things, that the Chesapeake Bay Program did not have a comprehensive, coordinated implementation strategy to meet the goals of the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement. Does EPA now have a comprehensive, coordinated implementation strategy? 

Response. The Chesapeake Bay Program Strategic Implementation Plan is in the 

final stages of development, with completion expected by the end of 2007. The 

Chesapeake Bay Program partnership completed outlining the overall framework, 

unifying five strategic focus areas—restoring healthy waters, restoring healthy habitats, ecosystem-based fisheries management, Bay friendly watershed management, 

and fostering Chesapeake Stewardship. At the same time, the leads for each strategic focus areas are working together to ensure coordination throughout the strategic focus areas. Fine-tuning of the strategy is underway, including identification 

of specific geographic focus areas in which complementary restoration efforts will be 

leveraged. The first draft of the strategies for each of the focus areas is expected 

in July, 2007. Descriptions of these focus areas and connections between them can 

be found at www.chesapeakebay.net/strategicimplementation.htm. 

The Strategic Implementation Plan (SIP) is integrating all of the Bay Program’s 

activities into a realistic plan that targets resources to ensure that the most effective and realistic work plans are developed and implemented. Annual targets, outputs, and outcomes will be included in the SIP, which is organized into the five strategic areas, or pillars, based on the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement. With the SIP, the 

Program is changing the existing extensive tracking of restoration actions into a 

planning/tracking/and feedback system. Each year, as part of the SIP process, the 

program will provide annual reports that show yearly goals and progress made. Annual review and assessment of the effectiveness of the restoration partners’ activities will help the program modify its priorities and activities based on the feedback 

loop between targets and results. 

CHESAPEAKE BAY—POLLUTION

Question 2. Pollution associated with the rapid population growth in the watershed, now more than 170,000 new residents annually, is actually increasing. What 

tools can EPA use to address this pollution sector? 

Response. Human population growth long will continue to be a major driving force 

behind a wide range of challenging air, land, and water pollution problems in the 

Chesapeake Bay watershed. For example, while human population in the watershed 

increased by 8 percent between 1990 and 2000, the area of the watershed covered 

by impervious surface increased by 41 percent. As the population increases, urban 

stormwater is the only sector from which pollutant loads to the Bay are increasing. 

These loads constitute less than 30 percent of the total nutrient and sediment loads 

to the Bay; however, their continual increase puts at risk the overall effort to reduce 

and cap total loads. 
69 

To address these problems, EPA makes use of the full range of pollution control 

tools through the Clean Air, Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water Acts. In addition, the Chesapeake Bay Program partner States have designed management practices to achieve the reductions needed, relying on both regulatory and voluntary efforts. 

The States’ primary Federal regulatory program for achieving load reductions in 

the urban sector is the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) and construction sites stormwater component of EPA’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). In addition, States’ efforts to meet regulatory total maximum daily load (TMDL) allocations can also be applied to help achieve urban sector 

goals for restoring the Bay. To date, however, neither MS4 permitting nor local 

TMDL programs have yet evolved sufficiently to fully support achieving Bay restoration goals. A key missing piece, the ability to allocate Bay nutrient and sediment load reduction requirements to the local level—at a geographic scale appropriate for use in MS4 permitting and TMDLs, will be available in 2008. 

To complement the NPDES regulatory tools, collaborative Chesapeake Bay Program partner efforts recently led to establishing Stormwater and New Development 

Task Group. Chesapeake Executive Council Directive 04-2 tasked the partners with 

developing a prevention and preservation-oriented approach to stormwater from 

new development. The Task Group is in the process of developing a set of guiding 

principles for effective local stormwater management, likely to include a policy of 

first attempting to maintain pre-development site hydrology, or second, employing 

offsets elsewhere to achieve no net increase’ in nutrient and sediment loads from 

new development. Through the collaborative efforts EPA will continue to build upon 

the best available technical information and regulatory approaches to design and 

implement collective solutions to the Bay watershed’s stormwater pollution problems. 

CHESAPEAKE BAY—CHESAPEAKE SMALL WATERSHED GRANTS PROGRAM

Question 3. The Chesapeake Small Watersheds grants program is authorized in 

Section 117 of the Clean Water Act. Since 1999, money has been appropriated annually, totaling more than $17 million, to fund more than 500 grants. Grantees have 

leveraged more than $45 million in additional funds to restore 4,500 acres of wetlands, 300 miles of forested stream buffers, and similar projects. In FY06 we appropriated $2 million for this program. In the FY 2007 Operating Plan, what is the 

funding level that you are proposing? 

Response. The FY 2007 Operating Plan does not provide funding for the Chesapeake Bay Small Watershed grants program. The total FY 07 enacted budget for 

the Chesapeake Bay Program is $26.8 Million. This includes $6 million for competitive grants for innovative, cost effective non-point source watershed projects, which 

reduce nutrient and/or sediment discharges to the Bay. The Federal cost share will 

not exceed 50 percent. 

CHESAPEAKE BAY—NONPOINT SOURCE PROJECTS

Question 4. Page 951 of the Appendix to the President’s budget submission states ‘‘ . . . the President’s Budget provides $6 million for the Chesapeake Bay Small 

Watersheds Grant Program to implement innovative and cost-effective nonpoint 

source projects, which reduce nutrient discharges to the Bay.’’ However, the Congressional Justification notes that the budget provides $8 million for 

‘‘. . . competitive grants for innovative, cost-effective non-point source watershed 

projects which reduce nutrient and/or sediment discharges to the Bay. The Federal 

cost share will not exceed 50 percent.’’ Please explain why these descriptions and 

amounts differ and clarify the Administration’s intent. 

Response. The EPA’s Congressional Justification contains the final version of the 

Administration’s budget submission for the Chesapeake Bay Program. The FY 2008 

budget provides for $8.0 million for competitive grants for innovative, cost-effective 

non-point source watershed projects which reduce nutrient and/or sediment discharges to the Bay. The Federal cost share will not exceed 50 percent. 

RURAL WATER PROGRAMS

Question 5. The National Rural Water Association is operating under a contract 

with EPA that expires next year. EPA was provided funding for this type of activity 

in the FY 2007 funding bill approved last month by the Congress. Is there any consideration by EPA not to continue the rural water contract through the rest of fiscal 

year 2007? 

Response. In the past, appropriations committee report language has earmarked 

and EPA has awarded noncompetitive grants to the National Rural Water Associa-
70 

tion (NRWA). In adhering with the FY 2007 Continuing Resolution (P.L. 110-5, Sec. 

112), EPA has not funded this earmark in FY 2007. In addition to funds already 

available under the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) set-aside, the 

Agency’s FY 2007 Enacted Operating Plan includes $8.0 million for competitive 

grants to support technical assistance for rural water systems. 

EPA is aware that in many States, technical assistance providers (including State 

Rural Water affiliates) play an important role in supporting small public water systems. As mentioned above, States can also use 2 percent of their Drinking Water 

State Revolving (DWSRF) fund allotment within the State and Tribal Assistance 

Grants (STAG) appropriation to provide technical assistance to small systems. Since 

the program began, Maryland has reserved 1.8 percent for small system technical 

assistance. In FY 2006, the State of Maryland expended more than $183,000 for 

technical assistance to small systems. In addition, the State also expended more 

than $479,000 for other DWSRF set-aside activities that benefit small systems. 

ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION

Question 6. It is my understanding that the Fiscal 2008 budget request terminates funding for EPA’s environmental education program. I am a strong proponent 

of environmental education. In EPA’s report Everyday Choices: Opportunities for 

Environmental Stewardship, the agency refers to environmental education as ‘‘an 

integral partnership’’ with environmental stewardship. Given this recognition of the 

benefits of environmental education to your Agency’s mission, what is the rationale 

for not requesting funds for this program in Fiscal 2008? 

Response. The Agency believes that environmental education is an integral part 

of its programs and mission and thus does not require a separate EPA program. Additionally, many States, local Governments and private organizations have developed their own environmental education programs. 

LEAKING UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS

Question 7. Last month, the GAO released a report that noted it is going to take $12 billion to cleanup just half of the remaining Leaking Underground Storage Tank 

sites in the U.S. Despite the fact that there is currently a $3 billion trust fund specifically dedicated to these cleanups, the EPA FY08 budget only calls for $72 million. In Maryland there have been more than 10,000 confirmed releases, and more 

than 900 of them require at least some public funding. In light of the new information about the need, do you think that EPA should reevaluate this request and ask 

Congress to consider adding more money? 

Response. EPA commends GAO for a thorough analysis and sound recommenda- tions. Most of the $12 billion cleanup cost referred to in the GAO report will be 

borne by State financial assurance funds that were established by some States to 

help tank owners meet the financial assurance obligations of Subtitle I of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). These funds are capitalized by State 

gas taxes and fees paid by tank owners and, in 2005, received approximately $1.4 

billion in revenue while paying out $1.032 billion. 

