U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

81–724 PDF 2003

S. HRG. 107–669

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY’S

FISCAL YEAR 2003 BUDGET

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

FEBRUARY 13, 2002

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

(

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

SECOND SESSION

JAMES M. JEFFORDS, Vermont, Chairman

MAX BAUCUS, Montana

HARRY REID, Nevada

BOB GRAHAM, Florida

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut

BARBARA BOXER, California

RON WYDEN, Oregon

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York

JON S. CORZINE, New Jersey

BOB SMITH, New Hampshire

JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio

MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho

LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania

BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado

KEN CONNOLLY, Majority Staff Director

DAVE CONOVER, Minority Staff Director

(II)

CONTENTS

Page

FEBRUARY 13, 2002

OPENING STATEMENTS

Bond, Hon. Christoper S., U.S. Senator from the State of Missouri .................. 5

Campbell, Hon. Ben Nighthorse, U.S. Senator from the State of Colorado ....... 4

Crapo, Hon. Michael D., U.S. Senator from the State of Idaho .......................... 4

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma .................... 3

Lieberman, Hon. Joseph I., U.S. Senator from the State of Connecticut ........... 6

Jeffords, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont .................... 1

Smith, Hon. Bob, U.S. Senator from the State of New Hampshire .................... 3

Specter, Hon. Arlen M., U.S. Senator from the State of Pennsylvania .............. 15

WITNESS

Whitman, Hon. Christine Todd, Administrator, Environmental Protection

Agency ................................................................................................................... 7

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 19

Responses to additional questions from:

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 22

Senator Campbell ...................................................................................... 25

Senator Clinton ......................................................................................... 26

Senator Jeffords ......................................................................................... 29

Senator Lieberman .................................................................................... 38

Senator Smith ............................................................................................ 44

Senator Wyden .......................................................................................... 46

(III)

(1)

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY’S

FISCAL YEAR 2003 BUDGET

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2002,

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, Washington, DC.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m. in room 406,

Senate Dirksen Building, Hon. James M. Jeffords (chairman of the

committee) presiding.

Present: Senators Jeffords, Campbell, Smith, Crapo, Inhofe,

Bond, Lieberman, Clinton, and Specter.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. JEFFORDS,

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT

Senator JEFFORDS. The hearing will come to order.

There will be interruptions today because we have votes, so what

we will be doing is to start as best we can and have as many opening statements from members and hopefully even the opening

statement from the Administratator before we have to break for a

number of stacked votes.

So with that, I will make my opening statement, and then we

will move right on.

Good morning. The purpose of today’s hearing is to examine the

proposed 2003 budget for the Environmental Protection Agency. We

are pleased to have the former Governor of New Jersey and able

Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Christie

Todd Whitman here today to explain to us the finer points of the

EPA’s budget request. We are excited about that.

For the record, I also want to thank Administrator Whitman for

all the work she and her staff have done recently to help the State

of Vermont tackle some tricky budget problems. We appreciate that

very much.

Testifying on the budget is admittedly rather a dry experience,

but I hope that the Administratator enjoys herself more today than

she does in the meetings with the Office of Management and Budget.

Now, to the subject before us. At a time when we should be striving for the gold, the EPA’s budget for next year barely makes it

through the qualifiers. The proposed budget request is a 3.5 percent reduction in spending from last year. However, when inflation

is taken into account, this is more than 6 percent, even as we are

asking the Agency to take on greater homeland defense responsibility. And while fiscal year 2006 is a long way away and not subject to today’s hearing, I do wonder how the Office of Management

2

and Budget expects EPA to absorb about $1 billion in budget cuts

between now and then.

But first, let me start on a positive note. I am gratified that

spending for the brownfields program has doubled and that a large

increase goes directly to the States. On the air side, both the ozone

and particulate matter programs are given increases. And speaking

for myself and all of my colleagues in the Hart Building, I am

pleased that the Agency will be spending $75 million to conduct research on better ways to clean up contaminated buildings.

Most of the savings in the budget comes from the rather naive

expectation that there will be no congressional earmarks in next

year’s budget. This is a battle I will leave the Agency to fight with

the appropriators. However, when earmarks are added, I will fight

to make sure that sufficient core program funds continue to be appropriated to reverse cuts in the clean water and climate programs

and ensure continued progress in the Superfund and air programs.

While I am pleased that the Administration has substantially increased its budget request for clean water revolving funds from its

request last year and level-funded drinking water revolving funds,

I remain concerned that the proposed budget does not provide adequate funding for the replacement and maintenance of our Nation’s

aging water infrastructure.

Given the importance to public health and that all communities

comply with the new arsenic standard in a timely manner, I am

concerned that no new drinking water funds are being allocated for

this purpose. Further, clean water revolving funds are cut 10 percent from last year’s enacted level at a time when the water systems are coping with additional costs of security. I am sure that

EPA is also aware that I am working with the members of this

Committee on a bill to boost water infrastructure funding that will

be introduced shortly.

Another issue I would like to highlight is the reduction to EPA

enforcement efforts. Once again, EPA is proposing a new State enforcement grant program. How is this program different from the

one that was proposed and shot down by Congress last year? It is

my understanding that no cuts in existing enforcement personnel

are planned, but that cuts of about 100 enforcement positions will

be made through attrition and by not filling existing job openings.

Just how many unfilled jobs exist in the enforcement division, and

does this explain the continued lowering of performance goals for

the inspections and investigations?

I believe there is a public education component to virtually every

major environmental statute. I was therefore puzzled to learn that

the EPA would like to move both its Environmental Education Division and STAR fellowship program to the National Science Foundation. I look forward to hearing EPA’s view on this subject.

Finally, let me say that I am deeply skeptical of the Administration’s governmentwide proposal to require each government agency

to assume the costs of the Civil Service Retirement System and

health care costs. As both a member of the Health and Finance

Committees, I am troubled that mandatory spending will be shifted

to discretionary accounts, potentially diverting these funds to purposes other than the funding of retirement and health care costs.

3

Furthermore, I am concerned that in future years, this change in

accounting rules will penalize the operating budgets of programs

with older employees.

Again, thank you for being here today, and we look forward to

your testimony.

I now turn to Senator Smith.

Senator SMITH. Jim, you go first. Go ahead.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE,

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Senator INHOFE. OK. I will make it very brief.

It is my idea, Madam Administrator, to try to get out opening

statements out so that hopefully you can get your opening statement out prior to our five stacked votes, so let me just mention two

things.

I am hoping that sometime during the course of the hearing

today or in your opening statement you can give us some comments

on the worst Superfund site in the United States of America, which

is Tar Creek, which happens to be in northeastern Oklahoma. It

is something that we have talked about a number of times, and I

would like to see how this budget might be addressing this and

looking for some help on that.

The second one is in brownfields. As the Chairman said, we have

I think doubled the amount of money that is going to be addressing

these. You might recall that my amendment was one to include the

petroleum-contaminated sites. Of the 450,000 sites, about 200,000

fell into this category. I am very interested, since the brownfields

law was signed into law by the President with my amendment in

it, what kind of help is on the way for these petroleum-contaminated sites.

So with that, I will just wait for the opening statement of our Administrator.

Senator JEFFORDS. Senator Smith?

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOB SMITH, U.S. SENATOR

FROM THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Senator SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I will also be very brief and just ask that my statement be made

a part of the record.

Good morning, Administrator Whitman. It has been a year since

you have been here, when you were confirmed, and what a year

that has been. There have been a number of challenges, and it does

not seem like it is getting any easier. But I want to thank you personally for all your efforts over the past year. I think you have

done an outstanding job.

I know we are here to discuss the 1903 budget. I see in this

budget a partnership with the States that are achieving results

through cooperation. I have a little bit of a different perspective on

it than the Chairman just outlined, but as has been said, I certainly am grateful for the doubling of funds for brownfields. I think

again pointing out that as far as brownfields are concerned, it is

not the money from the Federal Government that really is the key

here. That $200 million won’t go very far. It is the law change that

4

allows the private sector now to develop these, and I hope that does

not get lost in the discussion.

It was just 1 year ago, actually, that Senators Reid, Chafee and

Boxer and myself introduced the bill that was recently signed by

the President. I know you were supportive of the bill throughout

the process. It took a little while for the House to finally deal with

it, but we did get it done and that is the important thing.

I am also pleased to see the new watershed initiative in the

EPA’s budget that is there. It is very similar to the communitybased approach in a bill that I introduced with Senator Crapo in

the last Congress. That created a pilot program that allowed local

communities to experiment with different approaches to reach their

own clean water goals.

Also worth noting is the State Enforcement Grant Program,

again working with the States to help them enforce environmental

laws and regulations. Over 90 percent of enforcement actions are

carried out by the States, and this budget understands that and we

appreciate that.

It also recognizes the new world that we have lived in since Sep- tember 11. You have $124 million in new funding for homeland security, including enhancing emergency response, conducting water

system vulnerability assessments, and conducting research on better technologies and assessments to clean up some of these targets

of the attacks.

On balance, I think this budget is one that sets a very strong

pro-environmental, pro-State priority. It promotes partnership with

the States, encourages cooperation over confrontation, and an

Agency focus on efforts that will result in a cleaner, healthier environment. I look forward to hearing your discussion of your budget.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator JEFFORDS. Senator Campbell?

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL,

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO

Senator CAMPBELL. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

Since we have stacked votes in about six more minutes, I think

I will, with your permission, submit my opening statement for the

record. I had a couple of questions that we might not get to, but

I will submit those also in writing. I am just happy to see Administrator Whitman here. I am happy that she has recovered from her

skiing accident a couple of years ago and seems to be walking with

great vigor now. I am sorry if we contributed to that in our Colorado slopes. Hopefully, we can correct that in the future.

Administrator WHITMAN. Never.

Senator CAMPBELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator JEFFORDS. Senator Crapo?

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL D. CRAPO,

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I will be very brief as well. In fact, in the short opportunity I

have had to go over the budget, I have not really found any serious

things, other than just one concern that I have, and I will just raise

the concern, and that is that the clean water State revolving fund

5

is reduced by $138 million. I am very concerned that we need to

be increasing that fund, and we will be working legislatively to try

to address that issue with you. I just wanted to highlight that concern at this point.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator JEFFORDS. Senator Bond?

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER S. BOND,

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI

Senator BOND. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

It is a delight to have Administrator Whitman before us. We will

have opportunities again to talk about this in the future on the

funding. I have had the pleasure of knowing the Administrator for

over 40 years, and I am sure that the last year seems like about

40 to her. But we appreciate this wartime budget. It shows the

President and Administrator Whitman’s strong commitment to the

environment in the face of war homeland security needs. The Administration has shielded the EPA budget from deep cuts.

This is the highest request for EPA operating programs ever. It

means record funds for day-to-day activities on health standards,

conducting inspections, enforcement monitoring of the environment. We know that our water supply system can be subject to terrorist attacks, and there is $124 million homeland security funding

that I think is very necessary. The Administration would send

nearly $3.5 billion to the States for their State environmental programs. They propose doubling the $200 million for brownfields

cleanup.

At the same time, our communities are facing an overwhelming

need for clean water and drinking water funding. Some private estimates put these figures at $300 billion. We are going to hear from

EPA on their GAP analysis. This is something we are going to have

to address.

The last Administration supported only $2 billion per year in revolving water funds. That just is not going to get the job done. Mr.

Chairman, we are going to have to find a way to get more money,

and merely authorizing it is not going to get it there under the current budget system. We will have to work on that.

And while we are working on things, Mr. Chairman and Madam

Administrator, if I might put in a pitch for the Fishable Waters

Act. Everybody seems to have forgotten about fishable waters with

all the problems we have, but this is extremely important for the

environment. It would be a voluntary effort to allow local stakeholders to undertake projects to make local waters fishable and

swimmable, i.e. achieving very important environmental goals.

Finally, I am very pleased with the Administration’s proposal to

increase funding for research on the safety of genetically modified

crops. Biotechnology is going to be the revolution of the 21st century that allows us to feed billions of people around the world more

effectively, more efficiently, and in a more nutritious manner with

less use of harsh chemical pesticides. The EPA’s leadership is important to improve the environment in the United States and also

show the way to clean up the world’s environment by safe use of

biotechnology products.

6

I appreciate the chance to work with this Committee and we will

be working with you and EPA through the Appropriations Committee as well.

Senator JEFFORDS. Senator Lieberman?

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN,

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

Senator LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

I have a full statement that I would like to include in the record.

I welcome Administrator Whitman. Let me see if I can draw briefly

from my statement.

I must say that I am troubled by the Administration’s 2003 EPA

budget proposal. Overall, it proposes providing the EPA with about

$300 million less than the enacted level for the present fiscal year.

That number, obviously, says a lot, but the decisions behind the

dollars are also important. Let me just highlight a few.

I share with many of my colleagues a deep concern about the sig- nificant reduction in clean water funds of about $525 million,

which will seriously impact our State and local authorities’ efforts

to improve water quality.

In the area of clean air, the budget appears to dedicate about the

same resources as last year, but the focus of the funding is, to me,

suspect. I am troubled by the mere passing mention of multi-pollutant legislation in the budget justification document, which may be

consistent with the Administration’s position as it was changed last

year, but nonetheless it is disappointing.

The budget justification also gives glancing treatment to new

source review and does not offer much in the way of hope on climate change either. In the budget justification, the continuing absence of a proposal on climate change says a lot in its silence.

So I must say there is a statement in the budget justification

which is a repetition of goals of the Agency, and I want to read it.

It says the United States will lead other nations in successful multilateral efforts to reduce significant risk to human health and ecosystems from climate change—stratosphere, it goes on—pollution

and other hazards of international concern. But with all respect, so

far the actions of this Administration have not demonstrated any

leadership on global warming.

I certainly do not mean this personally with regard to Administrator Whitman, because you displayed real leadership on this

question when you were Governor of New Jersey. I understand

that we may hear soon on these three issues of concern—climate

change, multi-pollutant legislation, and new source review.

For my part, let me say I hope that the climate change program

is a credible one that moves us toward real reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, with targets and time tables. I hope that the

multi-pollutant proposal calls for significant cuts in sulfur dioxide,

nitrogen oxides and mercury reductions, and forms the foundation

for meaningful discussion on reconciling the Administration’s proposal with the Clean Power Act of 2001, the multi-pollutant, fourpollutant proposal introduced by Senators Jeffords, Collins, and

myself.

I also hope that the new source review proposal retains the critical health and environmental protections this program has afVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:04 Jan 30, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\DOCS\81724 SENENV1 PsN: SENENV1
7

forded us over time. I am by nature an optimistic person. Hope

spring eternal. So I look forward to these proposals. But for now,

I must say with all respect that I think the Administration has not

yet adequately fulfilled its responsibility to protect our environment, and this budget reflects that.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator JEFFORDS. Thank you.

Administrator, I appreciate your being here. We are now going

to have five votes scheduled to begin at 9:50 a.m. The Committee

will return roughly at 10:50 a.m., but we will anxiously await your

comments right now. We may have to run out if you go too long.

Administrator WHITMAN. I will go really fast.

STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN,

ADMINISTRATOR, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Administrator WHITMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I will have a longer statement for the record, if that is all right

with you.

Senator JEFFORDS. Yes, please.

Administrator WHITMAN. I do appreciate this opportunity to appear once again before this particular Committee to discuss the

President’s budget for the Environmental Protection Agency for the

next fiscal year.

I believe that the President’s budget does provide the Agency

with the funds that it needs to efficiently and effectively carry out

our mandate to protect public health and the environment.

As you know, the requested total for fiscal year 2003 is $7.7 billion, which represents more than a $200 million increase over last

year’s request. Overall, our proposed budget reflects the goals that

President Bush and I share for leaving America’s water cleaner, its

air purer, and its land better protected than when we took office.

I should also point out that EPA’s proposed budget is part of the

Administration’s record overall request of $44.1 billion for environment and natural resources. It is the highest such request ever,

and represents a $1.1 billion increase over enacted levels for the

current fiscal year.

If I may, Mr. Chairman, I would like to discuss just some of the

highlights of our proposals, and as I said, I will be submitting a

longer statement for the record. I know there are, of course, specific

questions once the votes are finished. We will be prepared for

those.

First of all, almost half of our budget is for direct grants to State,

local and tribal governments. This reflects our experience that

many innovative, creative and effective environmental achievements are being made by States, county, local and tribal governments. As I have traveled around the country during the past year,

whether it was seeing the citizens working in Kentucky PRIDE or

the members of the Paiute tribe in Nevada, and countless other

communities across America, we have seen extraordinary progress

being made at the local level by local citizens.

EPA is building strong partnerships for environmental progress

and the results speak for themselves. In this budget, we will build

on those results to achieve even greater environmental progress.

8

Next, this budget more than doubles the funds available for brownfields reclamation, providing $200 million, as has been mentioned earlier—funding that will lead to thousands of acres of better-protected land in the years ahead. I remember traveling to Winchester, New Hampshire last year with Senator Smith to see a

great, wonderful brownfields project there. The success that we are

seeing across the country can only be enhanced by the additional

dollars in the new program that is now in place.

Third, this budget provides important funding for a new water- shed initiative. We are requesting $21 million for a program that

will allow us to build effective public/private partnerships to restore and protect 20 of America’s most precious watersheds. This

initiative will show the real results that partnerships can achieve,

how much partners can bring together in a unified program, including a non-point source grant program that we are proposing to

fund at $238.5 million. As a result, this budget will help improve

water quality for drinking, boating, swimming and fishing in those

watersheds that we target.

There are numerous other important initiatives in our proposed

budget. They include funding to increase the development of new

technologies for environmental progress, funding for research that

could lead to significant curtailing of animal testing by building on

discoveries in the Human Genome Project, and funding to increase

our knowledge base about air quality challenges so we can help

save lives and prevent illnesses such as asthma among America’s

children.

In addition, the combined funding we are proposing for the

drinking water and clean water State Revolving Funds is the largest such combined request ever. Of course, our budget request also

includes significant new money to help EPA meet its homeland security responsibilities. The $124 million in new funding that we are

requesting will support such important efforts as protecting the

Nation’s drinking water infrastructure by funding vulnerability assessments at the Nation’s water utilities; securing additional personnel and equipment to expand our ability to respond to biological

attacks; and investing in research designed to enable the Nation to

better detect and respond to chemical and biological attacks.

I am pleased to say, Mr. Chairman, that taken together, the

President’s proposed EPA budget for fiscal year 2003 fully supports

the work of this Agency. It will enable us to transform our 30-year

mission to meet the challenges of the 21st century, and it brings

us that much closer to realizing our goals of cleaner air, purer

water, and better protected land so that we can all enjoy the kind

of environment that we want for ourselves and for future generations.

Thank you very much.

Senator JEFFORDS. Well, thank you for an excellent statement.

We will now recess until approximately 10:50; that may be optimistic, the way things go around here.

[Recess.]

Senator JEFFORDS. Nice to be back with you again.

As I said in my statement, I am concerned that the proposed

budget does not provide adequate funding for the replacement and

maintenance of our Nation’s aging water infrastructure. In light of

9

the proposed cuts in the water program funding, how does EPA’s

budget request address the backlog of water infrastructure needs?

Administrator WHITMAN. Well, Senator, as I mentioned in my testimony, the Agency is requesting $1.2 billion in fiscal year 2003

for the clean water. When you combine that with the safe drinking

water, that is a combined total that is greater than has been asked

for before. But there is a recognition that these issues, as we discussed last year—the dollars potentially go way beyond anything

that any one Agency or really branch of government is going to be

able to deal with on its own. We really look forward to having a

much more detailed discussion with the Hill on how we should go

forward on this.

The Revolving Loan Fund will revolve at over $2 billion, even if

no more money goes in. And the numbers that you were talking

about 5 years out or the way OMB does the budget, there is money

for that obviously now.

That is robust. That is good. And we do believe that the Revolv- ing Loan Program, it now is well over $2 billion. It revolves at over

$2 billion and will continue to do so as far out into the future as

we can see. It is still going to need much more than that, and I

look forward to working with you, and I know your interest here

is longstanding.

Senator JEFFORDS. Thank you, and I look forward to working

with you.

And of course we have also the problems of terrorism, which lead

to additional costs in those areas. And also, we are going to have

to really spend some time working together. Thank you.

As I understand it, the Administration plans to announce its climate policy—a three-pollutant proposal—and changes to the new

source review regulations sometime tomorrow. Could you tell us

what will be included in that announcement, and how it will impact the Agency’s budget and allocation of resources?

Administrator WHITMAN. Well, Senator, I can’t give you the particulars. Obviously, that has got to be up to the President.

Senator JEFFORDS. I will try.

Administrator WHITMAN. I know. It was a nice try, and I appreciate that.

[Laughter.]

Administrator WHITMAN. Certainly, once the president has made

an announcement, I will be happy to come back and discuss with

you the particulars and how we achieve them. But I suspect that

the Congress is going to have a great deal to say about this whole

process as we go forward on these initiatives.

Senator JEFFORDS. Yes.

In 1991, in a document called America’s Climate Change Strategy, President Bush described the sulfur dioxide cap in the 1990

amendments as ‘‘a powerful conservation stimulus, which should

sharply reduce carbon dioxide emissions from this sector,’’ end of

quote.

Obviously, that has not happened and emissions are way up.

What are we going to do to get a real reduction in the near term?

Administrator WHITMAN. We are continuing with our enforcement efforts under the current Clean Air Act. There is no plan at

this point to reduce any of those efforts. We have, as you know, the

10

NOx SIP Call, the 126 Rule, BART, MACT—all those regulatory

processes are in place and going forward. And it is our anticipation

that they will continue to move forward and we will continue to

focus on the enforcement in those areas while also trying to work

in a more intelligent, perhaps innovative and collegial way with

utilities and business to try to stop some of the problems before

they start.

Senator JEFFORDS. The Hart cleanup—I hate to get back to that.

Staffers in the 12 Senate offices that were treated with chlorine dioxide liquid and foam have complained of nausea, dizziness and

shortness of breath. Some scientists have speculated that the chlorine dioxide residue is reacting with office furnishings and radiated

mail. How is EPA monitoring the situation and what are the plans?

Administrator WHITMAN. Senator, we are doing regular monitoring up there on the Hill. We are continuing to sample and we

have been working with the Sergeant-at-Arms to ensure that the

protocol that we are using is one with which the Senators and the

Architect of the Capitol are comfortable.

We have not gotten any hits on any of the samples that we have

done on high levels of chlorine dioxide or any of the byproducts of

chlorine dioxide. We are focusing and working with CDC and the

labs that have been brought in to look at the potential that it is

the mail, the irradiation of the mail that may be causing this problem, and we will continue to monitor that building for as long as

we need to. But so far, we have not seen any indication that it is

because of the chlorine dioxide.

Senator JEFFORDS. Thank you. We will followup on that.

Administrator WHITMAN. We will continue to have a presence

there. We will continue to do what we need to do on air sampling

and followup for as long as you want us there and as long as we

need to do it. But as I say, we have done numerous samplings. The

latest results, February 6, and again we still have not gotten any

hits that would indicate that there is any residue from either the

chlorine dioxide spray itself or the fumigation itself or any of the

byproducts from chlorine dioxide.

Whatever issues are appearing, the focus at this point seems to

be on the irradiation of the mail, and that is where the scientists

are all looking right now, to see what that could possibly be.

Senator JEFFORDS. Thank you.

EPA’s proposed budget includes the costs of additional retirement and health benefits. Do you think it is wise to shift these

costs from the centralized mandatory spending accounts to the discretionary accounts?

Administrator WHITMAN. Senator, those costs have always been

in the President’s budget but they have been allocated in a different way. This is really more of a bookkeeping change to enable

us to identify them clearly and to show the full costs of the overall

EPA budget. They are, in fact, numbers that always have been in

the President’s budget. As you know, the Administration feels the

proposed legislation is an administrative tool so that Federal agencies readily can account for the costs of these benefits.

Senator JEFFORDS. What happens if the legislation relative to

does not get enacted? Will EPA have to return a chunk of its budget to the Office of Management?

11

Administrator WHITMAN. No, I don’t believe that we would have

to. I have my cheat sheet here. Yes, it would be funded. The Federal Government has been paying them right along. That’s what I

was saying initially, that the government has been paying them

right along so that money was always there in the budget. This

proposal is just a way of accounting for the costs so you see them

differently, but the money has been there right along. Now, it has

been incorporated into each Agency’s budget.

This is just a shift in responsibility from a central management

account in OPM to each Agency, so that each Agency accounts for

those dollars. We assume that responsibility.

Senator JEFFORDS. EPA’s proposed budget includes the cost of

additional retirement and health benefits. Do you think it is wise

to shift these costs from the central—that has been answered? OK.

All right.

What is EPA doing to help communities comply with the new arsenic standard?

Administrator WHITMAN. As I indicated when we went forward

with the standard, that we were going to identify $20 million in the

Agency’s budget to help communities deal with this issue. We are

doing that. We are also working with the Department of Agriculture on some rural funds that are available.

But more than that, we are looking at technology initiatives. We

putting some money—as you know, there is some money in the

budget for a heightened focus on technology, and part of that research, at least initially, the new program is going to be specifically

directed at low-cost initiatives to remove arsenic from the water.

So we are looking to work with those small-and mid-size companies in a variety of different ways, beyond just providing dollars,

but also to provide help with the research and the technical assistance to enable them to meet the standards, but not have to price

themselves out of business or price people out of water.

Senator JEFFORDS. Why does EPA continue to lower its performance goals for inspections and investigations? Is it related to reductions in funding?

Administrator WHITMAN. Actually, if you look at the record last

year, we did have a record year as far as what we were able to accomplish and what we were able to bring in in fines and penalties

from those who were responsible parties, people who were responsible for doing it. We have in fact been able to see an increase with

the staff that we have. We have been doing a good job and 90 percent of the enforcement does take place at the State level. What we

want we are proposing to do with this budget is not to cut anyone

from our enforcement staff and not to shift any positions there, but

to give the States some more help to be able to do the job that they

are already doing better and continue with a high level of enforcement.

Senator JEFFORDS. Now, the Superfund. Once again, EPA has

lowered the targeted number of final Superfund cleanups. While I

understand that some sites are more complex than others, this cannot possibly explain the over 100 percent drop in the targeted

cleanups since fiscal year 2000. Why does EPA keep lowering its

cleanup goals?

12

Administrator WHITMAN. I share your concern about cleanup

goals, and there are a number of reasons for the drop. One in particular stands out, which is kind of the history that we are dealing

with here. There was a decision made back a few years to concentrate funds on those Superfund sites that were closest to completion. And so, that is where the money was spent. There is where

the effort went, and those sites that were very nearly finished were

completed, but very little money was provided for other sites that

were coming onto the list—the ones that still had significant work

remaining.

And so that is what we are facing now—is dealing with those

sites that have quite a lot of work. We had about three to 4 years

of sort of a burst of high construction completions, but in doing

that we created a greater backlog.

We are now in the process of what we are calling a pipeline review of the Superfund projects to make sure that we are listing the

right ones, that we are prioritizing them the right way and addressing them the right way, and that we can ensure that we do

continue to focus on those sites that pose the greatest public health

risk, and that we deal with those first.

Senator JEFFORDS. Senator Clinton?

Senator CLINTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I apologize, Governor Whitman, for being late. We have had

quite a morning of votes and running around like headless chickens, and I apologize for keeping you waiting.

I also am pleased that we had an opportunity to speak yesterday

regarding the concerns that we have about air quality at the World

Trade Center site and the surrounding area and indoors. And I

thank you very much for the letter that you sent me late last

evening which refers to the hearing that Senator Lieberman and

I held on Monday. I want to thank the Chairman and the Committee and the Committee staff for its assistance in holding that

hearing to hear from experts and those having first-hand experience with air quality problems and the related health impacts arising out of the disaster on September 11.

I think it was a very substantive and informative hearing and I

thank EPA for testifying. I want to thank everyone associated with

the Agency, and particularly Region Two for everything that you

have done to respond to the September 11th attacks in New York,

and for your offer of assistance that is contained in your letter and

that we briefly discussed yesterday.

At the hearing, I laid out a five-point plan that responds to the

concerns we have been hearing about for quite some weeks now, to

address the air quality and public health concerns. The plan includes passing S. 1621, which is legislation to establish a permanent health monitoring system at disaster sites.

I would also include in that Senator Voinovich’s deep concerns

about the health impacts on his first-responders. We heard the firefighters and FEMA first-responders who came and testified before

us, and it was extremely moving and quite disturbing. He told me

yesterday that they are continuing to have serious health problems.

So we need a system that has a permanent health monitoring

surveillance and response apparatus, however we decide to design

it, that would followup not only on those directly associated with

13

the sites, but even people who came in response to calls for help,

like Senator Voinovich’s people from Ohio did.

Second, I think we should provide funding for the immediate establishment of a long-term comprehensive health registry, referral

and monitoring system to Ground Zero workers. They are clearly

the ones most at risk. Some people have suffered indirectly. More

sensitive people have reported respiratory problems, allergic reactions, the onset of asthma.

But our chief medical officer of the New York Fire Department

testified that 25 percent of the entire firefighter force, which has

now been screened, reports respiratory problems. We have no idea

what the long-term impact will be. The police testified that they

had not had that kind of monitoring and screening. So we need a

system and I hope we can look to do that.

Third, to establish a World Trade Center Indoor Air Program.

That has turned out to be one of our biggest problems. I really believe that EPA’s authority, direction and expertise with respect to

monitoring outdoor air was very helpful. There are some remaining

issues that we have to deal with, but the indoor air is what people

are now focusing on.

So fourth, I think we should develop a World Trade Center site

clear initiative which deals with the remaining outdoor air problems, principally from the diesel emissions, from the idling of

trucks, from the barge traffic. We have all these trucks, Mr. Chairman, lined up carrying away the waste and debris. They are on all

the time. And we know that the particulate emissions are some

things we should be concerned about, particularly with respect to

children or vulnerable people.

And finally, I think we should work to incorporate the lessons we

have learned, and we all have learned lessons, into the homeland

security plans that Governor Ridge is responsible for developing.

In respect to those points, Governor, I appreciate greatly that in

the letter that you sent to me yesterday you committed to working

with local, State and Federal partners to establish a task force on

indoor air in lower Manhattan, and I thank you so much for that.

I look forward to working with you. I have a commitment from

the Office of Emergency Management in the city to coordinate the

city’s response because there was some confusion about who really

should be responsible within the city. I think we have got an opportunity to really translate this commitment into the kind of action

that will reassure the public.

I think it is imperative that the task force conduct door-to-door

inspections and indoor sampling within no less than a 10-block radius of Ground Zero, and that it should operate a centralized location where the public can get information on whether their building

has been tested or inspected, the results of those tests and clear

guidance on cleanup requirements, resources available to pay for

cleanups, and certified cleanup companies in the area.

We heard, really, from two ends of the spectrum. There were

those who did not feel that their landlords or the city had made

their landlords do anything, really, to meet the most minimal

standards. Then we had a witness who said she would do whatever

she was told to do, but she got conflicting information and didn’t

know what she was supposed to do.

14

So somewhere in between there we know we have got to strike

a balance, but I think starting with an inspection system of some

kind in a centralized location will help to get the ball rolling.

As a first step, I would like to work with you to set up a meeting

as soon as possible between EPA and the city to make sure that

the task force is publicly under way and people know that we have

all responded.

I thank you for your quick response to the concerns that were

raised at the hearing on Monday and I look forward to working

with you. I would be interested in any response or additional amplification that you might provide on this.

Administrator WHITMAN. Certainly, Senator.

First of all, I want to thank you for the suggestions, the time you

have taken on this issue, the attention that you have given it. We

share a real concern about what has happened up there and what

will happen in the future. We have, and I believe that both the testimony that you heard on Monday and what we have seen in looking at and in dealing with this issue, we have been able to identify

some areas where there are weaknesses. There are either overlaps

or gaps in who is responsible for which.