In States, such as Maryland, which rely on private insurance instead of a State 

fund, most cleanup costs will be borne by private insurance and tank owners. EPA 

generally agrees with most of GAO’s recommendations and will work to carry them 

out as appropriate. The $72 million requested from the Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Trust Fund in the FY 2008 President’s Budget, which includes 

cooperative agreements with States, will enable EPA, States, and tribes to complete 

approximately 13,000 cleanups in FY 2008. 

Between September 30, 1988, and March 31, 2007, there were more than 10,000 

cumulative confirmed releases in Maryland. Each year Maryland has, on average, 

received more than $1 million from EPA to achieve LUST cleanups. As a result, 

cleanups have been initiated at more than 98 percent of the sites with confirmed 

releases and completed at 92 percent, leaving a backlog of approximately 800 releases remaining to be cleaned up. Under the FY 2008 President’s Budget, continued progress will be made to clean up LUST releases in Maryland. We are committed to evaluating program progress and program needs. 

RESPONSES BY STEPHEN JOHNSON TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

FROM SENATOR CARPER

SMART GROWTH PROGRAM

Question 1. The EPA’s Office of Smart is providing technical assistance to Sussex 

County, Delaware, about ways to pursue growth options that will lower the environ-
71 

mental impact of this growth and reduce the infrastructure costs of this development. This is a fast growing county—growing by 12.7 percent between 2000 and 

2005—that is looking for ways to accommodate that growth and still maintain its 

character. The Office of Smart Growth is able to offer this assistance in spite of a 

small budget and a staff of only 16 people. How many positions do you plant to cut? 

And which projects and technical assistance will be jeopardized as a result? 

Response. The FY 2008 President’s budget calls for a reduction of 10 FTE in regulatory innovation programs within the National Center of Environmental Innovation. The Smart Growth program would be reduced by 4.0 FTE, however extramural 

funding will increase slightly. In addition, Brownfields extramural resources used 

to support the Smart Growth program will be scaled back from $554.8K to $0. In 

the absence of the extramural funds, the Brownfields FTE will be working on policy 

analysis and outreach activities to improve the economic and regulatory environment for brownfield redevelopment. 

With the reduced budget, the Agency will scale back its Smart Growth technical 

assistance programs, its Smart Growth awards, and its funding for Safe Routes to 

School and School Siting projects. In addition, the Agency will continue to support, 

at a reduced level, the Smart Growth program’s information and education efforts. 

RURAL WATER

Question 2. The rural water associations have received a small earmark in the 

spending bill that funds EPA for years to help small communities protect their 

drinking water and comply with Federal mandates. For example, the Delaware 

Rural Water Association recently provided technical assistance to the City of 

Seaford when serious flooding resulted in problems with the wastewater treatment 

facility. This is another example of a program that takes a little bit of funding a 

long way. Please describe how you plan to address this issue in your FY07 funding? 

Response. In the past, appropriations committee report language has earmarked 

and EPA has awarded noncompetitive grants to the National Rural Water Association (NRWA). In adhering with the FY 2007 Continuing Resolution (P.L. 110-5, Sec. 

112) EPA has not funded this earmark in FY 2007. In addition to funds already 

available under the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) set-aside, the 

Agency’s FY 2007 Enacted Operating Plan includes $8.0 million for competitive 

grants to support technical assistance for rural water systems. 

EPA is aware that in many States, technical assistance providers (including State 

Rural Water affiliates) play an important role in supporting small public water systems. As mentioned above, States can also use 2 percent of their Drinking Water 

State Revolving (DWSRF) fund allotment within the State and Tribal Assistance 

Grants (STAG) appropriation to provide technical assistance to small systems. Since 

the program began, Delaware has reserved 2.0 percent for small system technical 

assistance. In FY 2006, the State of Delaware expended more than $124,000 for 

technical assistance to small systems. In addition, the State also expended more 

than $450,000 for other DWSRF set-aside activities that benefit small systems. 
72 

DERA FY07 APPROPRIATIONS

Question 3. The Diesel Emissions Reductions Act (‘‘DERA’’) was enacted 18 

months ago as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. When will the regulations giving effect to DERA be issued? Do you intend to fund DERA at $49.5 million as proposed by the President in his FY07 budget? 

Response. Because, the provisions of the Energy Policy Act provide the necessary 

basis for implementing the Diesel Emission Reduction Program, EPA does not believe that it is necessary to issue any new regulations. 

The FY 2007 reduction to the Diesel Emission Reduction Program, funding levels 

for almost all of our key programs within the STAG account were set by the bill 

language and cannot be altered. In the case of DERA, the 2006 Appropriations Law 

provides funding for diesel in STAG as follows: ‘‘$7,000,000 for making cost-shared 

grants for school bus retrofit and replacement projects that reduce diesel emissions.’’ 

The President’s FY 2007 budget proposed to change the legislative language so 

that there was an increase that corresponded with the Energy Policy Act of 2005. 

(‘‘$49,500,000 for grants under sections 791-797 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.’’) 

However, because the Clean School Bus Initiative language was written into the law 

in 2006 and picked up without change in the continuing resolution, we are unable 

to provide funding out of STAG under the broader Title VII authority. 

DERA FY08 APPROPRIATIONS

Question 4. The President has proposed $35 million in his FY08 budget proposal 

for DERA. Why did the President reduce his request from the $49.5 million proposed last year? 

Response. The FY 2008 President’s Budget Request reduction to the Diesel Emissions Reductions Program will continue to achieve significant reductions in PM 

emission levels and continue support for the Clean Diesel grants program. EPA estimates that the $35 million for National Clean Diesel Campaign grants will leverage 

at least an additional $72 million in funding assistance and reduce PM by approximately 5,040 tons. 

Programs similar to the Diesel Grants have been adopted in California and Texas 

and are expected to achieve similar results. 

RESPONSES BY STEPHEN JOHNSON TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

FROM SENATOR SANDERS

LAKE CHAMPLAIN

Question 1. As you know, the Environmental Protection Agency has been directly 

involved in working to clean up and protect Lake Champlain in New York and 

Vermont for more than 15 years, as authorized by the Lake Champlain Special Designations Act of 1991, which was reauthorized in 2002. For many years there has 

been a Lake Champlain line item in the EPA budget, typically proposed at about 

$950,000 and funded by Congress at $2.5 to $3 million, well under the authorized 

level of $5 million. Will the EPA provide between $2.5 and $3 million again in FY 

2007, as clearly authorized and intended by Congress, so that we do not lose ground 

as we work towards a cleaner, healthier Lake Champlain? 

Response. EPA submitted an Operating Plan for FY 2007 to Congress on March 

15, based on the Continuing Resolution passed by Congress in February. The Agency used the FY 2007 President’s Budget as the basis to build the Operating Plan 

for the Environmental Programs and Management (EPM) appropriation because 

this base reflects more recent policy choices. This includes funding for Lake Champlain. The Agency provided increases above this base for several areas where Congress increased EPA’s base funding in FY 2006. Activities supporting Lake Champlain received such an increase; the Operating Plan includes an additional $500 

thousand above the FY 2007 President’s Budget, providing a total of $1.4 million 

for Lake Champlain. The Agency will award the Lake Champlain grants in consultation with the Lake Champlain Basin Program in accordance with the relevant 

statutes (section 120 of the Clean Water Act), appropriate Agency policy, and Congressional directives. 

RURAL WATER PROGRAMS

Question 2. Rural water programs are operating under a contract with EPA that 

expires next year. Our Vermont systems, as well as thousands of other systems 

across the country, need the rural water programs to continue. Will EPA fulfill its 
73 

obligation to continue funding of these programs through the rest of fiscal year 

2007? 

Response. In the past, appropriations committee report language has earmarked 

and EPA has awarded noncompetitive grants to the National Rural Water Association (NRWA). In adhering with the FY 2007 Continuing Resolution (P.L. 110-5, Sec 

112), EPA has not funded this earmark in FY 2007. In addition to funds already 

available under the Drinking Water State Revolving 

Fund (DWSRF) set-aside, the Agency’s FY 2007 Enacted Operating Plan includes 

$8.0 million for competitive grants to support technical assistance for rural water 

systems. 

EPA is aware that in many States, technical assistance providers (including State 

Rural Water affiliates) play an important role in supporting small public water systems. As mentioned above, States can also use 2 percent of their Drinking Water 

State Revolving (DWSRF) fund allotment within the State and Tribal Assistance 

Grants (STAG) appropriation to provide technical assistance to small systems. Since 

the program began, Vermont has reserved 2.0 percent for small system technical assistance. In FY 2006, the State of Vermont spent more than $138,000 for technical 

assistance to small systems. In addition, the State also expended more than 

$150,000 for other DWSRF set-aside activities that benefit small systems. 

Mr. Johnson, so often I get frustrated with your presentations 

because they are very eloquent, and then you get behind it and the 

reality doesn’t match the words. Nothing could be more true for me 

than today. Your words were great. Your budget hurts the environment. 