When you are dealing with public health, when you are dealing

with a crisis, it doesn’t do any good to the public you serve to say,

somebody else’s job. You need to get the issue dealt with.

And that is why I believe the idea, as you had mentioned, of an

indoor air task force is an important one because that is one of the

areas where jurisdiction is not clear. It is an area just in general

on indoor air that has been the subject of discussion for 10 years

in Congress. I mean, it’s not a simple task, but it is one that we

have to deal with, particularly in light of the kind of challenge that

we face now since September 11.

As you also know, in the letter I indicated that I, because it is

another area where I feel it is very important to ensure the public

get all the information, and I have asked the President’s science

advisor to put together a task force that will, at least for the Federal agencies, identify what kind of research is being done, what

kind of information is being asked for, so we can coordinate that,

and be able to communicate with the public in a coherent way, so

that they have the information, they have the data they need to be

able to make their own decisions.

Sometimes the web site that we have put up that has the information from all the data that we have received sometimes puts up

some raw data that people don’t have a context within which to

judge that, but it is there. It is important that it be there.

I know that there are times when scientists are very discomfited

by that because they like to be certain, and unfortunately they are

not always certain about the implications of findings, but I believe

it is important that we provide as much information as possible.

So I look forward to working with you and your office, and all

of New York, to ensure that we cover this to the greatest extent

possible, and that we come up with some answers, and that as we

go through a lesson-learned process, which we are going through

internally at the Agency, both on the September 11 and on the anthrax issues, that we are able to communicate those lessons

learned to the public.

15

Senator CLINTON. Thank you very much, Governor. I have some

additional questions which I would be happy to submit in writing,

and get responses from the Agency in that way.

Senator JEFFORDS. Thank you very much. Those were very helpful questions.

Senator SPECTER IS HERE. I was aware of his coming in, and you

are on. Do you want 30 seconds?

[Laughter.]

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ARLEN SPECTER,

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

Senator SPECTER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

If I had that much time, I don’t know what I would do with it.

[Laughter.]

Senator SPECTER. I am pleased to see you here, Governor, and

commend you for the job you are doing. The business of administering the environmental laws in the United States is a very, very

tough job.

What I want to talk to you about this morning—there are a couple of parochial, but very, very important interests for Pennsylvania. There is a landfill known as Marjal near Scranton, Pennsylvania which has been a source of community agitation for many,

many years. The issue boils down to whether the problems are

going to be excavated or whether there is going to be a halfway job

with a cover on top.

I know you have many, many projects you have to concern yourself about, but have you had an opportunity to get involved in any

of the specifics of this Marjal matter?

Administrator WHITMAN. Well, Senator, as you know, the cleanup of the property surrounding the site has been completed. The

Region Three office has selected a permanent remedy, but that was

put on hold pending a review by the Ombudsman. That report, as

I understand, was due to be given to the Region in December of

2001. I can’t go into too much more detail because, as you may

know, it is subject to litigation. But the surrounding properties

have been cleaned up. Stabilization is complete. The implementation of the remedy chosen, though, is on hold until such time—we

put it on hold initially to allow the Ombudsman to complete his review of the remedy. It is my understanding he has not yet completed that review.

Senator SPECTER. Well, who is undertaking the review at this

time, Governor?

Administrator WHITMAN. The Ombudsman. There was a report

due to the Region by December of last year, 2001, and that has not

yet been submitted to them.

Senator SPECTER. When do you expect that to be submitted?

Administrator WHITMAN. I don’t know, sir. That is up to the Ombudsman. I don’t control his timing on anything or the issues that

he undertakes to review.

Senator SPECTER. Well, what has been represented to me is that

there has been a covering. There is very bad lead contamination.

They have proceeded in a way which is least costly and inadequate.

I would very much appreciate it if you would take a look at that.

16

Are you saying that you don’t have the authority to do so when it’s

in the hands of the Ombudsman?

Administrator WHITMAN. I don’t. The Ombudsman is, contrary

to, I know, some concerns that have been raised, is in fact independent and has made a request. He has raised some concerns

about this issue—and tell me when I am going too far as far litigation is concerned, because I am not sure about that. He has raised

concerns about the remedy chosen by Region Three. The region obviously thinks, given all their work that they have done, that this

is an appropriate cleanup of this site and that there is not a future

health issue here for the people who live on the site.

The Ombudsman has a different feeling about it. We put implementation of the final solution on hold pending his review, and he

has not yet completed it. But I can’t direct him to complete it. I

have no ability to have him write a report. Unfortunately, there

has been no report written.

Senator SPECTER. If he delays indefinitely, is there no remedy?

Administrator WHITMAN. Well, the Region can go ahead with the

selected permanent remedy. It is one that I think that you have a

problem with because of the allegations that the Ombudsman has

raised concerning the remedy. So it is only fair, would make sense,

that he complete that study.

Senator SPECTER. Well, it is fine for him to complete it if it is

done within a reasonable time.

Administrator WHITMAN. I would agree with you.

Senator SPECTER. But if it is not, it seems to me there has to be

some remedy.

Administrator WHITMAN. I would agree.

Senator SPECTER. Doesn’t the Administrator have the authority,

if the Administrator is dissatisfied with the conclusions, the Administrator can make an independent determination that something more has to be done?

Administrator WHITMAN. I am recused from any of the decisionmaking in this site because of the litigation and because of the

issues that have been brought up personally. What I would suggest

is that we get back to you—I get others on the staff to get back

to you who can talk about it.

Senator SPECTER. OK. The recusal I understand, but when the

head of the Administration is recused, understandably, then the

Administrator’s duties devolve upon the next in the chain of command.

Administrator WHITMAN. Certainly, and as I say, this is one of

the—well, I am in an awkward position. I can’t say a lot more

about trying to move this process forward. It is safe to say that I

agree with you that in fairness to the people, in fairness to the Region, and in recognition of the seriousness of the issues being

raised, there should be timely completion of reviews and there

should be timely submission of documents.

Senator SPECTER. Well . . .

Administrator WHITMAN. I am allowed to say one other thing,

which I was sort of dancing around, but frankly that is why I have

recommended a movement of the Ombudsman’s office to the Office

of Inspector General. Once an issue is raised with the Inspector

General, not only is the inspector general, who is entirely indeVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:04 Jan 30, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\DOCS\81724 SENENV1 PsN: SENENV1
17

pendent, required to look into it, whereas the Ombudsman has the

choice whether or not to look into an issue. They also have to write

reports, and they are required to submit reports in a timely fashion. That, I think, is very important in these issues.

Senator SPECTER. Well, as you know, Governor, there is a lot of

concern about—I have a personal concern about the decision to remove the Ombudsman to the Inspector General. I plan to take it

up with you, and you mentioned that. You have an Ombudsman

who has been very, very—how to put it?—he is had his own point

of view. He has been very independent. He has said some things

which have riled a lot of people. But it is exactly that kind of independence which has to be recognized and respected. That is the

purpose.

The suggestion has been made that the Ombudsman has been

shifted to the Inspector Generals because the Ombudsman is too

independent and too effective. And if you stifle independence—look

here, I know you very well. You want to find out what the right

thing to do is. That is what Congressman Sherwood and Senator

Santorum and I want to do. You have only had an investment in

this issue for a year, Governor. We have had an investment in it

for more than a decade. And the people up there are grossly dissatisfied and with cause.

I am going to diary it ahead to March 1 and see if we don’t have

a report by that time. So keep your incoming lines open for calls,

Governor.

Administrator WHITMAN. Certainly—always for you, Senator.

Lines are always open.

Senator SPECTER. OK. Let me ask you about another problem in

the same vicinity called Tranguch, which involves a 50,000 gallon

gasoline spill affecting approximately 250 families in the greater

Hazleton area. And the residents are experiencing illnesses and are

requesting for everyone in the area to be permanently located, or

at least those directly over the plume, with documented contamination. What is possible to do here, Governor?

Administrator WHITMAN. As you know, the cleanup has—basically the cleanup has been completed and gone very well. The

groundwater collection, soil vapor extraction and the groundwater

collection and treatment systems are completed and operational.

The first round of post-project sampling is going to take place in

March of this year. The EPA is going to continue to work with the

State to monitor the homes in the infected area to ensure that they

are not getting levels above what we anticipated, what we think is

safe for people.

The results of the last round of residential air sampling showed

that 95 percent of the homes had benzene levels below the site’s

action levels. The homes that continued exhibit elevated levels of

hazardous materials or hazardous air that could pose a threat to

public health are being evaluated further, and we will take whatever further action is needed to ensure that people are safe. But

there will be a formal post-residential, post-project residential sampling in March, next month.

Senator SPECTER. Do you expect the evaluations to be finished in

March?

18

Administrator WHITMAN. We are going to take the sampling in

March and we should get those results back pretty quickly, yes.

Senator SPECTER. Well, when you say 95 percent, leaving only a

5 percent problem area, that is at variance with what the people

in the community say. But we are going to have to take those one

at a time—evaluate which 5 percent are regarded as having problems and seeing what they have to say.

Administrator WHITMAN. And we have to figure out how it is getting there, too. If there are vapors that are escaping into the

homes, we need to figure out what the route of that exposure is.

So we will continue to work on that.

Senator SPECTER. Thank you very much for you attention to

these matters and all the other matters.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator JEFFORDS. Thank you for coming. Appreciate it.

I have still got 10 minutes. First of all, I want to let you know

I support your efforts to move the Ombudsman’s office. I think that

is a good idea.

Now, I would like to go back to what some might consider it a

controversial issue, but the 4-P proposal versus yours. I must reiterate my hope and firm belief that any 4-P proposal put forth must

be able to show that it improves air quality. I also hope that it

holds the electricity-producing sector responsible for achieving real

reductions in carbon dioxide. Anything that falls short of these

goals would be a disappointment to me and environmentalists

across the Nation.

Has EPA provided to the President some proof that his proposal

will improve air quality over and beyond what is on the books already?

Administrator WHITMAN. Senator, as I have said repeatedly, we

want to ensure with any proposal that goes forward that it results

in clean air, and cleaner air than we currently see today. I believe

that anything that the President proposes will, in fact, show a real

gain in air quality. There is going to be a lot of discussion around

it, I know, but when the President has made his decision and announces it to the public, I know that you will see that there will

be environmental benefits to what is being proposed.

Having said that, yes, we have obviously been working closely

running numbers, looking at what we can accomplish, what makes

sense to try to achieve. The other thing that we should not lose in

this discussion, and I am always concerned that it does not get the

kind of recognition that it should, is the amount of carbon reduction that we see through our voluntary programs.

When you consider that fully, more than 50 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions that we are going to see over the next 50 years

are going to come from products that are purchased today, we need

to ensure that we are giving consumers the right kind of information so that they can make intelligent decisions and help reduce

the amount of carbon.

Energy STAR has been extraordinarily efficient and effective in

reducing carbon. Last year alone, it reduced the equivalent—had

the equivalent impact of the removal of 10 million cars from the

road. It reduced carbon dioxide by 10 billion pounds. It is having

a real impact. We need to remember that we do get ancillary beneVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:04 Jan 30, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\DOCS\81724 SENENV1 PsN: SENENV1
19

fits from these other programs, and continue to recognize and support those, as we are doing this year at the Agency.

Senator JEFFORDS. I appreciate your answer. I want to work

closely with you on these matters, and expect that we will be forthright in providing information.

I just want to add I support Mrs. Clinton’s efforts to address the

air quality questions at Ground Zero, and I hope the Agency takes

those matters seriously. I know I don’t need to say that.

I thank you for your testimony. We will leave the record open for

followup questions, as we always do, and we will appreciate your

prompt response to those questions.

Administrator WHITMAN. Thank you, Senator, very much.

Senator JEFFORDS. And with that, have lunch.

[Whereupon at 11:54 a.m., the committee was adjourned, to reconvene at the call of the Chair.]

[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]

STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN, ADMINISTRATOR, U.S.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am pleased to be here to discuss

President Bush’s budget request for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

The President’s budget provides the necessary funds for the Agency to carry out our

mission efficiently and effectively to protect human health and safeguard the environment. The fiscal year 2003 request is $7.7 billion, which includes more than a

100 percent increase in funding for Brownfields, and significant increases for watershed protection.

I would like to begin, Mr. Chairman, by emphasizing that the President’s budget

request for EPA reflects the Agency’s strong commitment to leaving America’s air

cleaner, its water purer, and its land better protected than it was when we took office. It promotes that goal in a manner consistent with our commitment to fiscal

responsibility; by further strengthening our partnerships with State, local and tribal

governments; by funding innovative new programs, and by strengthening existing

programs that work.

I’d like to touch on a few of the highlights. nearly half of EPA’s budget request

provides funding for State and tribal programs, including almost $3.5 billion in assistance to States, tribes and other partners. The President and I both believe that

much of the innovative, creative, and effective environmental progress being made

comes from State, county and local governments and our budget request supports

that.

As I have traveled around the country during the past year, I’ve seen some really

exciting programs in action. From the people of Kentucky PRIDE to the members

of the Paiute Tribe in Nevada, and in countless other communities across America,

the EPA is building strong partnerships for environmental progress and the results

speak for themselves. In this budget, we will build on those results to achieve even

greater environmental progress.

Homeland Security

Since September 11, we have seen the traditional mission of our Agency safeguarding the environment and protecting the public health take on new meaning.

We now play a critical role in preparing for and responding to terrorist incidents

because of our unique expertise and experience in emergency preparedness and response to hazardous material releases. Our new role of supervising the decontamination of anthrax infected buildings has shown us that better information and

new technologies are needed. To continue to do our part to ensure that the Nation

is prepared to respond to terrorist incidents, we are investing an additional $124

million for homeland security.

Included in this figure is $75 million for research in technologies for decontaminating buildings affected by bioterrorists attacks. We will provide guidance, technical expertise and support to Federal, State and local governments in building contamination prevention, treatment and cleanup capabilities. Combined with resources

provided in the Emergency Supplemental Appropriation Act of 2002, this represents

a 2-year total of $300 million in new resources. Also included in this figure is $20

million to address threats to the nation’s drinking water supply.

20

We, at EPA, play a significant role in working with State governments and local

utilities to protect drinking water supplies. We have already begun working with

States and local utilities to assess this vulnerability. The additional $20 million

being requested in fiscal year 2003 will augment $88 million appropriated as part

of the Emergency Supplemental Appropriation Act of 2002. Together, these funds

will ensure that utilities have developed a comprehensive assessment of these

vulnerabilities and emergency operations plans using the most current methods and

technologies.

Brownfields

Our fiscal year 2003 budget more than doubles the funds available for brownfields

reclamation by providing $200 million. This money will allow States, tribes, and

local governments to build on the work they’ve already done in turning thousands

of neighborhood eyesores into community assets. Despite that progress, thousands

of brownfields still mar America’s landscape. That is going to change. Thanks to

President Bush’s commitment to brownfields, this money will help us get at some

of the most difficult brownfields challenges that remain. Those reclaimed

brownfields will provide their communities with new jobs, new places to play, and

a new sense of optimism for the future.

Watershed Projects

By providing $21 million for a new watershed initiative, our budget will target

up to 20 watersheds around the country for improvement funding that will lead to

millions of gallons of purer water in the years ahead. This initiative will allow us

to build on existing public-private partnerships to restore and protect up to 20 of

America’s most threatened watersheds. When I visited Boston last year and saw

first-hand the excellent work done by the Charles River Initiative, I knew we could

use that effort as a model for other communities. I’ve heard a watershed defined

as ‘‘communities connected by water.’’ Well, with this initiative, we are connecting

EPA with local watershed protection through the flow of Federal dollars. As a result, we will help improve water quality for drinking, boating, swimming, and fishing.

National Environmental Technology Competition

Of course, underlying everything we do is our commitment to partnership. One

of the most exciting new partnerships this budget seeks to buildupon is our proposed National Environmental Technology Competition. Over the past 30 years, advances in technology have helped us address some of our most pressing environmental challenges. I believe technology can play an even greater role as we seek

to achieve the next generation of environmental progress.