Let me be specific. You are cutting this budget by 4 percent. You 

are reducing clean water funding for the clean water State revolving loan fund by 37 percent. You are cutting the Superfund by $7 

million. You are cutting $35 million that helps fund the State and 

local air quality management programs, and my people are up in 

arms about it. You have decided to do away with the Children’s 

Health Office. Your brownfields budget, and brownfields was the 

most bipartisan thing we ever did up here because, guess what, it 

has payback. You can use land that has been polluted. We authorized $250 million a year, but you asked for $112 million, leaving 

$87 million unrequested. 

You cut environmental justice efforts by $1.7 million. For toxic 

chemical regulation, it looks like you are making cuts there. Global 

warming and all the talk about how great the President is doing, 

he is cutting $1.7 million from that effort. Environmental protection on the U.S.-Mexico border, which is very important to the 

western States, a cut of more than $40 million. 

So talk is cheap. You can say whatever you want. I have the 

numbers, and the American people are going to have to know that 

when we bring this to the floor of the Senate. 

Now, I am going to show my colleagues something that, if this 

doesn’t shock you, I don’t know what will. I got visited yesterday 

by the South Coast Air Quality Management Board. They told me 

about what is happening with air quality and how things have 

stalled out; and how they need help; and why they are so shocked 

you are cutting a program that helps them. I think Senator Voinovich alluded to that with water districts. This is air districts. 

This is a filter, a pure white filter from an air quality monitor. 

This is how they monitor the air. They place these at various sites. 

This is how it starts, pure white. The monitor I am going to show 

you is a filter from an air quality monitor in a school. The monitor 

is located at a local elementary school near a high school. The 
74 

school is also nearby the Port of Los Angeles and Long Beach and 

near a major highway. 

The filter, pure white, was inserted into the monitor and was in 

the monitor for 24 hours, my friends. The monitor processed as 

much air as a human could breathe in three-and-a-half-months, so 

whatever you see here isn’t breathed in a 24-hour period, it is 

breathed in a three-and-a-half-month period. I am going to show 

you this. This is from the Hudson School. 

The black collar represents the toxic air that the students in the 

local schools and the local residents breathe. It is primarily caused 

by diesel exhaust, a known carcinogen, as well as particulate matter PM-10. This isn’t even the worst sample ever found at the 

school. 

So what this filter shows, and this came to me yesterday, young 

schoolchildren and others that breathe this air are exposed to toxic 

pollution consistently. The EPA does not provide sufficient regulation to control the emissions that contributed to this pollution, 

mainly from trains, ships and trucks burning diesel fuel, and that 

the help that you were giving to the local districts has now been 

cut. 

So I think, again, actions speak louder than words. The numbers 

speak louder than your words. And so I just need to ask you how 

you could make this rosy scenario presentation to us, knowing all 

the facts that I just said, coming to us with these cuts. You are not 

saying, you know, I had a little fight with OMB, but they said I 

had to take these cuts. You know, then I would say fine, you stood 

up for the environment. 

Instead, you come up here as the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. You have told me how much you are excited and want to help clean up the environment, and you just 

make this rosy scenario speech and don’t even address the fact that 

maybe you lost out on some of these fights. And if you didn’t, that 

you just rolled over and let them do it. 

So if you could explain to me, in light of the cuts, how did you 

give this wonderful rosy story about this great EPA and what you 

are doing. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Madam Chairman, thank you. 

This budget does continue to deliver environmental results, while 

meeting a balanced budget for our Nation. 

You mentioned diesel and the regulations that we have put in 

place to regulate diesel emissions from around the country. I just 

proposed one regulation last week and when you combine them 

with our clean air interstate rule, they are among the most healthprotective rules in the agency’s history, probably only second to getting lead out of gasoline. Speaking of diesel, the President has included $35 million to help with retrofits of legacy diesel engines 

ranging from school buses to port equipment and things like that. 

Senator BOXER. Let me say this, Mr. Johnson. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes? 

Senator BOXER. I can’t make any headway. There is no point in 

it, because I say one thing and you answer how ever you want to 

answer. It doesn’t help us. 

So I am not going to ask any more questions. What I am going 

to tell you is, I am going to fight with members of this committee 
75 

on both sides of the aisle to look at these cuts. If members of this 

committee feel it is good to cut Superfund by 70 percent, so be it. 

But we are going to fight hard. Some of us are going to work together. 

We may not agree across the aisle on everything, but I think we 

are going to take these battles to the people. I hope we will have 

a bipartisan battle on this, because I believe that you, just to be 

honest, and I said this to the head of NHTSA yesterday, and even 

Olympia Snowe chimed in and Senator Stevens chimed in, you are 

champions of the status quo, period, and worst than the status quo. 

If you had an employee who you really wanted to keep and you 

thought was doing a great job, and you called him and said, you 

are doing a great job and I am cutting your salary by 4 percent. 

And he said, well, I thought I was doing a great job; I had an offer 

and another place to go. You know, you would be foolish, wouldn’t 

you, to let that person go, but yet you sit here and defend this kind 

of a budget. 

To me, I don’t want to say shocking because this isn’t the first 

time you have disappointed me, and I am sure this isn’t the first 

time I have disappointed you, but I am going to take this budget. 

We are going to fight for these programs because we are fighting 

for the people, for the children, for their lungs, for their water quality, and for economic growth, because to be honest with you, when 

you cut brownfields, you are just cutting economic growth. 

That is penny-wise and pound-foolish, as Senator Voinovich said, 

totally. Because if you take one of these brownfields sites, and 

again Senator Chafee and I worked very hard with Senator Jeffords, and Senator Inhofe was extremely involved in this. We are 

now bringing back to life these sites. Congress in a bipartisan say, 

in a Republican Congress, funded this, and you have cut it dramatically. 

What is stunning to me is not that we are fighting this battle, 

but that you will not concede that this budget is cut, and those cuts 

are going to have real bad impacts on the people. 

And now, for another perspective, we turn to Senator Inhofe. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator INHOFE. No, I don’t think so. 

It is stunning to me is, we have heard a lot of criticism of you, 

Mr. Administrator, and of the EPA, but at the same time this new 

majority has denied the Administrator, you, and many of the leadership team, including Roger Martella, Alex Beehler, and Bill 

Wehrum. We had the hearings before, and in the case of the General Counsel nominee Roger Martella, he is a career employee who 

was favorably reported by this committee in the last Congress; renominated on January 9. It is very unusual to leave somebody out 

there who has been renominated for that length or period of time 

for this committee. It doesn’t happen. So I would hope that we 

could give him some of his team so he can get things done that he 

can’t get done now. 

First of all, on the fuels, the President referred in his State of 

the Union message to very ambitious alternative fuel standards. I 

recognize you don’t have all the answers. I am concerned, as I said 

in my opening statement, is it your understanding that motor fuels 

policies will still be regulated by the EPA and within the jurisdic-
76 

tion and the oversight of this committee? And then I would ask 

also, when do you anticipate that the Administration will share 

their proposal with us on these standards? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Senator Inhofe, with regard to the timing, I expect 

that we will be sending legislation up in the coming weeks, not 

months, weeks. That is the time frame I expect. With regard to the 

jurisdiction issue, we will leave to you, the Congress, to decide. 

Clearly, we are looking forward to working with you. 

Senator INHOFE. Okay. But the way I worded the question was, 

is it your understanding that the motor fuels policies will still be 

regulated by the EPA? I know you don’t have control over that. 

Mr. JOHNSON. As I said, the jurisdictional issue will be left for 

you, the Congress. Our focus, and certainly my focus, is steady 

progress toward cleaner air by having this alternative fuel standard. 

Senator INHOFE. That is right. You heard in my opening statement my comments about Tar Creek. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. 

Senator INHOFE. That thing has been lingering for 25 years, and 

about $25 million, I might add, nothing being done, and now everything is working. It is working not just because of the EPA, but 

partly. It is the team, the EPA, the DOI. It is the Indian tribes, 

the State of Oklahoma, our Democratic Governor. I give him a lot 

of credit. We worked this thing out together, the University of 

Oklahoma. 

But in so far as you are a part of that, you are a piece of that, 

do we have your commitment that you will continue the fine work 

that you have been doing up to this point to see this to its conclusion? As you know, right now we are going through kind of a quasibuyout period, but there are some things we don’t know yet, so we 

don’t know to what extent that will take place. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Senator, we are committed to working with all the 

parties to restore this land, and you have my commitment. 

Senator INHOFE. Okay, good. I appreciate that. 

Now, there is some confusion, some contradictory thing that have 

been brought to our attention from the State of Oklahoma concerning what they are getting out of the two organizations, the Office of Water and the Office of Enforcement and Compliance. 

The Office of Water appears to be trying to work with the States 

to promote a general permitting process and lessen some of the administrative costs. At the same time, OEC is coming from the other 

end, and I think quite frankly they don’t know who to listen to. But 

there are two conflicting instructions. Can you help clarify that and 

help us out with those two? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Senator, our interest is helping the community to 

achieve their clean water goals. Our interest is also making information available to the State and to those who are regulating. I 

look forward to working with your State to help make sure that 

this is not a burdensome requirement and, that in fact if there is 

any conflict, that it is resolved. We want to help. Our goal is to 

help the State achieve their clean water goals. 

Senator INHOFE. With as much of the administrative streamlining as possible? I am sure that Senator Voinovich and maybe 

even some others might want to address this small water system, 
77 

but you heard some of the comments that we made and the situation that we faced with in Oklahoma. In the 2006 appropriations 

bill, Congress provided $280 million in earmarks. In the CR, Congress has directed that $197 million of that be given to the clean 

water State revolving fund. The remainder was given to EPA to do 

with however EPA chooses. 

I understand that some of the funds will be used for fixed costs 

like payroll and building costs. Many members, I believe as many 

as 200 over in the House, have asked that the EPA also use some 

of these funds to provide technical assistance to small systems, the 

small systems that we have been talking about through the National Rural Water Association, the rural waters operators with the 

daily operations for their facilities, as well as regulatory compliance. 

Now, we talked about this extensively last year, and it is one 

that has been a great concern of mine. I think it is probably more 

of a unique problem for my State of Oklahoma than many other 

States, although I am sure others have the same problems, too. 

What do you think about that, and that type of help? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Senator, we want to help the small community 

water systems, and you have my commitment we are going to continue to help through technical assistance, providing training, and 

providing assistance. We, as part of the drinking water State revolving loan fund, up to 2 percent of that can be used for small 

community water systems. In fact, in 2006 a number of communities took advantage of that and used $14 million to help. 

We are in the process of putting together an operating plan for 

2007. We are looking at all of the issues that are before us. So as 

we make our final decisions on our operating plan, you will be 

among the first to know. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you. I appreciate that. There are three 

of us on this panel that have either been Mayors or Governors, and 

unfunded mandates is something that we are very, very sensitive 

to. Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Lautenberg. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

I understand your ire, because I have the same thing. Mr. Johnson, it totally perplexes me, and not to insult your wordsmithing, 

but to try to understand what the message is here. You say over 

36 years, EPA has a strong foundation to shift America into a 

green country. Today, instead of having just 17,000 EPA employees 

to protect the environment, we now have 300 million Americans as 

environmental partners. 

Now, does that mean that the 17,000 before were doing the work 

of 300 million? How do you square it? These answers, I am sorry, 

have to be relatively short. What assignment did we give to the 300 

million Americans? Do they drive less? Do they emit less pollution? 

What has happened in this miracle of yours that permits this to 

be judged with any degree of credibility, Mr. Johnson? 

Mr. JOHNSON. We have a premier world agency in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, continuing to accelerate environmental success. 
78 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Without enough money. We have heard 

that. 

Mr. JOHNSON. With sufficient funds to deliver results. Think 

about Energy Star. By Americans buying Energy Star product—— 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Will they start that tomorrow? When do 

they start? When does the signal go that says that 300 million are 

now wearing the EPA uniform and they are going to go out and 

do the job? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Senator, Americans all around the Nation are paying attention to the environment. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Yes, I think they are really angry if they 

know what the truth is, that there is going to be less attention to 

things. I read your statement. I see that our Nation is committed 

to balancing the budget. Is DOD committed to balancing the budget? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, they are. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. They are? Here ye, here ye, I want the 

Chairman’s attention. DOD is committed to balancing the budget. 

Mr. Johnson, I don’t whether EPA, in your view, is now a branch 

of OMB, but that is what I am looking at. That is the first thing. 

Instead of talking about the results of these cuts, you are trying 

to persuade everybody and it just isn’t working, that balancing the 

budget by taking away health protections, whether it is Superfund 

or water or clean air or what have you, is good for America. If you 

have to tell that story to 300 million Americans on a direct basis, 

I am sure you wouldn’t like the response. 

I looked at what is happening here, decreasing funding of the 

clean water revolving fund. I looked at the States that are represented here. Georgia, for instance, will take a $6 million cut in 

the revolving fund, from 2007 to 2008. Ohio will go down $22 million. New Jersey will go down $16 million. Oklahoma will go down 

$3 million. 

I want everybody to know that this is good for you. You just don’t 

understand it, but it is really good for you. The fact of the matter 

is that EPA had for years improved its performance, and now what 

we are being told is that cutting budgets is really good for America. 

I don’t believe it, and I don’t know how you can believe it, Mr. 

Johnson. Honestly, to come here and say everything looks better 

now than it did before as we cut programs and as we hire 300 million Americans, my 10 grandchildren I assume will be included. Do 

you consider it environmental progress to finalize the toxic rightto-know rule? It is a law that I authored. According to GAO, it will 

allow 33,500 chemical facilities to cease reporting to the public all 

of the details of their chemical releases and waste management. 

Is that helping clean our environment? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Senator, the TRI rule that I signed actually makes 

a good program better. It encourages reductions in emissions. It encourages recycling. Facilities still have to report. Chemicals still 

have to be reported. There are no chemicals being—— 

Senator LAUTENBERG. But 3,500 said that they don’t have to report the details to the public. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, they still have to report. Those chemicals 

still have to be reported. And in fact, our TRI—— 
79 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Who are the 3,500 that don’t have to report? 

Mr. JOHNSON. They all have to report. They all have to report under TRI. The President’s budget request this year of $15.7 million is actually the largest in 5 years. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Yes, we know that we are short on details. 

I close with this, Madam Chairman. I am sorry. 

Senator BOXER. Senator, others have gone over 2 minutes. I can 

give you another minute. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Well, they are cutting the Energy Star program by $1.7 million. That is supposed to be good for us. It is 

a program that was devised by EPA. The statements are painful. 

I see it in terms of lack of progress. Our pace for cleaning up 

Superfund sites has slowed substantially. And for you to say things 

are better really, I think, challenges what is being proposed by you 

and your department. And you are part of it. And I don’t know how 

hard you fought to say no, don’t do that, don’t make me part of 

OMB; my mission is not primarily to save the dollars; it is to save 

the people. And that is where you ought to be going. 

Thanks very much. 

Senator BOXER. I think that was well said, Senator. Thank you. 

Senator Voinovich. 

Senator VOINOVICH. I would like to repeat that the EPA’s budget 

is woefully inadequate to take care of the Nation’s pressing water 

and wastewater infrastructure needs. We have a ticking time bomb 

ready to blow up if we continue to ignore these nationwide needs. 

Billions of dollars have already been spent and billions more are 

needed to upgrade the Nation’s aging wastewater infrastructure. I 

firmly believe the Federal Government is responsible for paying its 

fair share. As I mentioned, the city of Akron, for example, has proposed to spend $426 million over 30 years to fix the city’s combined 

sewer overflow problems. The city of Cleveland must spend $4 billion over the next 30 years to meet Clean Water Act requirements. 

These city and State officials are concerned that the Federal Government is pressuring them to do the work in half the time, and 

suggesting enforcement action. We have an epidemic, and I am 

sure it is not just in Ohio, of small sewage systems that are up in 

arms over the demands of the Environmental Protection Agency 

and their threatened enforcement actions. 

I want you to know it is my intention, I am going to invite all 

those small cities to Washington and we are going to have a rally 

to underscore the fact of the unreasonableness of what your folks 

are asking them to do. Two years ago, the EPA announced that affordability is an issue for communities facing the cost of significant 

capital improvements. I want to know why has EPA enforcement 

failed to consider affordability issues in their approach to achieving 

compliance? And second, why does the EPA allow the regional EPA 

offices to initiative sanitary sewer overflow enforcement when there 

are no national sanitary sewer overflow regulations, policy or 

standard? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Senator, with regard to the SSO enforcement, discharges of untreated sewage are in fact violations of the Clean 

Water Act. Going back to the State revolving loan fund, what is included in the President’s budget meets the present commitment to 
80 

help achieve a sustainable infrastructure. The infrastructure challenge is everyone’s challenge. Of course, as part of the budget—— 

Senator VOINOVICH. I want to know why you are not considering 

affordability. You said two years ago you were. Why aren’t you? 

Mr. JOHNSON. We are beginning to. Our affordability guidance is 

in place. We are working with communities to help deal with affordability. Our goal is to provide a sustainable infrastructure protecting public health and the environment. Right now the revolving 

level is over $3 billion. That is the highest it has ever been. 

In addition, we have some innovative pieces that we believe will 

help dealing with the sustainability issue. One of them is private 

activity bonds. One is a program we have launched for water efficiency called Water Sense. We think these will also help. 

We are committed to helping communities meet their clean water 

objectives. Obviously, it is important for their health and it is important for the environment. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Why has the EPA allowed the regional offices to initiate sanitary sewer overflow enforcement when there 

are no national sanitary sewer overflow regulations, policy or 

standard? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Again, it is a violation of the Clean Water Act. We 

understand that discharges of untreated sewage, result in beach 

closings. Contaminants can also get into intake valves for drinking 

water. 

Senator VOINOVICH. I am asking you, are there national sanitary 

sewer overflow regulations, policy or standard? I understand that 

they have not been adopted. 

Mr. JOHNSON. May I ask Ben Grumbles, the head of our water 

program? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. Thank you. 

Senator, a couple of points on the sanitary sewer overflow issue. 