That is why we are proposing $10 million for our National Environmental Technology Competition. This program will use competition to foster technological innovation through public-private partnerships. It will promote the development of new,

cost-effective environmental technologies that will help clean the air, water, and

land. For example, in fiscal year 2003, EPA will solicit proposals related to arsenic

removal in drinking water. This work will help further EPA’s commitment to help

fund, through research and development, cost-effective methods of arsenic removal

for small systems.

Cleaner Air

Under the Clean Air Act, we continue work to make the air cleaner and healthier

to breathe by setting standards for ambient air quality, toxic air pollutant emissions, new pollution sources, and mobile sources. In fiscal year 2003, we will assist

States, tribes and local governments in devising additional stationary and mobile

source strategies to reduce ozone and particulate matter, and other pollutants. A

key component to achieving the Clean Air Goal for all citizens is the request for over

$232 million for air grants to States and tribes. In addition, EPA will continue to

buildupon its voluntary government/industry partnership efforts to achieve pollution

reductions and energy savings. For example, as we continue our Energy Star Labeling and Building Program efforts, our goal is to reduce the emissions of greenhouse

gases by more than 40 million metric tons annually, by 2010, while saving consumers and businesses an estimated $14 billion in net energy bill savings when

using energy-efficient products.

Purer Water

Over the past three decades, our nation has made significant progress in water

pollution prevention and cleanup. While we have substantially cleaned up many of

our most polluted waterways, and provided safer drinking water for millions of U.S.

21

residents, significant challenges remain. This budget request addresses the challenge to provide clean and safe water in every American community.

Protection from Drinking Water Contaminants. The fiscal year 2003 request supports our coordinated efforts with the States and tribes to implement new healthbased standards to control for microbial contaminants, disinfectants and their byproducts, and other contaminants.

Drinking Water State Revolving Fund. The Drinking Water State Revolving Fund

(DWSRF) request of $850 million will provide substantial funding to States and

tribes to upgrade and modernize their drinking water systems. At this funding level,

EPA will eventually meet its goal of providing an average of $500 million annually

in assistance.

BEACHES Grants. This budget includes $10 million to support our implementation of the ‘‘Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act of 2000.’’

The money will be provided in the form of grants to States to develop local monitoring and notification programs for coastal recreation waters.

New Watershed Investments. Our $21 million Targeted Watershed Program is designed to support the need for additional funding for priority watershed restoration

efforts. This request supports a range of water quality restoration tools to assist

local communities in restoring their waterways. This Program would provide direct

grants to watershed stakeholders to implement comprehensive restoration actions.

Helping States Address Run-off and Restore Polluted Waters. The President’s fiscal year 2003 budget provides significant resources to States to build on successes

we have achieved in protecting the nation’s waters, by providing States and tribes

with grants to address polluted run-off, protect valuable wetlands, and restore polluted waterways.

Clean Water State Revolving Fund. Our budget request includes $1.212 billion for

States and tribes for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF). States receive capitalization grants, which enable them to provide low interest loans to communities to construct wastewater treatment infrastructure and fund other projects

to enhance water quality. This investment allows our Agency to meet the goal for

the CWSRF to provide $2 billion average in annual financial assistance over the

long-term.

Protecting Human Health along the U.S.-Mexico Border. This budget includes $75

million for water and wastewater projects along the U.S.-Mexico Border. These resources help our Agency to address the serious environmental and human health

problems associated with untreated and industrial and municipal sewage on the

U.S.-Mexico border.

Strong Science

The fiscal year 2003 budget supports our efforts to further strengthen the role of

science in decisionmaking by using scientific information and analysis to help direct

policy and establish priorities. EPA will achieve maximum environmental and

health protections through our request of $627 million for the Office of Research and

Development to address both current and future environmental challenges. This Administration is committed to the incorporation of science into regulatory decisions

by having scientists participate early and often in the regulatory development process. The budget request supports a balanced research and development program

that addresses Administration and Agency priorities, as well as meets the challenges of the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), and other environmental statutes.

Environmental Information

In fiscal year 2003, we will further our commitment to providing assistance to

States and tribes to develop and implement the National Environmental Information Exchange Network. The goal of this program is to advance collaborative efforts

to integrate environmental data between and among EPA, States and the Agency’s

other partners. The ability to easily exchange up-to-date, accurate information is

critical to meet today’s increasingly complex environmental challenges. The grant

program has several components, each of which is aimed at building on the growing

success of States and tribes in finding smarter alternatives to the current approaches for exchanging environmental data. The grants being offered include

grants to enable States and tribes to re-engineer their environmental reporting;

grants to demonstrate progress in developing a joint EPA/State National Environmental Information Exchange Network, and grants that challenge State or multistate or tribal efforts to integrate environmental information.

22

As EPA works with States and tribes to develop the National Environmental Information Exchange Network, we will also continue to build and institutionalize a

Central Data Exchange (CDX) which will be EPA’s focal point for securely receiving,

translating, and forwarding data to EPA’s data systems. In fiscal year 2003, the

CDX will service 45 States and an assemblage of 25,000 facilities, companies, and

laboratories. By widely implementing an electronic reporting infrastructure, this infrastructure will reduce reliance on less efficient paper-based processes, thereby improving data quality, reducing reporting burden, and simplifying the reporting process.

Enforcement Grant Programs

Most of our nation’s environmental laws envision a strong role for State governments in implementing and managing environmental programs. The fiscal year

2003 request includes $15 million in a new grant program to continue to support

State agencies implementing authorized, delegated, or approved environmental enforcement programs. These funds will continue to afford States a greater role in the

enforcement of environmental laws and regulations.

This budget request will allow our Agency to continue to support the regulated

community’s compliance with environmental requirements through voluntary compliance incentives and assistance programs. We will provide information and technical assistance to the regulated community through the compliance assistance program to increase its understanding of all statutory or regulatory environmental requirements. The program will also continue to develop strategies and compliance assistance tools that will support initiatives targeted toward improving compliance in

specific industrial and commercial sectors or with certain regulatory requirements.

Safe Food

The fiscal year 2003 request includes $142.3 million to help meet the multiple

challenges of the implementation of the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996

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

most affordable food supplies in the world. FQPA provides for the expedited registration of reduced risk pesticides to introduce alternatives to the older versions on

the market. EPA implements its various authorities in a manner to ensure that

farmers are able to transition with a minimal disruption in production to safer substitutes and alternative farming practices. Expanded support for tolerance reassessments will reduce the potential risks to public health from older pesticides. Reassessing existing tolerances promotes food safety, especially for infants and children,

while ensuring that pesticides meet the most current health and safety standards.

This budget request also supports FQPA-related science through scientific assessments of cumulative risk, including funds for validation of testing components of the

Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program.

Summary

Taken together, the President’s proposed EPA budget for fiscal year 2003 fully

supports the work of our Agency. It will enable us to transform the Agency’s 30-

year mission to meet the challenges of the 21st century. It brings us that much closer to realizing our goals of cleaner air for all Americans to breathe, purer water for

all Americans to drink, swim and fish in, as well as safeguarding public health.

This concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to answer any questions that you may have.

RESPONSES OF HON. CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM

SENATOR BOXER

Question 1. Restoration of Contaminated Sites—The pace of clean-ups of contaminated sites has been declining. In Fiscal Year 2000, 87 NPL clean-ups were completed; In Fiscal Year 2001, 47 clean-ups were completed (In last year’s budget proposal, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimated that 75 clean-ups

would be completed in 2001.) In 2002, 40 clean-ups are projected to be completed.

In 2003, 40 clean-ups are also projected.

Please explain why the pace of cleanup is slowing so dramatically? Why was there

such a large discrepancy between estimated and actual cleanups?

Response. Entering into fiscal year 2001, the Superfund program had already anticipated a reduction in achieving site construction completions. This was a result

of a variety of factors, including the legacy of past decisions on priorities for funding; the size and number of construction projects (operable units) for the remaining

NPL sites still eligible for construction completion; and the need to balance a number of competing environmental priorities within the Superfund Program. In preVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:04 Jan 30, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\81724 SENENV1 PsN: SENENV1
23

ceding years, the Agency had placed a priority onsites that were nearly complete,

creating a backlog of sites with significant years of work remaining. This remaining

universe of eligible sites includes area-wide groundwater sites, mining sites, sediment sites, and Federal facility sites.

Moving sites to completion remains an Agency priority. The Agency is launching

a Superfund Pipeline Management Review to identify areas in the Superfund cleanup process that can be managed in a way to maximize the amount of resources

available for cleanup construction and whether there may be alternative cleanup options available other than listing a site on the Superfund National Priority List

(NPL).

Question 1(a). I understand that EPA has asserted that sites underway are more

complex. Please provide a detailed explanation of what constitutes a more complex

site. In addition, please explain how EPA is determining that it is the complexity

of each site that is causing the slow down in clean-ups and how this assumption

is being verified and documented.

Response. The remaining universe of NPL sites that are not construction complete

are more complex than sites that have already achieved construction completion.

Many factors are included in complexity, which affects the duration and cost of

cleanups. Examples of some such factors include. contaminant characteristics, presence of multiple contaminants, area and volume of contamination, multi-media contamination, ecological issues, groundwater issues, remedial technology(ies) necessary, site location, proximity to populations, Potentially Responsible Party (PRP)

cooperation, presence of multiple PRPs, and other stakeholder interests (States,

Tribes, communities, natural resource trustees). While we have not attempted to assess all the characteristics that describe complexity on a site-specific basis, we have

a few surrogate measures that demonstrate how the current universe of non-construction complete NPL sites differs from NPL sites that are construction complete.

Type of facility. 21 percent of the remaining non-construction completed universe

of final NPL sites (675) are Federal facilities. Simply the nature of contamination

at these sites and their vastness defines these sites as complex. Only 4 percent of

construction completed sites are Federal facilities.

Mega-sites. Mega-sites, as defined by Resources for the Future, are non-Federal

facility sites with total cleanup costs estimated at $50 million or more. Of the 124

mega-sites that EPA has identified, 75 percent are not construction complete.

Number of operable units per site. In order to address the multiple aspects of site

cleanup, EPA may divide sites into smaller scale units, called operable units.

There are an average of 4.2 operable units per final, non-construction complete,

non-Federal facility mega NPL site, which 1.5 times greater than the number of operable units at comparable construction complete NPL sites.

There are an average of 1.9 operable units per final, non-construction complete,

non-Federal facility, non-mega NPL site, which is 1.3 times greater than the number of operable units at comparable construction complete NPL sites.

There are an average of 9.5 operable units per final, non-construction complete,

Federal facility NPL site, which 2.1 times greater than the number of operable units

at comparable construction complete NPL sites.

Question 2. Superfund Tax—The Federal Superfund tax account is nearly exhausted due to the expiration of the Superfund tax. General revenues will soon fully

replace the tax as a source of funding. The Superfund tax was paid by polluting industries throughout the country. They have experienced a tax holiday for more than

5 years.

Does EPA support the reauthorization of the Superfund tax or do you support

shifting the full burden of the federally funded portion of the Superfund program

to the general taxpayer?

Response. A number of years have passed since the Superfund taxes expired. Although the Superfund taxes expired, the annual appropriations for the program

have remained relatively steady. It is important to note, that the expiration of the

taxes has not affected the appropriated funding for the Superfund program. EPA is

confident that Congress and the Administration will continue to work together to

provide appropriate funding for the Superfund program. Although the President’s

Fiscal Year 2003 budget does not propose enacting Superfund taxes at this time,

the issue may be revisited for the fiscal year 2004 budget. Specific details on the

President’s request for Superfund in fiscal year 2004 will be developed within the

executive branch over the course of the next several months, and submitted to Congress in February 2003.

Question 3. Federal enforcement is a critical backstop to State enforcement programs. EPA proposed to cut enforcement personnel in the Fiscal Year 2002 budget,

and this proposal was rejected. In the conference language to the VA/HUD approVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:04 Jan 30, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\81724 SENENV1 PsN: SENENV1
24

priations bill, EPA was directed to ‘‘restore Federal enforcement positions in accordance with the fiscal 2001 Operating Plan.’’

Question 3(a). Please confirm that the Federal enforcement positions were restored in accordance with the direction in the VA/HUD conference report. Please

also indicate the number of Federal enforcement positions that you have included

or will include in the Fiscal 2003 Operating Plan. If there are fewer positions proposed for Fiscal Year 2003 for key Federal programs, such as civil enforcement, compliance monitoring and incentives, please indicate the number of vacancies that

have not been filled and the number of positions eliminated in Fiscal Year 2003

compared to 2001 levels.

Answer 3(a). EPA restored workyears to the enforcement program consistent with

funding provided by Congress in the fiscal year 2002 appropriations. Congress appropriated an increase of $15 million to the Fiscal Year 2002 President’s Request

for enforcement, which provided funding for about 145 workyears. Due to the catastrophic events on ‘‘9/11’’, it was necessary to provide the Office of Enforcement and

Compliance Assurance (OECA) with additional workyears to support our homeland

security efforts. Therefore, the Agency restored 115 workyears to the enforcement

programs and 30 workyears were provided for homeland security.

While vacancies fluctuate at any given time, OECA is managing its on-board levels very close to its authorized workyear ceiling. Below, please find a table which

outlines the changes from the Fiscal Year 2001 operating plan to the fiscal year

2003 Request.

Fiscal Years 2001–2003 Workyear Crosswalk

Program FY 2001

Budget

Changes

in FY

2002 Request

Congressional

Restoration &

Agency

Cut in

2002

Budget

Changes

in FY

2003 Request

FY 2003

Request

Compliance Monitoring ....................................................................... 528.5 ¥93.0 +29.0 ¥26.7 437.8

Civil Enforcement ................................................................................ 1,012.2 ¥92.0 +34.2 ¥49.3 905.1

Criminal Enforcement ......................................................................... 300.1

¥4.4

+1.9 ¥3.2 294.4

Homeland Security .............................................................................. +30.0 30.0

Superfund Enforcement ....................................................................... 1,030.6 ¥63.5 +52.4 1,019.5

Compliance Assistance ....................................................................... 213.4 +6.9 ¥6.9 ¥11.9 201.5

Compliance Incentives ........................................................................ 97.3 ¥6.4 ¥0.2 ¥5.9 84.8

Capacity Building, NEPA, Environ. Justice ......................................... 205.0 ¥11.2 ¥0.1 ¥1.7 92.0

Enforcement Training 25.0 ¥6.2 ¥0.5 ¥1.3 17.0

Data Management ............................................................................... 124.2 124.2

Brownfields .......................................................................................... 0.5 +4.5 5.0

Total .................................................................................................... 3,536.8 ¥269.8 +139.8 ¥95.5 3,311.3

Question 3(b). EPA’s Fiscal Year 2003 budget proposes that $15 million be directed to a State enforcement grant program. What is the authority for this program? If Federal enforcement positions are not maintained at Fiscal Year 2001 levels in your proposed budget, would the funding proposed for this new State grant

program be sufficient to cover the cost of maintaining these positions? Does EPA

view State activities and capacity building as a substitute for Federal enforcement?

How will EPA measure the accomplishments of State enforcement programs?

Answer 3(b). While we believe we have existing authority, we are proposing an

expansion of that authority to accommodate the multimedia context in which the

grants will be administered. Accordingly, authorizing language in the appropriations

bill that funds the program would facilitate the administration of the grants.

EPA and the States have different, but complementary roles when it comes to enforcement of our Nation’s environmental laws. States have primary responsibility

for implementing and enforcing most environmental programs through delegated

authority from the EPA. The EPA’s Federal role is to implement and enforce programs that cannot be delegated to States, to handle more complex cases involving

multiple States or corporations with multiple facilities, to deal with issues that require expertise or resources that only EPA can provide, and to enforce when States

are unable or unwilling to. Given the interplay between the State and Federal programs, we believe the State and tribal enforcement grant program will enhance both

State and EPA efforts to increase compliance with environmental laws.

25

States will be approved for grant funding only if their grant proposal includes specific plans to measure and report on their performance in achieving results. For example, for environmental risks or noncompliance patterns they are addressing with

the grant funds, States will need to define performance measures for determining

whether they are having an impact (e.g., pollution reductions, improved environmental practices at facilities or within an industry, increased compliance rates).