While we did not follow through and finalize comprehensive proposed sanitary sewer overflow regulations from the previous Administration, we have adopted several things. One thing is we have 

embraced across the country a ‘‘CMOM’’ approach which emphasizes the sustainable targeting of capacity, management, operation 

and maintenance. The first step is to recognize the way the Clean 

Water Act is currently written, sanitary sewer overflows are illegal. 

You ask how do you make progress on reducing those overflows, 

acknowledging the practicalities and the costs of reducing that to 

a zero discharge. Our policy and that of the Enforcement Office is 

to focus on the ‘‘CMOM.’’ 

We are also Senator, on the affordability issue and these longterm control plans for sewer overflows, we recognize very much 

that there is a need to update the financial capability analysis, 

which is a key part of establishing a standard and a schedule. We 

are committed to working on that. The Administrator has said 

focus on affordability on drinking water, and also the financial capability analysis on clean water. So we are in the midst of working 

on that additional updated guidance on the economics and the 

practicalities of meeting the Clean Water Act requirements for no 

discharge. 

Senator VOINOVICH. I can tell you one thing, it is not being communicated out into the areas of my State. I literally mean we are 
81 

having an epidemic. We have people coming in every day in the office and they are just up in arms about this, and saying you are 

asking us to do these things where it is absolutely impossible for 

us to afford it. 

I know what OMB is basically saying is let them eat it. They can 

raise the rates and they will take care of it, and we are not going 

to give you that much money to help with that State revolving loan 

fund. Every year, we have increased $20 billion. Last year, we provided $20 billion each year for it. They have never funded it. They 

are just going to have to understand that we are going to have a 

walk on Washington. They just cannot completely ignore the fact 

of what is going on out there, or you better come back with some 

different ideas about how to do this. 

I know several years ago, we amended the Clean Water Act. 

There was a requirement then that small systems had every three 

years to add 25 new pollutants. The legislation was changed. It 

also said that you had to use the highest and best technology, and 

the law was passed that said that you didn’t have to use that best 

technology. You could just use technology that works. 

I am saying that you have a major problem and it is going to be 

really tough. It is not only Ohio. It is going to come across the 

country. Somebody better in your shop figure out how you are 

going to deal with this. 

Senator BOXER. Senator, thank you very much. 

Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mr. Johnson, welcome. It is good to see you. Thank you for joining us today. 

I understand that Senator Voinovich earlier asked a question 

about the budget likely funding for fiscal year 2008 for the Diesel 

Emission Reductions Act, something that he worked very hard on, 

and others of us were pleased to work with him. I don’t know that 

anybody has asked you about the appropriations monies that are 

available for 2007. 

I would just like to hear from you. As I recall, the Act was enacted about a year-and-a-half ago as part of the energy bill in 2005. 

In fact, it was one of the fastest I have ever seen a bill go from 

introduction to adoption in the Senate, to enactment in law. It was 

a record time. EPA was certainly very supportive, and a lot of 

States were very supportive of it as well. 

I don’t know that the regulations have been issued for the program, but I don’t think they have. Do you have any idea? It has 

been about 18 months. 

Mr. Johnson. We have been actively working on the regulations. 

Again, we want to see the renewable fuel standard put in place as 

quickly as possible because we see it as a great next step in that 

steady march toward cleaner air by the renewables. 

I expect that literally within the coming weeks, you will see that 

final regulation entered. 

Senator CARPER. Good. Okay, great. 

A follow-up question is, do you intend to fund the Diesel Emis- sion Reduction Act at about $49 million or $50 million, which I 

think is what the President had proposed in his fiscal year 2007 

budget? 
82 

Mr. JOHNSON. For fiscal year 2007, we are in the process of putting together our operating plan, and sorting through the discussions and the direction of Congress as to what we should or should 

not do as part of our 2007 operating plan. I look forward to having 

that submitted to you all on time. That is certainly one of the 

issues that we are working our way through. 

Senator CARPER. Good. Well, we hope you do and I would encourage you to do that. 

There has been some discussion of the Energy Star program. I 

would just say as an aside to my colleagues that I was in Seaford, 

Delaware a couple of weeks ago, visiting the Seaford School District. It is a school district with only six schools. Seaford is the 

town where the first nylon plant in the world was built some 60 

years ago. It is a very high- performing school district. 

They went to work on the Energy Star program, and with the 

help of the Energy Star program have come up with energy savings 

that amount to about $1 million a year. On an annual basis, that 

is $1 million that they can spend on smaller class size, early childhood education, and after-school educational programs that otherwise they would be spending for electricity and for fuels to heat the 

schools in the winter. 

I think they are one of three school districts in the country that 

are receiving the kind of recognition that they are. I have urged the 

other school districts in our State to take a page out of the chapter 

of the Seaford School District. I just want you to know it is terrific. 

I hope that, and you probably don’t hear a lot from programs that 

are working well, but I have seen it with my own eyes. 

Here is a school district where they have now put air conditioning in all 6 of their schools. They have year-round school in a 

couple of the schools. The weather gets pretty warm there in the 

spring and even in the fall. They put air conditioning in all the 

schools, and I think their use of electricity has actually diminished, 

even after air conditioning all of their schools. 

So it is a program that certainly has my attention and my support. I hope it has yours. 

Mr. JOHNSON. That is great. It is a great example of a partnership program delivering real environmental results. 

Senator CARPER. I want to talk about, in the time that remains, 

and ask you two questions. One is on Smart Growth, the funding 

for Smart Growth. Seaford, DE is in a little county, actually a big 

county called Sussex County. We are a little State, but we have big 

counties. EPA’s Office of Smart Growth is providing technical assistance to Sussex County, DE about ways to pursue both options 

that are expected to lower environmental impact of the growth that 

is occurring in our county and reduce some of the infrastructure 

costs of that development. 

As I said, this is a fast-growing county. A lot of people are flocking there to retire. We have Rehoboth Beach and Bethany and 

Dewey Beach, and people just like to be close to the ocean. The 

county is growing by close to 15 percent over the last 15 years in 

terms of population. They are looking for ways to accommodate the 

growth and still try to maintain the rural character of our county. 

The Office of Smart Growth is able to offer this assistance in 

spite of a small budget and staff I guess of about 16 people. Yet 
83 

I think your budget proposal seems to cut this program. You may 

not know this, but if you don’t, then for the record I would ask you 

to let me know how many positions do you plan to cut in your Office of Smart Growth, and which projects and technical assistance 

will be jeopardized as a result. If you could do that for the record, 

I would be grateful. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I would be happy to. I would just like to add that 

Smart Growth and our activities, both from our coordinating office 

as well as throughout our program, really are smart for the environment. It is smart economically and it is also quality of life. 

So we have found the program to be very successful, both from 

our coordinating role in my office, the Administrator’s office, as 

well as throughout our program. Because one of the things we 

found as we deal with water infrastructure, for example, is that 

Smart Growth becomes a component of how we deal with water, 

both quantity as well as quality, and how do we deal with infrastructure sustainability. 

So we are now seeing the Smart Growth concept really infiltrate 

across all our programs. 

Senator CARPER. All right. 

Madam Chairman, I have one more question for the record, and 

I will submit that if I may. 

Thank you, Mr. Johnson. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much. 

Senator, we have done some research on how many cuts there 

are at EPA. We are trying to track down the answer for you now. 

We do know that if you look at the previously authorized full-time 

equivalents, there are 300 cuts of previously authorized full-time 

equivalents. In other words, we don’t know how many of those were 

filled or not, but that is the reduction in staff. We don’t know in 

your particular office your staff level, but we will find that out. 

So we are continuing to go back and forth in order of arrival. So 

Senator Isakson, you are next. 

Senator ISAKSON. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

As the head of an agency, you have to play the hand that is dealt 

you and you have been dealt a pretty tough hand. I appreciate the 

job that you are doing. 

I want to amplify a couple of things that really have already 

been mentioned. Number one, Senator Inhofe mentioned the Rural 

Water Program funding for a second. I called a week or so ago and 

talked to your office because it has been brought to my attention 

that there is a contract to provide rural water assistance through 

June of 2008, but that it is anticipated that is going to be terminated. As I understand it, the budget request for 2008 does not include any money for the Rural Water Funding Program. Can you 

elaborate on that? 

Mr. JOHNSON. The National Rural Water Association has been an 

earmark through the years. As you are well aware, earmarks are 

not carried forward by any Administration. We are now looking at 

additional ways that we can help the small community water systems. That is what we are looking at right now, both in terms of 

training, technical assistance, as well as whether or not additional 

resources may be available as part of our 2007 operating plan. 
84 

Senator ISAKSON. I appreciate that answer, and I would like the 

Chairman, if Chairman Boxer would listen to this comment I am 

going to make, I appreciate that answer because you brought up 

earmarks. Now, the Rural Water Assistance Program is not for one 

specific rural water community. It is a rural water program for the 

United States. Is that not correct? 

Mr. JOHNSON. The National Rural Water Association was a specific earmark. That Association did serve the entire Nation, but 

specific grant was earmarked by Congress. 