EPA will establish required reporting intervals for States to provide performance information which can be reviewed on a regular basis by EPA.

Question 4. Hazardous Waste Regulations—EPA’s budget proposal includes discussion of a plan to exclude lower risk wastes from hazardous waste regulation.

Does EPA also plan to review higher risk wastes and regulate them as hazardous

if they are not currently part of the hazardous waste system?

Response. The Agency is taking a balanced approach to ensure that high-risk

wastes are appropriately regulated under RCRA, and that low-risk wastes are not

over-regulated. We agree that there is a continuing need to evaluate whether wastes

should be brought into the hazardous waste system, or otherwise addressed to control potential risks. In recent years the Agency has completed a number of evaluations of industrial wastes to determine if any of these should be added to the list

of hazardous wastes. These include recent evaluations of wastes from the paint

manufacturing, inorganic chemicals, and chlorinated aliphatics production industries. We are also continuing investigations into other wastes of potential concern

(e.g., wastes from the dye and pigment production industries), and we are examining certain wastes that are already regulated as hazardous to clarify the scope of

the regulations (e.g., spent petroleum catalysts). As discussed in the EPA budget,

we are also examining a limited number of specific waste streams for potential exemptions under RCRA, to the extent they do not pose a risk to public health or the

environment. This effort is an outgrowth of a previous rulemaking and public comment. Subsequently, we were directed in the fiscal year 2002 appropriation to expeditiously address these requests for exemptions.

In summary, we intend to continue to improve management of wastes by both effectively addressing wastes that present risks of concern while also ensuring that

other waste streams are not inappropriately over-regulated.

RESPONSES OF HON. CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM

SENATOR CAMPBELL

Question 1. Global Climate Change—I have supported the use of market based

mechanisms in Federal regulation. Market based approaches lead to efficient allocation of resources, resulting in greater all around benefits. The acid rain program is

a strong example of what market based approaches can do. I understand that the

Administration is preparing to release new guidelines for emissions reductions as

indexed to economic output. Could you briefly discuss how such an approach could

work?

Response. The President’s climate change policy sets a goal of an 18 percent reduction in greenhouse gas intensity the ratio of emissions to economic activity in

the U.S. over the next 10 years. In practical terms, this means that fewer tons of

greenhouse gases will be emitted for every million dollars of gross domestic product.

The Administration predicts that current trends of technology improvement and current climate programs will cause greenhouse gas intensity to fall by 14 percent from

2002 2012. The President’s goal calls for an additional 4 percent reduction in greenhouse gas intensity for the period.

Administration estimates are that this 4 percent reduction in greenhouse gas intensity translates into roughly a 100 million metric ton reduction in greenhouse

gases by 2012. To achieve this goal, the President proposes investments in the development of new, lower emitting, technologies and tax incentives for the adoption

of such technologies. In addition to the focus on emissions, the President’s plan supports improvement in carbon sequestration through agricultural activities. Further,

the President has challenged American business and industry to form partnerships

with the Administration to achieve these goals.

Question 2. How have the priorities changed in response to the recent economic

slowdown and September 11 attacks?

Response. EPA played a critical role in responding to the September 11, 2001, attacks at the World Trade Center in New York City and the Pentagon. At the World

Trade Center, the Agency aided in debris removal from Ground Zero, combined efforts with Occupational Health and Safety Administration and the New York City

Department of Health to monitor worker exposure to contaminated dust and particVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:04 Jan 30, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\81724 SENENV1 PsN: SENENV1
26

ulate matter, and coordinated with the New York City Department of Environmental Protection to sample drinking water and ambient air quality. Similar monitoring efforts were conducted at the Pentagon crash site. At the Senate Hart Office

Building in Washington, DC, EPA worked with the Sergeant at Arms, who served

as the lead, during the Anthrax decontamination process, which was successfully

completed in January 2002.

While the Agency continues its mission of protecting public health and the environment, we also recognize that homeland security efforts do not end with the conclusion of cleanup efforts in New York and Washington, DC. Protecting the nation’s

water supply, securing and protecting EPA’s facilities and employees, improving the

Agency’s ability to respond to any major terrorist incident, supporting and coordinating with other law enforcement agencies, and initiating research activities to

achieve a higher level of preparedness will continue to be important priorities as

EPA works to improve the nations’s homeland security.

Question 3. Endangered Species—You mention that in the new budget, the EPA

will strengthen the role of science in decisionmaking to direct policy and priorities.

We’ve seen, in the last few months, faulty and misdirected science having disastrous

effects in both the Canadian Lynx studies and Oregon’s Klamath Basin. How is the

EPA prepared to prevent such future problems by ensuring balanced and unbiased

scientific research?

Response. I do agree with you about the importance of science in decisionmaking

to direct policy and priorities. EPA’s Peer Review Policy helps ensure that the best

available scientific information is used in EPA decisions in a balanced and unbiased

way. This policy requires that major scientific and technical work products used in

Agency decisions receive critical review by qualified individuals (or organizations)

who are independent from, but have equivalent expertise to, those who performed

the work. While our peer review policy does not apply to science developed or used

by other Federal agencies, as in the two cases cited in your question, since 1994

it has applied not only to all science conducted by EPA’s program and regional offices, but also to science done by others but used by EPA.

This year we are taking additional steps to support our continued use of the best

available science in decisionmaking. First, we have enhanced the participation of

our Office of Research and Development (ORD) in the Agency’s decisionmaking process, including creating additional ORD positions that are dedicated to coordinating

scientific input into regulatory policies. Second, EPA is currently drafting its new

guidelines to implement the Office of Management and Budget’s information quality

guidance. These new guidelines will outline the quality requirements for all information disseminated by EPA, and for influential information—including scientific

research findings—the guidelines will set high standards for objectivity, utility, and

integrity. This will include meeting stringent criteria for transparency and reproducibility of findings.

Rigorous peer review of our science, and early and continued involvement of our

scientists in decisionmaking, will allow EPA to continue to be confident that the

science used in our decisions is balanced, unbiased, and appropriately applied to the

issue at hand. Doing so not only results in better decisions, but enhanced service

to the American public through more effective accomplishment of our mission to protect human health and safeguard the natural environment.

RESPONSES OF HON CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM

SENATOR CLINTON

Question 1. As you know, indoor air quality is one of the largest outstanding environmental issues around Ground Zero. I was pleased that in the letter that you sent

to me on February 12, 2002, you committed to working with local, State, and Federal partners to establish a Task Force on Indoor Air in Lower Manhattan, and I

look forward to working with you in this regard.

I believe that it is imperative that this Task Force conducts door-to-door inspections and indoor sampling within no less than a 10 block radius of Ground Zero.

The Task Force should also operate a centralized location where the public can get

information on whether their building has been tested/inspected, the results of those

tests, and clear guidance on cleanup requirements, resources available to pay for

cleanups, and certified cleanup companies in the area.

Please provide more detailed information on the Task Force, including. (1) the

proposed make-up of the Task Force, (2) the Task Force’s proposed mission, (3) a

proposed schedule for completion of necessary indoor air activities, and (4) a proposed budget for the Task Force.

27

Response. 1. EPA established the Task Force in mid-February. The list of

taskforce members is attached.

2. The Task Force’s mission is to assure that people are not being exposed to pollutants related to the World Trade Center collapse at levels that might pose long

term health risks. On May 8, 2002, EPA and its Federal, State and city partners

announced a comprehensive plan to ensure that apartments impacted by the collapse of the world trade center have been properly cleaned. The attached fact sheet

provides more details. EPA, New York City, the Federal Emergency Management

Agency (FEMA), and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)

are taking a collaborative approach that will include: • Cleanup of residential units on request, using certified contractors; • Followup testing for asbestos in the indoor air for requesting households; • Availability of HEPA (High Efficiency Particulate Air) filter vacuums; • Establishment of a hotline to provide information and take cleanup and testing

requests; • Distribution of health and cleanup information; and Professional cleanup of remaining unoccupied, uncleaned buildings.

3. At this time, there is no established end date for these activities.

4. Under the plan, FEMA will provide a grant to New York City that will pay

for the professional cleaning and testing. EPA will continue to work with the City

and FEMA to identify future projects and funding needs.

Question 2a. According to EPA’s budget summary document, it appears that

FEMA has provided the necessary resources for EPA to conduct the outdoor air

sampling that it has been and continues to do in New York City. Is that correct? Response. Yes. FEMA has transferred over $95 million to EPA for response activities at the World Trade Center Site.

Question 2b. What resources has EPA used for the anthrax cleanups at private

sites, the Postal Service, other government agency sites, and the U.S. Capitol complex? How much of that funding came out of your Superfund program and how

much came out of the 1902 Supplemental? Response. EPA has expended over $25 million for Capitol Hill response out of its

Superfund removal program. The Fiscal Year 2002 Defense Appropriations Act,

which included the Supplemental for Counter-terrorism reimbursed EPA for $12.5

million of that. The Administration is requesting the remaining $12.5 million in the

latest Supplemental request.

In general, the USPS, other government agencies and privately owned facilities,

such as the America Media, Inc. site in Florida, are funding their own cleanups.

EPA is providing technical assistance from our On-Scene Coordinators, our Environmental Response Team, and other personnel. EPA estimates that it has spent approximately $2 million for anthrax cleanup and technical assistance at sites other

than the Capitol Hill Complex.

Question 2c. In your February 12, letter to me, you mentioned that you were already working with the City and ATSDR on indoor air quality in Lower Manhattan

by providing resources to analyze indoor air and dust samples from 30 buildings in

Lower Manhattan. What was the source of these resources?

Response. FEMA provided funding for the original sampling and will fund additional project components that are eligible under its programs.

Question 2d. Why in your February 12 letter to me did you suggest that the resources for the new Indoor Air Task Force should come from the CDBG money appropriated for New York last year? As I’m sure your are aware, the use of that

money is at the discretion of Governor Pataki. In addition, the demands on the

CDBG money for economic redevelopment and revitalization in lower Manhattan

unfortunately already far exceed these resources.

Response. While I am sure the demands on these CDBG resources is great, as you

know, eligible activities of CDBG funds include the provision of services related to

public health. This could potentially include addressing the indoor environmental

needs of residents and building owners in Lower Manhattan.

Question 3. EPA’s budget summary States that you will be using funds from the

1902 Supplemental to develop ‘‘Additional information needed to determine the

risks to human health from short-term exposures to acutely toxic chemicals.’’ Please explain this effort further. What chemicals will EPA be looking at? Will

this effort in any way be targeted to addressing the short-term exposures experienced at the World Trade Center?

Response. EPA’s National Advisory Committee for Acute Exposures for Hazardous

Substances (NAC/AEGL Committee) is working with experts of the Environmental

& Occupational Health Sciences Institute (EOHSI) to develop a list of chemicals of

concern in the World Trade Center disaster and to assess the ability to develop

28

acute exposure values for emergency planning scenarios. These experts will provide

the NAC/AEGL Committee with the results of their analyses of the World Trade

Center disaster and meet with the committee to discuss the short-term exposures

of concern from the viewpoint of both vulnerable areas just following the event and

also re-entry considerations. Included in the substances of concern are glass fibers,

PM2.5 and greater micron diameter particles, benzene and toluene emissions from

jet fuel combustion, phthalates and polyaromatic hydrocarbons (chrysenes,

anthracenes, pyrenes) from building materials and some brominated flame

retardants.

Question 4. EPA’s budget summary document also mentioned that EPA will be

using money from the 1902 Supplemental to ‘‘provide environmental updates on environmental data to the Agency’s website regarding cleanup efforts at the World

Trade Center.’’ Please explain this effort in further detail.

Response. In the aftermath of the World Trade Center (WTC) disaster, EPA assumed responsibility for developing and maintaining a multi-agency data base to

house both the results of ambient air monitoring conducted in New York City and

its surrounding environments to determine the environmental impacts of the 9/11

event. In addition, EPA has been posting the results of its own WTC sampling and

monitoring activities on the Agency website (found at www.epa.gov) since September

25, 2001. While some monitoring organizations have ceased their operations, EPA,

the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, and the New York

City Department of Environmental Protection continue to monitor in the vicinity of

the WTC. EPA will continue to accept new data updates into the data base and update its public website postings as long as monitoring activities are advancing. In

addition, EPA plans to make the data base publicly available later this year and

will be renewing the public version of the system as new data becomes available.

Question 5. With respect to Homeland Security in the Administration’s Fiscal

Year 2003 proposal for EPA, the lion’s share of the funding would go to conducting

research on ‘‘better technologies and assessments to clean up buildings contaminated by biological and chemical agents.’’ Please explain this effort in further detail.

What will this include in addition to anthrax?

Response. The President’s 2003 budget allocated $75,000,000 to the Environmental Protection Agency for research on building security and decontamination.

EPA developed a 2-year plan for development, testing, and communication of enhanced methods for detection, containment, decontamination, and disposal of cleanup equipment after intentional introduction of biological or chemical contaminants

into large buildings. This plan includes consideration of biological and chemical warfare agents as well as toxic bulk industrial chemicals, and the plan addresses both

indoor releases of contaminants and proximal outdoor releases.

As part of this effort, the Agency will test and verify existing devices to detect

contaminants, develop new devices or methods of detection, equip vans with detection instrumentation for rapid response, and design a detection network. Research

will also be conducted to develop and test methods for preventing the spread of contaminants, and to protect building occupants, emergency responders, and decontamination crews. In addition, EPA researchers will look at methods for decontaminating indoor surfaces and methods for disposing of contaminated clean-up materials. The Agency also plans to provide guidance on improved detection, containment, and decontamination methods for facility managers, emergency responders,

decontamination crews, and those sampling and analyzing materials in the environment.

Question 6. How will EPA work to incorporate its experience in New York into

its Homeland Security Initiative?

Response. EPA has developed a lessons learned document that has been distributed within the Agency. The lessons identified in this document, along with other

assessments, will help EPA to develop its Agency-wide Homeland Security Strategy.

EPA’s strategy will be incorporated into the National Strategy.

Question 7a. It is my understanding that EPA’s Inspector General has already

recommended that contaminant asbestos be regulated under the Clean Air Act and

that EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation has agreed with this recommendation. Can

you please tell the committee what actions are already under way or that the Agency intends to take in this regard?

Answer 7a. The Inspector General recommended that EPA consider the need for

regulation of contaminant asbestos under the Clean Air Act through National Emissions Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP).

Contaminant asbestos emissions are potentially associated with a wide variety of

mineral mining and processing operations. Because of the potential for asbestos exposure resulting from emissions and other pathways associated with inappropriate

29

material handling and disposal, we agree that the need for regulation of contaminant asbestos sources under the NESHAP program should be considered. However,

there are significant issues which must be addressed when considering NESHAP development for contaminant asbestos sources.

We have developed an Action Plan for determining the need for NESHAP for a

broad range of contaminant asbestos emissions sources. The objective of the Action

Plan is to identify the steps and associated activities necessary to gather the information needed to decide whether regulations for sources of contaminant asbestos

are warranted.

Question 7b. I also understand that EPA’s Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxic

Substances has committed to forming a ‘‘Blue Ribbon Panel’’ on policy issues ‘‘associated with the use and management of asbestos and other durable fibers’’ by mid–

2002. Please tell the committee if this is proceeding on schedule? How will the asbestos issues resulting from the September 11 attacks be addressed by the Panel?

Response. Blue Ribbon Panel—EPA is establishing a panel of informed stakeholders (which includes industry, school officials, EPA, health and risk assessors,

and the public) to provide independent advice and council on policy issues associated

with asbestos. The panel will consider how the Agency should best focus its resources to address asbestos products still in use and asbestos products found in

homes, commercial buildings, and schools. The first panel meeting will be in late

Summer 2002.

The panel is expected to address asbestos issues resulting from the September 11

attacks. For example, the Panel will address air emissions standards for asbestos,

discuss the use of asbestos-containing building materials, and work to develop a consumer education campaign.

Question 8. Once again, funding for the Long Island Sound has been severely cut

from this year’s enacted level. Why?

Response. The reduction from $2.5 million to $477 thousand reflects the elimination of the fiscal year 2002 earmark of $2.003 million. Our fiscal year 2003 request is equal to our request for fiscal year 2002.