Senator ISAKSON. One of the things that I am having a real difficult time with is this term ‘‘earmark’’ has taken on a life of its 

own in terms of its application. I think the intent of all of us is to 

not have earmarks that specifically benefit an individual location, 

or even worse an individual. But to designate appropriations, 

which is the preferred term in my vocabulary, for a program that 

is available to the entire United States of America is not an evil 

earmark. Most things that we do begin that way. 

So for the record, Georgia, because we have a great metropolitan 

city in Atlanta, but our State is a rural State. Agriculture is a huge 

business, with land management and the management of our 

water, etc. So that is a very valuable program to the communities 

of our State, in particular our smaller rural communities. I would 

hope that it was not cut because it was perceived to be an earmark 

that was bad. Instead, I think it was a designated appropriation for 

a legitimate need in terms of clean water in the country. 

Secondly, you and I had a conversation about MSMA. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. 

Senator ISAKSON. Just for the record, I have a lot of cotton farmers in Georgia. I realize there was a registration on that product 

because of alleged levels of arsenic in the drinking water, but other 

studies have shown that was just not any more than the naturally 

occurring arsenic. This particular herbicide is absolutely critical to 

cotton in the southern United States of America. You are doing an 

IRIS study. I would like to know how that is going and if you are 

going to suspend any registration until that report is fully in. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Our goal is to make all of our licensing decisions, 

to make sure that they meet the standard of protecting public 

health and the environment. We are finishing up the public comment process for the cancellation of that pesticide. I have asked our 

Assistant Administrator Jim Gulliford to actually visit your State, 

to see first-hand and to talk to growers who are using that product, 

to help better inform our deliberations with regard to the benefit 

side of the equation. 

Our IRIS process is looking at the risk side, as is Mr. Gulliford. 

They are very closely cooperating on the potential health effects, 

trying to determine does it or does it not cause a particular health 

effect. 

We are working very closely among our programs, and very much 

trying to find the science, the best available science, so that where 

the science is clear, we can make a clear decision. 

Senator ISAKSON. For the record, thank you very much for sending him to Georgia. It is a critical issue in the State. I completely 

respect the protection of the environment and would never want us 

to license or impose upon people things that are bad for them, but 
85 

there is a risk-benefit analysis which the IRIS study I think is, and 

it should be completed before that registration takes place. 

Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. Senator Isakson, you raise 

an important issue, which Senator Inhofe and I would like you to 

stay for just a minute. He is going to take a minute and I am going 

to take a minute to address the issue of these earmarks. 

Senator. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

I am glad you brought this up. I think perhaps you have a little 

better answer than we got, Mr. Administrator. When he talked 

about earmarking, we are talking about a block of money that is 

going to go for certain designated purposes. Now, that money is 

going to go for those purposes whether we on this committee and 

people who are elected make the designation as to where it is going 

to go. If that doesn’t happen, it is going to be done by someone who 

is unelected. 

I think we need to redefine ‘‘earmark’’ because it is something 

that has taken on a connotation that doesn’t serve the electorate 

as well as it should. I just think that we need to talk about that 

a little bit more. Those of us on this side need to do that, because 

I have always felt that we can do a better job of understanding the 

needs of our constituency than some of your management can do 

who has never been to my State of Oklahoma. 

Senator BOXER. I just want to associate myself with those remarks because it is really amazing. We do about 3 percent of the 

earmarks of the Administration, this one and others, Democratic or 

Republic, it does about 97 percent or 98 percent. So somehow when 

you do it, you call it good Government, and when we do it somehow 

it is bad. 

The fact is, we are closer to the people because we come from 

them. They elect us to represent them and their needs. We know 

their needs. When Senator Vitter talks about a toxic waste dump, 

he sees it. He is there. He walks it. When Senator Isakson talks 

about his rural needs, he is there. He sees it. He knows it. And it 

goes for me, when I see what happens in a community when the 

air turns this way in a 24-hour period, I know it because my people 

come and show me this, and they tell me this. So it is just something that I think we have to work on. 

Now, we have to be clear, you have to be clear. I say you, Administrations, this one and next ones, need to be clear that there is no 

conflict of interest when they make their decisions and we have to 

be very clear about that, and we are moving with ethics reform to 

go there, where we will have to certify. 

But the fact is I frankly, and this is my own opinion, would trust 

my colleagues, who come to me and say, Barbara, you can’t believe 

what happened; I just went down to the local farm, and this is 

what is going on; this is what is happening when the city Mayor 

comes in to see me, and he can’t meet the needs because there is 

an unfunded mandate. 

I would trust that more, just simply because I know when you 

are close to the people, you get the message. So I am glad you 

raised the issue. I know you didn’t intend to spark a debate on it, 
86 

but since Senator Inhofe and I both are on the same side of this, 

we wanted to be heard. 

Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. You brought about harmony. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. See, there is the possibility to have harmony. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. Mark it down. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Chairman Boxer. 

I am going to get to my benzine question in one second, but this 

is the first time we have had the chance to have an exchange. I 

am new here and I wanted to ask you something. You are obviously 

a good manager, perhaps even a great manager. You have received 

the highest management awards the Federal civil service has to 

offer. You are a scientist. 

But coming from a relatively experienced background as a U.S. 

Attorney and as an Attorney General, and as somebody relatively 

active in the environmental community, the reputation that I come 

to that this new EPA has is of a place where industry operatives 

have been allowed to infiltrate into positions of influence within the 

administration of EPA; where science is too often given a back seat 

to politics; where enforcement is allowed to dwindle; and where the 

environmental community feels very left out, and indeed very often 

has its engagement with you litigating to make your agency follow 

rules, including the benzine example. 

What I see is there is sort of a struggle going on for the soul of 

EPA right now. In that, I would like to get a personal sense of 

where you stand. Setting aside the fact that you are a great manager, setting aside the fact that you are a scientist, what can you 

tell me that will give me a sense that you have some passion for 

the purpose of this agency? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you very much for asking that question. As 

a career veteran, I am celebrating my 26th year in the Environmental Protection Agency. I have devoted my adult life to helping 

protect the environment. When becoming Administrator of EPA, I 

took that oath with a great deal of fore-knowledge, with a lot of 

years of experience, and with a passion and a commitment to improving the environment. 

Since becoming Administrator, I have signed the Clean Air Interstate Rule, affording hundreds of billions of dollars of health benefits to the American people. I have signed diesel rules, again affording hundreds of billions of dollars of health benefit to the American 

people. I signed the regulation putting in place changes to the window sticker for fuel economy, something that had been woefully 

lacking for over 20 years. Consumers could not make an informed 

decision as to what automobiles to buy because the previous fuel 

economy standard window sticker information was based upon a 

20-year-old standard. Nobody wanted to take that on before. 

So am I passionate? Absolutely, Senator. Am I committed to delivering environmental results? Absolutely. My track record over 

the past 2 years is evidence that we have made tremendous 

progress. I am sprinting to the finish line as Administrator, wanting to do more to continue to accelerate environmental progress. 

So thank you so much for asking me the question. 
87 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Let me follow up, because these beliefs 

that I have elucidated are not ones that I have just made up. They 

are not new. They are widely held. They have been widely reported. Many people shake their shoulders and give up when you 

talk about EPA these days. How does it make you feel when that 

is the reputation that the office has in so many communities, and 

what can you do about it? What do you want to do about it? 

Mr. JOHNSON. My focus is delivering results, Senator. You mentioned enforcement. From your own experiences, our enforcement 

program over the past 3 years we have had the most success in delivering environmental results. Nearly 3 billion pounds of pollution 

have been avoided because of our enforcement actions. Because of 

our investments over the past three years, we have now in place 

at least $20 billion of pollution control equipment in place. 

So when you look at the investment of about a half- billion dollars each year over the last few years in our enforcement program, 

the result is nearly $20 billion in pollution control. Through our 

partnership programs, Energy Star for example, Americans saved 

$12 billion in energy costs in 2005. If you want to put that in 

greenhouse gas terms, that is saving America 23 million cars-worth 

of greenhouse gas equivalants. Those are significant results. My 

focus is continuing to deliver results to the American people. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. My time has expired. I will wait for another round and ask about benzine. 

Senator BOXER. Absolutely. 

Senator Klobuchar, welcome. We are so happy you could join us. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you, Chairwoman Boxer. 

Welcome again, Administrator Johnson. 

I wanted to follow up on, you were just talking about Energy 

Star. I know that Senator Lautenberg had mentioned it, but didn’t 

have quite enough time to finish up some questions. You just 

talked about how effective this program has been in reducing 

greenhouse gas emissions and improving energy and efficiency. 

I am still trying to figure out, given that, the last time Congress 

appropriated money I think it was $49.5 million in fiscal year 2006, 

but this year the budget only seeks $43.9 million. Could you explain why you are seeking less money for the program? 

Mr. JOHNSON. We believe that this budget will continue to deliver results, while meeting a balanced budget, and that it is a mature program that we have a lot of great stakeholders who are continuing to invest in. Most important is it is going to continue to deliver environmental results. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. When something is working, and you just 

talked about getting results, usually you don’t cut back on it. I 

think in your own annual performance plan, which was submitted 

to Congress, you stated that you plan to expand the Energy Star 

Program as outlined in the Administration’s national energy policy. 

The national energy policy talked about how Energy Star should, 

first of all, include a broad range of products, appliances and services, and then secondly expand beyond office buildings to include 

schools, retail buildings, health care facilities, and homes. Has that 

been done? Are there ways to expand this? And should we consider 

this as we look at the budget? 
88 

Mr. JOHNSON. In fact, we are expanding in our Green Buildings 

Program. I just got back from Denver, where we opened up our 

new Denver Region VIII headquarters facility, which is a green 

building. We are in the process go going through the LEED certification. We expect that it will likely be a gold certification. 

So we are not only talking the talk, we are walking the walk of 

promoting energy efficiency. We are the first Federal agency to now 

go to 100 percent, or certainly 100 percent-equivalent of green energy. We are the first Federal agency in the Federal Government 

to do that. 

We are continuing to push on to help not only promote green 

buildings. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. I congratulate you for that. But understand 

why I am grappling with this, is when the President has made energy a major part of what he wants to do, and we have a program 

that is working, and we know that there is more that we can do 

with reducing greenhouse gas emissions and conservation, why we 

wouldn’t be looking to at least keep this program with its funding, 

or perhaps expand it. There must be other ways that we can extend this program beyond where we are now. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Senator, we believe we have sufficient funds to be 

able to meet our fiscal year 2008 goals and objectives in Energy 

Star and in all of our other program areas as well. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Okay. I just wanted to follow up as well 

Senator Isakson’s questions, and then the follow up by our Chair 

on the rural water issues. We talked about how there wasn’t any 

specific funding for this program. I know that in Minnesota our 

Rural Water Association provides vital technical assistance and 

protection to small rural communities in Minnesota, as across the 

country. They have helped communities with their environmental 

protection efforts for drinking water, wastewater, ground water and 

source water. 

I can tell you, we have gotten a lot of calls about this. They want 

to make sure that they can keep providing assistance. I would just 

echo the discussion that we have had here that this is a nationwide 

program. It doesn’t seem to fall into the category of what we are 

talking about with earmarks here. Even when we have earmarks, 

not every earmark is bad. I think we need to reduce the amount 

of discretionary spending in the Government. I have said that, but 

I also said stand by your pork. People are willing to say this is a 

good program, as I think you are hearing across the aisle here from 

both Republican and Democratic Senators that this is a good program. 

I guess my question of you is whether that is going to make a 

difference to you as you, in your words, look for money for this program. 

Mr. JOHNSON. As I said, we are in the process of sorting through 

our operating plan and sorting through what you, Congress, has directed us to do or not to do with regard to this year-long continuing 

resolution. As we sort through this and a number of other programs, we continue to provide support to small water systems 

through education and outreach and training. 

As I mentioned as part of the State revolving loan fund, there 

is up to a 2 percent set-aside in 2006. In fact, communities took ad-
89 

vantage of that, and $14 million was devoted out of that fund to 

help small water systems. We will continue to provide support. In 

the meantime, we are sorting through your directions with regard 

to the continuing resolution and with regard to earmarks. We will 

have an operating plan to you on time. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. When that will be, being a new person 

here? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I will have to ask our CFO. March 15. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Excellent. Thank you very much. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Thanks, Senator. 

Senator, go ahead. I will do the closing round. Why don’t you ask 

about your benzine? 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you. 

This is the beginning of a discussion that we are going to continue to have, but while I have you here, I wanted to raise it and 

you can respond either now or at greater length later. 

My understanding is that lead was an early addition to gasoline 

in order to improve octane and engine performance. It quickly became apparent that the lead that was being spread into the environment as a result of that was dangerous, and we took lead out 

and cleaned that up. As somebody who has had a lot of work dedicated to the lead issue, that was a very significant achievement. 

The lead was then replaced by benzine, toluene, and xylene for 

the same purpose. And now it is very apparent that those are three 

very dangerous chemicals. You have just begun a process to limit 

the benzine. Toluene and xylene remain, as far as I can tell, without regulatory activity. 

What I further understand is that ethanol, which we are hearing 

about as a good fuel alternative or fuel supplement additive in a 

lot of different respects, could displace those aromatics. If so, it 

seems to me that that is one of these kind of wonderful win-winwins in which we increase our use of ethanol, we lower our use of 

three very dangerous chemicals. I think benzine has been banned 

in paint. Toluene went to a great effort to get out of the dry cleaning industry. This is serious stuff. 

There is this alternative waiting right there, which for other reasons relating to the greenhouse effect, have their own added independent value. (A), am I wrong, and if I am not, why aren’t we 

going at this just full blast? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Senator, you correctly characterize the wonderful 

advantages of renewable fuels, ethanol in particular. That is precisely why the President is aggressively pursuing, and certainly 

wants Congress to aggressively pursue, the alternative fuel standard of 35 billion gallons, because not only is it good for energy security, it is also good for the environment. 

Greenhouse gases is one. Another is, as you point out, replacement for a number of these other aromatic compounds, benzine 

being certainly, from what we know, the most hazardous. That is 

why we put in place the regulation that we did. 

We, the President and EPA; are very aggressively urging Congress to move as quickly as we can to implement this very aggressive—— 
90 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Has there been legislation proposed that 

would do that? 

Mr. JOHNSON. We will be sending up legislation in the coming 

weeks. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Could you notify me about it? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Excuse me? 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Keep in touch with me on it. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I will be happy to. Absolutely, yes, sir. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Good. 

Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much, Senator. 

I would point out that there is a whole new world out there with 

cellulosics, some of which even offer more advantages than corn 

ethanol, because you don’t have to grow the crop and then toss the 

crop out. We are already getting people saying the price of corn is 

going up. So there are a lot of opportunities we have out there with 

cellulosics. 

I think the most important thing for us to remember is that all 

alternative fuels are clean, but renewables are. So that is important. 

I just have two more questions, and then I will make my closing 

comments. 

Administrator Johnson, perchlorate is a toxin found in tens of 

millions of Americans’ drinking water. Most of our States have 

traces of perchlorate. Your agency said in 2001, ‘‘EPA will make a 

regulatory determination about whether to set a standard for perchlorate when data become available, not wait until 2006.’’ It said 

the agency would decide whether to set a perchlorate standard by 

2003. 

So now it is 6 years since EPA made that promise. Have you decided whether perchlorate should be regulated in drinking water? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, Senator, as you are probably well aware, our 

focus is to make sure that people are protected from perchlorate, 

whether it is a vapor intrusion, water or other sources. In fact, that 

is why we went to the National Academy of Sciences and sought 

their advice, which they came back. 

Senator BOXER. I have to ask you a very simple question. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Sure. 

Senator BOXER. Have you decided whether perchlorate should be 

regulated in drinking water? That is my question. 

Mr. JOHNSON. We have not decided, and not decided because we 

are in the process of evaluating the science, both the science associated with the RFD, as well as the science of what is the relative 

source contribution of perchlorate. Is it water which is the issue? 

Is it food which is the issue? 

Senator BOXER. I am talking about water. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. 

Senator BOXER. I am talking about perchlorate in drinking 

water. I am telling you that California is already moving on this, 

and the States are going to go right ahead of you. It is just like 

greenhouse gases. The lack of interest by this Administration in 

doing your job is leading to a patchwork quilt of regulations that 

is just going to be ridiculous. 

When are you going to give us an answer? 
91 

Mr. JOHNSON. With due respect, we are aggressively looking at 

the science. There have been some recent studies done by the Centers for Disease Control. We are evaluating those. 

Senator BOXER. With due respect, Administrator Johnson, in 

2001 the agency said EPA will make a regulatory determination 

about whether to set a standard and we won’t wait until 2006. And 

you decide in 2003. So this sense of frustration you hear is, this 

great EPA that you have been lauding since you walked in here 

has failed the people. And this perchlorate is all over the place. It 

is all over the place. And other States are moving ahead. 

And then you say you are very concerned. Why did you stop testing drinking water for perchlorate? 

Mr. JOHNSON. We stopped testing because we have sufficient 

monitoring information on which to base a decision, and I did not 

want to impose a monitoring requirement and have data not coming until 2010. 

Senator BOXER. So you have enough information to stop the testing, but you don’t have enough information to set the standard. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I want to be in a position to make a decision before 2010. 

Senator BOXER. Oh, that is the new date. 

Mr. JOHNSON. That is precisely why I did not want to continue 

the monitoring. 

Senator BOXER. Well, you are not going to be there in 2010. 

Maybe you will, but it is doubtful. So you are pushing this off on 

somebody else, and you are saying you have enough data, so you 

don’t have to test, but you don’t have enough data to set a standard. You fail my test of credulity. 

I want to ask you something else, exemption for factory farm pollution from Superfund. It has been widely reported that EPA plans 

to exempt pollution from huge factory farms called concentrated 

animal feeding operations from Superfund’s reporting requirements. In 2005, EPA said these facilities, ‘‘can have a negative impact on nearby residents, particularly with respect to odors and 

other nuisance problems that concerns have been raised recently 

regarding the possible health impacts from these facilities’ emissions.’’ 