Question 9. The National Estuary Program is already woefully under-funded, and

could provide significant benefits for important estuary resources around the country, such as the Peconic Estuary on Long Island. Why is there a significant cut in

funding proposed by the Administration for the National Estuary Program?

Response. As with Long Island Sound funding, the reduction in total levels for the

National Estuary Program reflects elimination of a $5.5 million earmark appropriated in fiscal year 2002.

RESPONSES OF HON. CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM

SENATOR JEFFORDS

Question 1. I have been told that, nationally, our superfund site needs are three

times greater that the money available. How much money would be necessary in

fiscal year 2003 for the program to operate at the optimal level?

Response. This Administration is committed to the polluter pays principle. Due

to the polluter pays structure of Superfund, approximately 70 percent of non-Federal Superfund sites are financed and cleaned up by private parties. Other sites are

cleaned up by EPA with costs recovered from private parties after cleanup.

Last year, EPA produced a near record amount in private party cleanup commitments and cost recovery—$1.7 billion—an increase from the previous year of almost

$300 million. Of the $1.7 billion, EPA recovered $413 million in cleanup costs—a

large increase from the $145 million recovered in the previous year. The total value

of these settlements with responsible parties exceeds $18 billion. EPA will continue

to pursue agreements with responsible parties to conduct future cleanup work wherever possible.

The President’s budget request of $1.29 billion for Superfund reflects a strong

commitment to clean up hazardous waste sites. The fiscal year 2003 budget includes

an almost $200 million increase in such funding. While funding in Superfund is essentially flat as compared to fiscal year 2002, the Budget includes $200 million for

Brownfields funding through other accounts. Prior to the President signing the

Brownfields legislation in December, Brownfields funding was provided through the

Superfund account and within the fiscal year 2002 Superfund total. At the budget

levels requested by the President for fiscal year 2003, EPA expects to maintain

progress at Superfund sites, and EPA’s presence at sites with ongoing work will continue. EPA will continue to ensure that available funds are directed to the highest

priority sites and projects.

30

Question 2. I understand that in Region 1, for example, the funding in the ‘‘pipeline’’ (used for remedial investigations, feasibility studies, and removal work) has

dropped from $45 million in 2000 to $24-$26 million this year. Can you explain this

dramatic decrease in funding to me?

Response. As part of the budget process, EPA allocates resources to each region

for specific categories of work. Allocations of ‘‘pipeline’’ resources are predominantly

contractor resources. In fiscal year 2000, EPA allocated $29.4 million to Region 1

for pipeline activities. The region was able to augment this ‘‘base’’ allocation to nearly $45 million by using deobligated funds from closed/expired contracts. The pipeline

allocation for Region 1 in fiscal year 2002 is $24.8 million. The reason for the reduction from the fiscal year 2000 ($29.4 million) is based on the implementation of a

new methodology for allocating pipeline resources among the ten regions.

Question 3. Is there any data documenting an increase in the complexity of Superfund sites?

Response. The remaining universe of NPL sites that are not construction complete

are more complex than sites that have already achieved construction completion.

Many factors are included in complexity, which affects the duration and cost of

cleanups. Examples of some such factors include. contaminant characteristics, presence of multiple contaminants, area and volume of contamination, multi-media contamination, ecological issues, groundwater issues, remedial technology(ies) necessary, site location, proximity to populations, Potentially Responsible Party (PRP)

cooperation, presence of multiple PRPs, and other stakeholder interests (States,

Tribes, communities, natural resource trustees). While we have not attempted to assess all the characteristics that describe complexity on a site-specific basis, we have

a few surrogate measures that demonstrate how the current universe of non-construction complete NPL sites differs from NPL sites that are construction complete.

Type of facility. 21 percent of the remaining non-construction completed universe

of final NPL sites (675) are Federal facilities. Simply the nature of contamination

at these sites and their vastness defines these sites as complex. Only 4 percent of

construction completed sites are Federal facilities.

Mega-sites. Mega-sites, as defined by Resources for the Future, are non-Federal

facility sites with total cleanup costs estimated at $50 million or more. Of the 124

mega-sites that EPA has identified, 75 percent are not construction complete.

Number of operable units per site. In order to address the multiple aspects of site

cleanup, EPA may divide sites into smaller scale units, called operable units.

• There are an average of 4.2 operable units per final, non-construction complete,

non-Federal facility mega NPL site, which 1.5 times greater than the number of operable units at comparable construction complete NPL sites.

• There are an average of 1.9 operable units per final, non-construction complete,

non-Federal facility, non-mega NPL site, which is 1.3 times greater than the number of operable units at comparable construction complete NPL sites.

• There are an average of 9.5 operable units per final, non-construction complete,

Federal facility NPL site, which 2.1 times greater than the number of operable units

at comparable construction complete NPL sites.

Question 4. Is the EPA meeting its reduction goals for per capita municipal solid

waste generation? What is the goal in fiscal year 2003?

Response. Yes, EPA is on track to meet the 2005 per capita municipal solid waste

generation goal and recycling goal. EPA challenged the Nation to attain two municipal solid waste goals by the year 2005; maintain per capita solid waste generation

at the 1990 level of 4.5 pounds per day; and increase recycling to 35 percent. Now,

as year 2000 results are compiled, most recent available data indicate that in 1999

Americans generated 4.62 pounds per capita per day and recycled 27.8 percent.

In fiscal year 2003, the annual performance goal is to divert an additional 1 percent (for a cumulative total of 32 percent or 74 million tons) of municipal solid waste

from land filling and combustion, and maintain per capita generation of RCRA

MSW at 4.5lbs per day. In furthering the national goals, EPA expects that year

2003 per capita waste generation will continue near the 1999 level, and recycling

will approach 32 percent.

EPA partnerships with States, tribes, local governments, and businesses in

projects such as WasteWise, Jobs Through Recycling, Extended Product Responsibility, and Pay-As-You-Throw financing are lending focus to the job creation, cost

savings, and energy benefits which accrue from waste reduction and recycling.

The Administration is building on past successes by establishing new priorities

with a focused commitment to waste reduction and recycling. These priorities include a retail initiative to raise environmental awareness of consumers and business

and encourage individuals to address environmental issues at the ‘‘hands-on’’ level

as a gateway to better environmental stewardship. Additional efforts will cultivate

31

innovative approaches to demonstrate the value of recycling and waste minimization

as integral components of the nation’s materials management strategy.

Question 5. EPA’s proposed budget includes the costs of additional retirement and

health benefits. In fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2002, what percentage of the

Agency’s full-time workforce was covered by the CSRS retirement system and what

percentage was covered by the FERS system?

Response. The Administration has proposed new legislation so that Federal agencies would, beginning in fiscal year 2003, pay the full government share of future

benefits under the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) and assume responsibility for the health benefits of all of their retirees (and their dependents/survivors).

This proposal is simply an accounting issue that shifts responsibility for paying

these costs from a centrally management account in OPM, to each Agency. In fiscal

year 2001, 36 percent of the Agency’s full-time workforce was covered by CSRS, as

opposed to 64 percent who were covered by the Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS). We estimate that 35 percent of the Agency’s full-time workforce will

be covered by CSRS, and 65 percent by FERS in fiscal year 2002.

Question 6. Since September 11, EPA has been asked to take on many additional

homeland defense activities. Last year’s terrorism supplemental provided increased

resources for EPA to carry out these new duties. In fiscal year 2003, the Agency

plans to spend $124 million on homeland defense activities, but is adding almost

no new employees overall. How many FTE are assigned to homeland defense activities? Are any EPA employees being reassigned from environmental protection to

homeland defense activities?

Response. Before September 11, 2001, EPA had 12 people working on Homeland

Security issues. In responding to the events of September 11 and the Anthrax incidents in Washington, New York, and Florida, EPA personnel were temporarily dislocated from what could be considered traditional activities of environmental protection. As cleanup at the World Trade Center and the Capitol Hill Complex have progressed, some affected Agency staff have resumed non-terrorist related environmental protection duties. The 2002 Emergency Supplemental and fiscal year 2003

President’s Budget Request incorporates new investments into EPA’s Homeland Security activities. The Agency is requesting additional FTE and also proposing to redirect over 45 FTE in fiscal year 2003 toward Homeland Security priorities. Currently, new jobs are being announced on a competitive basis. Employees inside the

Agency are able to compete for these job vacancies as well as anyone else. In the

President’s fiscal year 2003 budget, the Homeland security FTE will be 66.9, an almost six fold increase over fiscal year 2001.

Question 7. Please explain the decision to eliminate the STAR Fellowship Program and move the environmental education division to the National Science Foundation?

Response. The President’s Budget proposes to strengthen math and science education in the United States by improving the quality of math and science education

in grades K–12 and by attracting the most promising U.S. students into graduate

level science and engineering by providing more competitive stipends. The President’s K–12 math and science initiative and the higher graduate stipends are being

funded through the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) budget. NSF is noted for

its expertise and success in funding competitive programs in math and science. The

Budget increases NSF’s annual stipends for fellowship and tranineeship programs

from $21,500 to $25,000. Funding for EPA’s STAR Fellowship Program was eliminated in fiscal year 2003 as part of the larger initiative to strengthen math and

science programs through the National Science Foundation (NSF). EPA will continue funding for its Minority Academic Institutions (MAI) Fellowships program at

$1.5 million in fiscal year 2003.

Question 8. In general the mandates under the Safe Drinking Water Act are well

funded, however, parallel resources are not provided to Clean Water Act mandates,

resulting in erosion in the base programs run by States under Federal clean water

act mandates. What can be done to ensure appropriate funding exists for the core

work States are doing to keep our waters clean?

Response. The Clean Water Act Section 106 grants are a key component of assistance to States for base programs. The fiscal year 2003 President’s Budget Request

recognizes the importance of these State grant funds by proposing $180.4 million,

the largest Presidential request ever.

Question 9. Vermont is very pleased with the performance partnership model.

What can be done to expand the flexibility of that model and to ensure adequate

levels of funding/ensure that any new funds are incorporated within that agreement

rather than as add-on mandates from the Federal Government? (The financial presVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:04 Jan 30, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\81724 SENENV1 PsN: SENENV1
32

sures to keep up with the CWA/SDWA mandates does make it very difficult for

States to provide the level of services citizens should and do expect.)

Response. Performance Partnership Agreements have fostered a much improved

working relationship between the States and EPA. The partnership has resulted in

better communications, allowing States and EPA to take advantage of each other’s

unique strengths and abilities, leading to better environmental results cleaner and

safer air, water and better protected land.

One of the most important tools that complement this framework is the Performance Partnership Grant (PPG). Through PPGs, States can combine funds from up

to 16 environmental program grants into a single grant. This provides States with

the flexibility to direct Federal resources to address their most pressing environmental problems or program needs. Under PPGs, it is also easier to fund innovative

or cross-cutting activities, such as pollution prevention, compliance assistance or

data integration projects. Further, States also save on administrative costs because

of reduced paperwork and streamlined accounting procedures.

While the PPG is perhaps the most recognizable tool for facilitating funding flexibility, it is worth noting that the EPA recently revised its regulation governing the

administration of all environmental program grants to State, interstate and local

governmental agencies (Part 35 Rule, effective April 2001). This rule not only sets

forth the provisions for interested States to pursue funding flexibility through PPGs,

it also encourages EPA and States to set priorities together under all program

grants so that resources can be directed to address State needs within each program

area.

The revised rule allows the EPA Administrator to add, delete or change the list

of grants eligible for inclusion in PPGs. EPA wants to extend the funding flexibility

available through PPGs as much as is possible within the boundaries set by Congress in authorizing the PPG program. To that end, EPA recently added the newly

authorized Environmental Information Management grant program grants.

Performance Partnership principles have fostered a new understanding of the importance of EPA and States working together toward a common goal, as well as an

appreciation of the need to find new opportunities to help States direct precious resources where they are most needed. The achievement of optimal program and resource flexibility is, however, a work in progress, and can only be reached through

EPA and States’ continued partnership efforts.

Question 10. One of the most successful EPA sponsored programs in Vermont,

with impacts in upstate New York as well, is the Lake Champlain Basin Program.

This program is a real success story where the EPA, working with local partners

has made significant strides, in fact is ahead of schedule, on cleaning up Lake

Champlain. This important and successful program is proposed to be reduced from

the fiscal year 2002 level of $2.5 million to $954,800 in fiscal year 2003. How can

the program be maintained with such a large budget reduction?

Response. Our requested level will permit us to continue our successful efforts to

support implementation of the Lake Champlain Management Plan via funding for

the Lake Champlain Basin Program. The reduction reflects an elimination of the

$1.545 million earmark appropriated in fiscal year 2002; our request for fiscal year

2003 is equal to our request for fiscal year 2002.

Question 11. Please provide me with a detailed budget breakdown of EPA’s proposed spending on Tribal activities, and Tribal wastewater projects in particular, as

compared to fiscal year 2002 enacted levels.

Response. The President’s Budget request for EPA’s tribal program is $232 million in fiscal year 2003, an increase of $3.6 million from the fiscal year 2002 level

(see attachment). This request consists of the following.

• $34.7 million for EPA’s Environmental Programs and Management (EPM) account to support development of integrated environmental management programs.

This represents an increase of $300 thousand from fiscal year 2002 EPA funding.

• $116.7 million awarded to tribes from the State and Tribal Assistance Grant

(STAG) account, excluding infrastructure financing. This is a $5 million increase

from fiscal year 2002 EPA funding.

• $70.9 million under the Water Infrastructure Financing account. This represents a decrease of $2 million from fiscal year 2002 EPA funding; and

• $6.7 million for the Superfund Program and $3.2 million for the Leaking Underground Storage Tank program which maintains the fiscal year 2002 EPA funding

levels for these programs.

Wastewater funding

Of the $70.9 million above under the Water Infrastructure Financing account,

wastewater funding is a follows:

33

• $18.18 million is for the Clean Water Indian Set-aside Grant Program for tribal wastewater systems. This amount assumes that Congress will accept our proposal

to continue the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) set-aside funding at

1.5 percent. The difference in the EPA CWSRF fiscal year 2002 Appropriation

amount of $1.35 billion and the fiscal year 2003 President’s Request of $1.21 billion

accounts for the decrease of $2 million in the tribal set-aside funding.

• EPA estimates that with the fiscal year 2003 set-aside about 20 additional

grants will be awarded with an additional 1,700 tribal homes being served with adequate treatment systems.

The table below lists appropriations for the CW Indian Set-Aside Program since

its inception in 1987:

Clean Water Indian Set-Aside Grant Program Funding

Fiscal Year Appropriation Amount Projects Funded

1987 ........... $5,805,000 ................................................................... 7

1988 ........... 11,520,000 ................................................................... 19

1989 ........... 4,705,000 ..................................................................... 5

1990 ........... 4,867,600 ..................................................................... 8

1991 ........... Set-aside language not yet authorized in CWSRF.

1992 ........... 9,743,000 ..................................................................... 14

1993 ........... 9,637,500 ..................................................................... 12

1994 ........... 6,090,000 ..................................................................... 8

1995 ........... 6,175,000 ..................................................................... 24

1996 ........... 6,742,500 ..................................................................... 25

1997 ........... 6,750,000 ..................................................................... 29

1998 ........... 6,750,000 ..................................................................... 25

1999 ........... 6,750,000 ..................................................................... 28

2000 ........... 6,727,100 ..................................................................... 31

2001 ........... 20,205,500* ................................................................. 57

2002 ........... 20,250,000* ................................................................. yet to be determined

Total ........... $132,719,200 ............................................................... 292

* Reflects an increase in the percent of funds (0.5 percent to 1.5 percent) set-aside for fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2002 only from

the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (Title VI) for grants to Indian tribes and Alaskan Native Villages for wastewater treatment systems.

$40 million is requested in the fiscal year 2003 President’s Budget to address the

sanitation needs (drinking water and wastewater) of Alaska’s rural and Native Villages (an amount equal to the Agency’s fiscal year 2002 Appropriation).

EPA estimates that approximately 54 drinking water and wastewater projects will

be constructed, and that additional training and technical assistance will be provided.