EPA entered into a settlement agreement with 2,500-plus facilities that agreed to help determine how much air pollution they 

emit, to certify that they are complying with Superfund and other 

public health laws. Does EPA plan to reverse course and now exempt those facilities? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Senator, we do not intend to exempt those facilities under the Clean Air Act, and we do not plan to exempt them 

from the CERCLA-EPCRA liability or releases to water or their response authority. We are planning to propose a rule to exempt the 

air releases from CERCLA reporting as an emergency. Twenty-six 

State emergency planning commissions wrote into the agency. Of 

the 26 that wrote in to us on this issue, all 26 recommended that 

we exempt this reporting. Further, Congress in 2004, 2005 and 

2006 asked us to take a look at this and sort this out. They did 

not want, as the members of the State emergency planning commissions, wasting time from our emergency response people in 

dealing with air releases from farms. 
92 

Senator BOXER. Okay. So the community will no longer have the 

right to know about this pollution is what you are telling me. 

Mr. JOHNSON. The community still has the right to know because 

there are still potential releases to water. There are still potential 

authorities regarding liability, and this is not a termination of the 

Clean Air Act. So again, this is trying to have an efficient and effective response program that doesn’t burden our emergency response personnel with this information. Oh, by the way, this also 

does not affect the GRI program either. 

Senator BOXER. Okay. I am going to put in the record a letter 

that opposes what you are doing. I will tell you who signed the letter: the U.S. Conference of Mayors, National Association of Counties, National Association of City and County Health Officials, 

American Waterworks Association, American Metropolitan Water 

Agencies, Attorneys General from eight States, the Iowa Department of Natural Resources, the City of Waco, the City of Tulsa, 

which I think my Ranking Member would be interested in, and 

more than 20 national and State public health and environmental 

organizations. 

Now, I haven’t seen in writing what you are suggesting, but the 

community right to know is an American value. So I hope you reconsider this course. I am going to put in some questions into the 

record so you can get going and moving, and I am going to leave 

the record open for a week to get these questions in. Do you think 

you can get them answered in about 30 days? Would that be possible? 

Mr. JOHNSON. We will do everything we can to achieve that, yes. 

Not knowing what the list of questions are or how many, but we 

will do everything we can. 

Senator BOXER. I don’t think they will be an over-burdensome 

number, but we will hope that you can get them in in 30 days. 

So let me just sum up here. We always have these contentious 

debates. I think it is healthy for the counrty to see this debate. I 

think it is an important divide in our country now over what the 

community has a right to expect from its Government when it 

comes to the health of their families. To have the EPA Administrator talk about how he hasn’t really fought these cuts is very disturbing to me. I think Senator Lautenberg was right on point when 

he said your job is to fight for the environment now. 

In your rhetoric, it is beautiful. Your rhetoric is beautiful. But 

what you are doing is not beautiful. And let me tell you, you have 

said in answer to Senator Whitehouse, you have a passion to improve the environment, but your budget endorses cuts to the environment of $421 million: cuts in personnel, cuts in the Clean Air 

Program; the Safe Drinking Water Program; aid to the cities and 

counties; the Brownfields Program. 

I have gone through this. The list goes on and on. And all of 

these things have made our counrty a leader. So when we have the 

Administrator sit here and say, well, I didn’t even sit and really 

make a fight for it. You take away a targeted Office of Children’s 

Health that was set up for a purpose, so that the only issue there 

was children’s health. 

Now, knowing what EPA tried to do under your leadership with 

testing kids for pesticides, getting paid off, and their families called 
93 

the CHEERS Program in Florida, where the kids would be crawling around as pesticides were being sprayed, but the families got 

paid off with a videocam, I understand why you might not want an 

Office of Children’s Health. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Senator, we still have an Office of Children’s 

Health. I have to correct the record. 

Senator BOXER. Well, it is going to be combined with other functions, and we have it right out of your own budget. It is going to 

be combined with other functions. 

Mr. JOHNSON. We have an Office of Children’s Health. And, in 

fact, it is not just the Office of Children’s Health, but it is our entire agency that is continuing to work to make sure that we are 

protecting our Nation’s most vulnerable populations. 

Senator BOXER. Well, I mean, the fact is we wanted an Office of 

Children’s Health where the only thing done in that office is worrying about children’s health. 

Mr. JOHNSON. There still is an Office of Children’s Health. 

Senator BOXER. You have combined it, period, end of quote. That 

is a fact. 

Mr. JOHNSON. It is still an Office of Children Health. That is a 

fact, Senator. 

Senator BOXER. The fact is, and I don’t need you to talk now because I will give you your chance in many other hearings. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Okay. 

Senator BOXER. But I have listened to you very carefully, and 

this is my turn to wrap up as far as what I know and what I believe and what I heard and what I read and what I have been 

briefed about. 

You have cut funds for environmental justice, toxic chemical regulations, global warming, environmental protection at the U.S.- 

Mexico border, environmental education. I mean, the last time we 

sat here, we had arguments and you said the libraries were not 

shutting down, and I showed you the website that said they were 

closed. Oh, you didn’t know. I trust you know what you are cutting, 

because if you listen to your words it sounds like you are not doing 

any damage. 

So here is the deal, this is a great counrty. I hold the gavel now. 

You hold an office now. We will work together when we can. But 

we have a fundamental difference. I don’t think an Environmental 

Protection Agency Administrator should sit back and take the kind 

of cuts in programs that you are taking, and you are in essence endorsing. 

At the same time, when you testify, you don’t even admit to that. 

This is the second time you have done this in a hearing. It is disingenuous. We had a hearing on rollbacks. You didn’t talk about 

the rollbacks. You talked about how great everything is. We have 

a hearing on budget. The budget has been cut, huge numbers, everything. My colleagues on the Republican side are very unhappy 

with this, too. 

And yet you don’t even reference this, and it is a very disturbing 

trend here. It is almost like we are talking past each other. And 

so that is why I don’t think it is useful for you to respond, then 

I will respond, then you will respond. We have done it enough 

today. We have done it enough. You are tired. I am tired. 
94 

But as long as I have this gavel and no one knows how long it 

will be, believe me. We don’t know. I am going to press you on how 

you can sit there and say that what you are doing at the EPA, everything you are doing is so wonderful for the American people, 

when the facts belie it. 

Now, I want to say something to the employees of the EPA, who 

may be in this room or who may hear the sound of my voice, or 

who may read an article. Thank you for helping me do my job. You 

send me letters. You call me up. You let me know what is going 

on. Keep doing it. Keep letting me know the truth of what is going 

on, because the truth shall set you free. We are learning that when 

you lie, it catches up with you. We are going to have truth-telling 

here. We are going to look at these cuts. We are going to look when 

you say how great we are doing on air, we are going to look at this, 

that I got from my local people who are apoplectic at the cuts that 

you are making to the Clean Air Program, just as Senator Voinovich was so upset about the cuts to the Safe Drinking Water Program. 

This is not acceptable. Do you think I could go home with a 

straight face and look at these people and say, oh yes, this is what 

you are exposed to; in three and a half months, this is what your 

lungs are going to have to take. But we are doing everything we 

can do. And it is fine to cut the environmental budget; no problem. 

It doesn’t wash. So you and I go at it. It has sort of become now 

an expected duel. And all I can do is try to win you over to the 

side of what I think the EPA ought to be: a champion of the environment. And if you would sit there and say, Senator, I really want 

to tell you this, but the OMB told me this is what I have to take, 

and I am not happy, but I did it the best way I could do. 

No, we don’t hear that and it makes me very unhappy. But it is 

just the difference between the parties, I guess, or it is the difference between the way you see the world and the way I see the 

world. But here is the thing, I think the people are on my side. 

They want clean air. They want it. 

And by the way, I don’t agree with you that 300 million Americans are all environmentalists. Oh, no. I know a few right here who 

wouldn’t call themselves environmentalists, let alone out there. A 

lot of them are too busy to even get into it. It is our job to keep 

them healthy, breathing clean air. It is our job to make sure their 

kids don’t live next to a Superfund. It is our job to fulfill the requirements of the law. It is our job to let the community know if 

filth and dirt and pollution is coming over them. 

This is serious stuff, serious stuff. And perchlorate, oh, we don’t 

know now; well, we were supposed to know in 2001 if there was 

going to be a standard set. In 2001, they said you will know by 

2003 whether we need to set a standard. And we will certainly do 

it before 2006. Oh, now we can’t do it. Well, other States can do 

it, but we can’t, but we know enough so that we can have a new 

rule from you saying no testing of perchlorate. 

How outrageous is that? At least let’s test it before we set a 

standard so people know. 

So that is where we stand on different sides of this. Thank you 

for coming, and we will continue these debates as we move the 

budget to the floor. 
95 

Thank you. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 4:56 p.m. the committee was adjourned, to reconvene at the call of the Chair.] 

Æ