The table below shows EPA’s appropriation since 1995:

Fiscal Year Appropriation Amount Projects Funded

1995 ........... $15,000,000 ................................................................. 25

1996 ........... 15,000,000 ................................................................... 35

1997 ........... 15,000,000 ................................................................... 40

1998 ........... 15,000,000 ................................................................... 35

1999 ........... 30,000,000 ................................................................... 51

2000 ........... 30,000,000 ................................................................... 51

2001 ........... 35,000,000 ................................................................... 48

2002 ........... 40,000,000 ................................................................... to be determined

Total ........... $195,000,000 ............................................................... 285

Question 12. Please explain why the President’s fiscal 2003 budget provides no

funding for the Clean Lakes Program.

Response. In recent years, EPA has encouraged States to use the section 319

Nonpoint Source Program to support the lakes and reservoir work which was previously funded under the section 314 Clean Lakes Program. Our policy is consistent

with the Senate Appropriations Committee conference reports in fiscal year 2000

and 2001 which included a suggestion that lakes activities be funded under the section 319 program and that 5 percent of section 319 funds be allocated to Clean

Lakes activities. Our grants reporting data indicate that a substantial amount of

lakes-related work is being supported under section 319. Specifically, grants reportVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:04 Jan 30, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\81724 SENENV1 PsN: SENENV1
34

ing data for fiscal year 1999 through fiscal year 2001 indicate that States are using

at least 5 percent of their section 319 funds annually in projects that directly benefit

lakes and reservoirs. We also echoed the Senate’s suggestion that ‘‘each State use

at least 5 percent of its section 319 funds for Clean Lakes activities’’ in our supplemental fiscal year 2000 section 319 guidance issued in Dec. 1999. The guidance emphasized that it applied to fiscal year 2000 319 grants and to grants issued ‘‘in future years.’’

Question 13. I am concerned about the rate of progress that EPA is making in

responding to the Supreme Court decision on the revised ozone and fine particulate

standards. That was just about 1 year ago. But, the Agency still hasn’t released an

implementation strategy so the States can really get started on the 8-hour ozone

rule. This is particularly unsettling in light of the findings from a recent public

health study. The study shows that children appear to actually develop asthma from

playing sports in areas with high ozone concentrations. Can you give me an idea

of what the schedule is on the new ozone standard?

Response. Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s action on February 27, 2001 EPA has

made much progress working with our State and other Federal partners to implement the revised ozone standard. The Agency successfully defended the standards

in the D.C. Circuit, which ruled on March 26, 2002, that the Agency acted reasonably when setting the 8-hour ozone standard. This is a significant victory in EPA’s

ongoing efforts to protect the health of millions of Americans from the dangers of

air pollution. Concurrently with defending the standards in court, the Agency has

been responding to the Supreme Court’s implementation decision. The Court held

that EPA’s approach for implementing the 8-hr ozone NAAQS was not acceptable

because it did not adequately consider the provisions of Title I, Part D, Subpart 2.

The Court directed EPA to develop an implementation approach that incorporates

appropriate principles from that part of the Clean Air Act. In response, EPA embarked upon a process of outreach to gather information and ideas that could underpin a Federal rulemaking dealing with the issues raised by the Court. EPA also

began to examine all of the complex issues surrounding the court mandate. Some

of the issues under consideration include. (1) the relationship of Subpart I to Subpart 2; (2) nonattainment area classifications and associated attainment dates; (3)

rate of progress requirements for nonattainment areas; (4) the role of mandatory

measures in State attainment plans; (5) the requirements for conformity of federally

supported projects such as highways and airports; and, (6) attainment demonstration requirements. In the fall of 2001, we began outreach efforts to fully inform the

elected officials and the general public of the issues. We have expanded the dialog

with interested parties, including States and local air agencies, other governmental

organizations, and individual stakeholders, to further the exchange of ideas and develop solutions. In early March of this year, we held public meetings in Washington

and Atlanta to receive input on the numerous issues. Over 150 persons attended

these meetings. A third public meeting is scheduled for April 3, 2002 in Phoenix.

Concerning our schedule for the ozone standard, we plan to propose an implementation rule this summer and issue a final rule about a year later.

Question 14. As you know from meeting with them, the Attorney General of

Vermont and other Attorneys General from other Northeast States are very concerned about New Source Review enforcement and regulations. They are worried

about what EPA and Justice are doing and what they will do. So am I.

Question 14(a). What is the Agency doing with the NSR enforcement actions it

has already started?

Answer. EPA’s enforcement activities to address New Source Review violations

continue to be vigorous. EPA has since January 2001 made approximately 87 information requests to power plants, refineries and other facilities, such as paper mills;

issued about 22 Notices of Violation; filed and concluded at least 7 cases; and engaged in numerous other enforcement activities such as depositions, motion practice

and on-going settlement discussions—all to enforce the Clean Air Act’s NSR requirements. We believe our NSR cases are strong and will continue to urge companies

to come to the table and settle these cases. In the meantime, we will vigorously pursue our investigations and litigation.

Question 14(b). Will EPA’s proposed budget change the level of effort, personnel

or resources allocated to prosecuting those actions already started?

Answer. No, the staff dedicated to NSR enforcement has, in fact, increased, in

that we recently hired two attorneys for that office. Additionally, we anticipate that

we will be able to manage the FTE reduction from fiscal year 2002 to fiscal year

2003 through normal attrition, without the reassignment of existing enforcement

staff and without a hiring freeze.

35

Moreover, we have since January 2001 filed and concluded 5 major cases against

refineries for NSR violations the combined effect of which will be an estimated reduction of 76,000 tons of sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions per year and 31,000 tons

of nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions per year. We also filed and concluded a major

case against a power plant, PSEG, which alone will reduce the company’s emissions

of sulfur dioxide (SO2) by 90 percent and its emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) by

more than 80 percent. These decreases represent 32 percent of all the SO2 and 20

percent of all the NOx emitted from stationary sources in New Jersey, and 19 percent of all the SO2 and 5 percent of all the NOx from all sources in the State, including cars and trucks.

Question 14 (c). Does EPA expect to initiate any new NSR enforcement actions

this year?

Answer. Yes, as described above, we continue to vigorously pursue NSR enforcement. As with any enforcement action, however, how soon and how many cases can

be concluded depends on the particular facts of each case.

Question 15. Please describe EPA’s new State enforcement program and explain

how it differs from the one the Agency proposed last year?

Response. Last year when the President’s fiscal year 2002 Budget proposed a $25

million enforcement grant program, EPA worked extensively with States and Tribes

to solicit and consider their comments and suggestions. The design for the proposed

$15 million program in the President’s fiscal year 2003 Budget provides for performance-based grants that will build on the comments and suggestions received previously. Options for use and allocation of grant funds identified during the outreach

process are outlined below.

Options for Use of Funds (One or a combination of options may be used)

• Capacity Building. funds would be used to expand the capabilities of existing

enforcement and compliance assurance programs.

• Problem-Based Strategies. funds would be used to implement a strategy to address a specific environmental risk or noncompliance pattern (identified by the State

or Tribe).

Options for Allocating Funds to States and Tribes (One or a combination of options may be used)

• Competitive Awards. funds will be awarded based on the merits of the proposal; not all States and tribes would receive funds.

• Base Share Grants. each State receives a minimum amount, plus additional

funds are available through the competitive award process.

• Tribal Set-Aside. Recognizing that Tribal environmental programs may not

compete well with States it may be necessary to set aside a portion of the funds

for Tribal grants.

ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM

Question 16. How many unfilled jobs exist in the enforcement division?

Response. In Fiscal Year 2002, the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance has a workyear ceiling of 3,407 (excluding the 50 FTE provided in the supplemental bill) across all appropriations among its Headquarters, Field and Regional

offices. We are managing very close to our current authorized FTE levels and expect

to lapse only a few workyears this year.

Question 17. EPA is currently spending 0.3 percent of the replacement value of

its real estate assets on building repairs and improvements, well below the real estate industry’s recommended level of 2 percent to 5 percent of the replacement

value. Is EPA under-funding its building repairs and improvements?

Response. We believe we have allocated sufficient resources for these activities.

Over the past 6 years, the Agency’s facility inventory has dramatically shifted from

primarily rent/leased facilities to government-owned facilities (39 percent owned in

fiscal year 1997 to 63 percent owned in fiscal year 2003). The Agency’s Repair and

Improvement account, which is the primary funding source for repairs and improvements, has remained constant over this same period. In recognition, the President’s

Budget contains a $10.0M increase over fiscal year 02 to begin mitigating the current repair backlog which exist in our facilities. This increase will enable EPA to

devote 1.2 percent of the replacement value of it’s real estate assets to repair and

maintenance, closer to the industry standard.

Question 18. On the topic of smart growth, I see a need for tools for community

planning, visualization of growth, development and design alternative modeling,

evaluation of fiscal and environmental impacts, and consensus-building.

Question 18a. Does EPA agree that decision support tools will assist communities

in making informed decisions by helping them understand the implications of difVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:04 Jan 30, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\81724 SENENV1 PsN: SENENV1
36

1General Accounting Office, Environmental Protection: Federal Incentives Could Help Promote Land Use That Protects Air and Water Quality, October 2001. GAO–02–12.

ferent choices and that these tools will help increase public involvement and help

all participants make choices based on sound technical information?

Answer. Yes, EPA believes that decision support tools are useful for communities

to make better informed decisions about how and where to grow. While the Federal

Government cannot and should not be a national or regional development board, it

can help expand the availability of these tools by partnering with selected organizations, and supporting an economy of scale that makes them more cost-effective and

accessible. An October 2001 GAO report found that local and State officials felt that

the Federal Government could provide technical assistance to assess and mitigate

land use impacts as a means to better protect air and water quality.1 EPA concurs

with that finding and, in order to be proactive on these issues, we are helping States

and communities realize the economic, community, and environmental benefits of

smart growth. We recognize that local land use decisions are best made by local officials, and that EPA can help them gather data and information on which to base

those decisions.

EPA’s current efforts focus on increasing the ability of State and local governments to evaluate the environmental impacts of development patterns. For example,

EPA is working with communities to pilot the use of the Smart Growth Index (SGI)

a GIS-based tool developed in partnership with the Criterion software company to

measure the discrete air and water impacts of proposed development decisions. Several additional cities will be piloting SGI in 2002. In addition, EPA’s Office of Policy,

Economics, and Innovation and the Office of Environmental Information are jointly

supporting the development of remote sensing data in three cities to examine longterm, development-related changes in the amount of open space, impervious surfaces, farmland, and urbanized land area. Remote sensing data projects will be

launched in an additional three cities by the end of 2002.

Regional EPA offices have also recognized the benefits of developing tools for local

decisionmaking. EPA’s Chicago office, for example, supported the development of LTHIA Long-Term Hydrological Impact Analysis which provides estimates of changes

in runoff, recharge, and nonpoint source pollution resulting from past or proposed

land use changes. EPA’s Atlanta office has partnered with the University of Florida

to map all large, ecologically significant properties in the entire eight-State southeast region. The resulting ‘‘greenprint’’ will provide systematic information to localities to support their protection of large ecosystem properties.

Question 18b. Does EPA have ideas on how to educate communities about such

tools, how to assist communities in determining which tools may be the most useful

in addressing their needs, and how to provide communities with the necessary resources to acquire such tools and put them to use?

Answer. Through its extensive work with partners in the Smart Growth Network,

EPA has been successful in helping local and State governments to both apply relevant planning tools and develop new and innovative approaches to the decisionmaking challenges at hand. The Smart Growth Network—comprised of more than

30 leading organizations representing financiers, developers, local government leaders, community interests, and environmentalists—has been a critical link in EPA’s

collaboration with communities. Grants to Network partners have yielded some of

EPA’s most effective efforts to date to educate communities. Through a grant to

CONCERN, EPA supports a website that receives an average of 10,000 hits per day,

and is identified by the American Planning Association as one of the ten leading

Web-based resources on smart growth. Grants to Network partners Local Government Commission and Urban Land Institute have resulted in a successful 5-year

track record of conferences on smart growth tools and approaches, the most recent

one of which (January 2002 in San Diego) attracted 900 participants, largely representing local governments. With EPA’s support, the International City/County

Management Association currently provides Smart Growth Network member services to approximately 600 individual members and serves as an important clearinghouse of information for those interested in smart growth.

New activities in 2002 will continue to focus on facilitating smart growth implementation by communities, and the application of newly available tools to assist

community decisionmaking. A new initiative announced by Governor Whitman will

provide direct technical assistance to roughly ten pilot communities to implement

new tools to help them prioritize open space for preservation. In so doing, these communities can better accommodate needed growth while preserving their most fragile

and environmentally critical lands. In addition, EPA will begin a new effort to supVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:04 Jan 30, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\81724 SENENV1 PsN: SENENV1
37

port States as they facilitate and advance local implementation of smart growth

through a pilot State Workshop for Smart Growth scheduled for May 2002.

EPA’s own efforts and discussions with our partners in the Network have made

us aware of the full range of tools that continue to be in demand by communities.

Tools that would allow them to better analyze and estimate build-out scenarios, either through analytical models or visual representations, are of great assistance to

local decisionmakers and members of the public. Similarly, tools that will allow

planners and the public to more accurately assess the impacts (environmental,

transportation, fiscal, etc.) of projects can support improved decisionmaking. Visualization tools continue to be useful in conveying development options to a broad audience. More challenging is the need to develop and make available tools that better

reflect the true cost of various services (water, postal service, auto insurance, electricity, and infrastructure costs for impact fee assessment) by location, so as to enable local leaders to more equitably collect and distribute resources throughout a

community. Finally, tools that can aid communities in removing the barriers to development, such as red tape permit assessments or plans for disposal of vacant

properties, can facilitate the private sector’s full involvement in a community’s plans

for smart growth. EPA is working to support the wider availability of these types

of tools, but more help is needed to accomplish this enormous task.

Question 19. Please provide me with a detailed breakdown of EPA’s spending for

Smart Growth activities in the proposed fiscal year 2003 budget and how funding

compares to fiscal year 2002 enacted levels.

Answer. Funding designated for smart growth-related work is primarily located

in the Agency’s Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation (OPEI), which coordinates, among other activities, the Smart Growth Network. Resources for fiscal year

2002 and fiscal year 2003 are shown below.

Resources ($ in thousands)

FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 (Proposed)

$3,360.0* .............. 21.0 FTE .............. $3,868.0* ............ 20.0 FTE .............. $3,984.0* ............ 20.0 FTE

* Dollars include salary expenses

Resources in fiscal year 2002 are being evenly allocated between continued education and outreach efforts and direct implementation efforts. While the Agency will

continue to emphasize this dual approach in fiscal year 2003, we expect to place

greater emphasis on smart growth implementation in the coming years to meet rising demand at the State and local level for better tools and technical assistance.

Brief descriptions of these two efforts are provided below.

Maintain and Expand Smart Growth Outreach and Education

The Smart Growth Network is a principal source of information and expertise for

the smart growth field. The core of the Network’s information dissemination strategy is composed of four activities. the Smart Growth Network Web site, the Smart

Growth Network membership program, the annual Partners for Smart Growth conference, and the wide dissemination of research products, such as the Governor’s

Guide to Smart Growth in cooperation with the National Governors’ Association,

and Local Tools for Smart Growth in cooperation with the National Association of

Counties. A new activity in fiscal year 2002 to recognize leaders in smart growth

will also serve to demonstrate innovative approaches for communities and individuals.

Smart Growth Implementation

EPA will help communities put smart growth into action through technical assistance, the provision of tools, and local capacity building. These efforts will focus on

the three groups that have the greatest impact on smart growth implementation.

Local and State government; the private sector (developers, engineers, and financial institutions); and standard-setting organizations (such as the Institute of Transportation Engineers). For example, in fiscal year 2002, EPA will provide grants and

direct technical assistance to help communities better link open space preservation

to brownfields redevelopment in an effort to promote community-level smart growth.

Question 20. EPA’s budget states that the Agency will be working to ‘‘exclude

lower risk wastes from the hazardous waste regulation.’’ This is a policy that began

in the last Administration. I agree that low-risk wastes should not be subject to the

full panoply of hazardous waste regulation, but I see a need for balance. EPA did

a study in 1996 that demonstrated that many high-risk waste that should be in the

hazardous waste system are not. (For instance Texas, Rhode Island, Vermont and

38

New Jersey, among others, regulate some chemicals as hazardous that other States

do not) That study was not followed up with action. Does EPA agree that if lowrisk wastes are removed from the hazardous waste system, there is at least an

equal need to assure that hazardous chemicals that are very toxic and do threaten

groundwater and drinking water supplies should be in the hazardous waste system?

Response. The Agency is taking a balanced approach to ensure that high-risk

wastes are appropriately regulated under RCRA, and that low-risk wastes are not

over-regulated. We agree that there is a continuing need to evaluate whether wastes

should be brought into the hazardous waste system, or otherwise addressed to control potential risks. In recent years the Agency has completed a number of evaluations of industrial wastes to determine if any of these should be added to the list

of hazardous wastes. These include recent evaluations of wastes from the paint

manufacturing, inorganic chemicals, and chlorinated aliphatics production industries. We are also continuing investigations into other wastes of potential concern

(e.g., wastes from the dye and pigment production industries), and we are examining certain wastes that are already regulated as hazardous to clarify the scope of

the regulations (e.g., spent petroleum catalysts). As discussed in the EPA budget,

we are also examining a limited number of specific waste streams for potential exemptions under RCRA, to the extent they do not pose a risk to public health or the

environment. This effort is an outgrowth of a previous rulemaking and public comment. Subsequently, we were directed in the fiscal year 2002 appropriation to expeditiously address these requests for exemptions.

In summary, we intend to continue to improve management of wastes by both effectively addressing wastes that present risks of concern while also ensuring that

other waste streams are not inappropriately over-regulated.

Question 21. Please explain the decision to eliminate work on high-efficiency renewable fuel engines, as well as the development of a production prototype 85-mpg

family size vehicle.

Response. Federal agencies’ work under the Partnership for a New Generation of

Vehicles (PNGV) is winding down. The ‘‘big three’’ automakers have agreed to develop a fuel efficient vehicle using technology developed under PNGV. In fact, Ford

Motor Company expects to manufacture a hybrid vehicle for model year 2003. Other

companies, like Toyota and Honda already have fuel efficient hybrid vehicles on the

road and have plans to introduce more models using hybrid technology.

EPA is focusing its automotive expertise on engine and hybrid technology working

with the Ford Motor Company and Eaton Corporation through an historic Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA). Through this very effective

program, EPA has developed advanced automotive engine and drivetrain technologies that result in vehicles that are simultaneously extremely clean and extremely efficient. EPA’s efforts have already produced impressive results.

Together with EPA’s unique engineering expertise and industry funding and commitments, Ford and Eaton are working to extend these significant engineering advances so they can be introduced on the road later this decade. The fiscal year 2003

President’s Budget for EPA’s Clean Automotive Technology program is $17.1 million, with most of the funding being used to meet EPA’s obligations under the

CRADAs.

Question 22. Does EPA intend to fund further study of any other remediation

technologies such as ECASOL?

Response. EPA has initiated a program that will be fully operational in 2003 to

evaluate a wide range of rapid treatment technologies for biological agents. The goal

of this program is to accurately characterize the capabilities of promising technologies so that the inventory of usable tools is as broad as possible. This will allow

contractors and others to tailor remediation efforts to specific circumstances.

RESPONSES OF HON. CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM

SENATOR LIEBERMAN

Question 1. Please provide the President’s request and enacted levels following for

the Clean Water State Revolving Fund and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund

for fiscal years 2001,2002, and 2003. Please provide a distribution of these funds by

State, including the proposed distribution for fiscal year 2003.

Response.

39

Office of Water

Clean Water SRF and Drinking Water SRF

FY 01 and FY 02 Pres. Request/Enacted Levels

FY 2003 Proposed Level

Allowance

Holder

RC

State

Code

RC/State Title 2001 President’s Budget 2001 Enacted 2002 President’s Budget 2002 Enacted FY 2002 Estimates

01 ........... 10 CONNECTICUT ......... $9,875.2 $16,460.3 $10,387.0 $16,497.0 $14,810.6

01 ........... 20 MAINE ..................... $6,240.0 $10,400.9 $6,563.3 $10,424.1 $9,358.5

01 ........... 30 MASSACHUSETTS .... $27,368.5 $45,618.5 $28,786.8 $45,720.2 $41,046.5

01 ........... 40 NEW HAMPSHIRE .... $8,055.6 $13,427.3 $8,473.1 $13,457.2 $12,081.6

01 ........... 50 RHODE ISLAND ........ $5,412.6 $9,021.9 $5,693.1 $9,042.0 $8,117.7

01 ........... 60 VERMONT ................ $3,957.3 $6,596.1 $4,162.3 $6,610.8 $5,935.0

02 ........... 10 NEW JERSEY ........... $32,940.5 $54,906.2 $34,647.6 $55,028.5 $49,403.4

02 ........... 20 NEW YORK .............. $88,974.3 $148,304.7 $93,585.1 $148,635.1 $133,441.3

02 ........... 30 PUERTO RICO .......... $10,513.6 $17,524.4 $11,058.5 $17,563.5 $15,768.1

02 ........... 40 VIRGIN ISLANDS ...... $420.0 $700.1 $441.8 $701.7 $630.0

03 ........... 10 DELAWARE .............. $3,957.3 $6,596.1 $4,162.3 $6,610.8 $5,935.0

03 ........... 20 DIST OF COLUMBIA $3,957.3 $6,596.1 $4,162.3 $6,610.8 $5,935.0

03 ........... 30 MARYLAND .............. $19,496.2 $32,496.4 $20,507.1 $32,569.1 $29,239.8

03 ........... 40 PENNSYLVANIA ........ $31,930.7 $53,222.9 $33,585.4 $53,341.5 $47,888.8

03 ........... 50 VIRGINIA .................. $16,497.0 $27,497.6 $17,351.9 $27,558.9 $24,741.7

03 ........... 60 WEST VIRGINIA ........ $12,566.0 $20,945.4 $13,217.2 $20,992.0 $18,846.2

04 ........... 10 ALABAMA ................. $9,013.6 $15,024.2 $9,480.7 $15,057.6 $13,518.4

04 ........... 20 FLORIDA .................. $27,209.9 $45,354.2 $28,619.9 $45,455.2 $40,808.7

04 ........... 30 GEORGIA ................. $13,629.2 $22,717.6 $14,335.5 $22,768.2 $20,440.8

04 ........... 40 KENTUCKY ............... $10,259.4 $17,100.6 $10,791.1 $17,138.7 $15,386.8

04 ........... 50 MISSISSIPPI ............. $7,262.6 $12,105.4 $7,638.9 $12,132.4 $10,892.2

04 ........... 60 NORTH CAROLINA ... $14,548.2 $24,249.4 $15,302.1 $24,303.4 $21,819.1

04 ........... 70 SOUTH CAROLINA .... $8,258.0 $13,795.4 $8,686.0 $13,795.4 $12,385.2

04 ........... 80 TENNESSEE ............. $11,710.0 $19,518.5 $12,316.8 $19,562.0 $17,562.3

05 ........... 10 ILLINOIS .................. $36,457.0 $60,767.6 $38,346.3 $60,903.0 $54,677.3

05 ........... 20 INDIANA ................... $19,426.9 $32,381.2 $20,433.6 $32,453.4 $29,135.9

05 ........... 30 MICHIGAN ................ $34,660.5 $57,773.1 $36,456.7 $57,901.8 $51,983.0

05 ........... 40 MINNESOTA ............. $14,816.0 $24,695.8 $15,583.8 $24,750.8 $22,220.7

05 ........... 50 OHIO ........................ $45,379.8 $75,640.3 $47,731.5 $75,808.8 $68,059.5

05 ........... 60 WISCONSIN .............. $21,792.5 $36,324.2 $22,921.8 $36,405.2 $32,683.8

06 ........... 10 ARKANSAS ............... $5,273.2 $8,789.5 $5,546.4 $8,809.0 $7,908.6

06 ........... 20 LOUISIANA ............... $8,861.4 $14,770.4 $9,320.6 $14,803.3 $13,290.1

06 ........... 30 NEW MEXICO ........... $3,957.3 $6,596.1 $4,162.3 $6,610.8 $5,935.0

06 ........... 40 OKLAHOMA .............. $6,512.5 $10,855.3 $6,850.0 $10,879.5 $9,767.4

06 ........... 50 TEXAS ...................... $36,843.6 $61,411.9 $38,752.9 $61,548.7 $55,257.1

07 ........... 10 IOWA ....................... $10,909.8 $18,184.7 $11,475.1 $18,225.2 $16,362.2

07 ........... 20 KANSAS ................... $7,276.1 $12,128.0 $7,653.2 $12,155.0 $10,912.5

07 ........... 30 MISSOURI ................ $22,346.4 $37,247.6 $23,504.4 $37,330.5 $33,514.5

07 ........... 40 NEBRASKA ............... $4,123.0 $6,872.4 $4,336.7 $6,887.7 $6,183.6

08 ........... 10 COLORADO .............. $6,448.0 $10,747.7 $6,782.1 $10,771.6 $9,670.5

08 ........... 20 MONTANA ................ $3,957.3 $6,596.1 $4,162.3 $6,610.8 $5,935.0

08 ........... 30 NORTH DAKOTA ....... $3,957.3 $6,596.1 $4,162.3 $6,610.8 $5,935.0

08 ........... 40 SOUTH DAKOTA ....... $3,957.3 $6,596.1 $4,162.3 $6,610.8 $5,935.0

08 ........... 50 UTAH ....................... $4,247.4 $7,079.7 $4,467.5 $7,095.4 $6,370.1

08 ........... 60 WYOMING ................ $3,957.3 $6,596.1 $4,162.3 $6,610.8 $5,935.0

09 ........... 10 ARIZONA .................. $5,444.5 $9,075.1 $5,726.7 $9,095.3 $8,165.6

09 ........... 20 CALIFORNIA ............. $57,651.7 $96,095.4 $60,639.3 $96,309.5 $86,464.6

09 ........... 30 HAWAII .................... $6,243.2 $10,406.3 $6,566.7 $10,429.4 $9,363.3

09 ........... 40 NEVADA ................... $3,957.3 $6,596.1 $4,162.3 $6,610.8 $5,935.0

09 ........... 50 AMERICAN SOMOA .. $723.7 $1,206.3 $761.2 $1,209.0 $1,085.4

09 ........... 60 GUAM ...................... $523.7 $872.8 $550.8 $874.8 $785.4

09 ........... 70 NORTHERN MARIANAS ISLANDS.$336.3 $560.6 $353.8 $561.9 $504.4

10 ........... 10 ALASKA .................... $4,824.4 $8,041.5 $5,074.4 $8,059.4 $7,235.6

10 ........... 20 IDAHO ...................... $3,957.3 $6,596.1 $4,162.3 $6,610.8 $5,935.0

10 ........... 30 OREGON .................. $9,106.1 $15,178.3 $9,578.0 $15,212.1 $13,657.1

10 ........... 40 WASHINGTON ........... $14,018.2 $23,365.9 $14,744.6 $23,418.0 $21,024.1

9R ........... *N Undist. National Resources.$4,000.0 $20,205.5 $12,750.0 $20,250.0 $18,180.0

40

Office of Water—Continued

Clean Water SRF and Drinking Water SRF

FY 01 and FY 02 Pres. Request/Enacted Levels

FY 2003 Proposed Level

Allowance

Holder

RC

State

Code

RC/State Title 2001 President’s Budget 2001 Enacted 2002 President’s Budget 2002 Enacted FY 2002 Estimates

RT ........... ........................... $800,000.0 $1,347,030.0 $850,000.0 $1,350,000.0 $1,212,000.0

Office of Water

Clean Water SRF and Drinking Water SRF

FY 01 and FY 02 Pres. Request/Enacted Levels

FY 2003 Proposed Level

Allowance

Holder

RC

State

Code

RC Title 2001 President’s Budget 2001 Enacted 2002 President’s Budget 2002 Enacted FY 2002 Estimates

01Drinking

Water

(SRF).

01 .............. 10 CONNECTICUT ......... $7,806.3 $7,789.1 $7,789.1 8052.5 8052.5

01 .............. 20 MAINE ..................... $7,806.3 $7,789.1 $7,789.1 8052.5 8052.5

01 .............. 30 MASSACHUSETTS .... $30,051.4 $29,985.3 $29,985.3 28787.9 28787.9

01 .............. 40 NEW HAMPSHIRE .... $7,806.3 $7,789.1 $7,789.1 8052.5 8052.5

01 .............. 50 RHODE ISLAND ....... $7,806.3 $7,789.1 $7,789.1 8052.5 8052.5

01 .............. 60 VERMONT ................ $7,806.3 $7,789.1 $7,789.1 8052.5 8052.5

02 .............. 10 NEW JERSEY ........... $19,016.6 $18,974.8 $18,974.8 18538.6 18538.6

02 .............. 20 NEW YORK .............. $49,396.1 $49,287.4 $49,287.4 62430.7 62430.7

02 .............. 30 PUERTO RICO ......... $11,208.5 $11,183.8 $11,183.8 10741.3 10741.3

03 .............. 10 DELAWARE .............. $7,806.3 $7,789.1 $7,789.1 8052.5 8052.5

03 .............. 20 DIST OF COLUMBIA $7,806.3 $7,789.1 $7,789.1 8052.5 8052.5

03 .............. 30 MARYLAND .............. $7,806.3 $7,789.1 $7,789.1 9350.9 9350.9

03 .............. 40 PENNSYLVANIA ....... $24,560.0 $24,505.9 $24,505.9 25930.6 25930.6

03 .............. 50 VIRGINIA ................. $15,231.9 $15,198.4 $15,198.4 11127.6 11127.6

03 .............. 60 WEST VIRGINIA ....... $7,806.3 $7,789.1 $7,789.1 8052.5 8052.5

04 .............. 10 ALABAMA ................ $9,279.9 $9,259.5 $9,259.5 8052.5 8052.5

04 .............. 20 FLORIDA .................. $22,628.5 $22,578.7 $22,578.7 18841.3 18841.3

04 .............. 30 GEORGIA ................. $16,720.6 $16,683.8 $16,683.8 12749.8 12749.8

04 .............. 40 KENTUCKY .............. $11,895.4 $11,869.3 $11,869.3 9805.1 9805.1

04 .............. 50 MISSISSIPPI ............ $9,067.3 $9,047.4 $9,047.4 8052.5 8052.5

04 .............. 60 NORTH CAROLINA ... $14,096.4 $14,065.4 $14,065.4 14139.9 14139.9

04 .............. 70 SOUTH CAROLINA ... $8,407.2 $8,388.7 $8,388.7 8052.5 8052.5

04 .............. 80 TENNESSEE ............. $10,476.8 $10,453.7 $10,453.7 8145 8145

05 .............. 10 ILLINOIS .................. $27,134.3 $27,074.6 $27,074.6 30050.4 30050.4

05 .............. 20 INDIANA .................. $9,523.1 $9,502.2 $9,502.2 9455.1 9455.1

05 .............. 30 MICHIGAN ............... $22,966.7 $22,916.2 $22,916.2 33003 33003

05 .............. 40 MINNESOTA ............. $12,996.6 $12,968.0 $12,968.0 15952.9 15952.9

05 .............. 50 OHIO ....................... $24,999.9 $24,944.9 $24,944.9 24547.6 24547.6

05 .............. 60 WISCONSIN ............. $10,466.8 $10,443.8 $10,443.8 15946.5 15946.5

06 .............. 10 ARKANSAS .............. $11,106.8 $11,082.4 $11,082.4 8717.8 8717.8

06 .............. 20 LOUISIANA .............. $10,906.3 $10,882.3 $10,882.3 8052.5 8052.5

06 .............. 30 NEW MEXICO .......... $7,806.3 $7,789.1 $7,789.1 8052.5 8052.5

06 .............. 40 OKLAHOMA .............. $11,207.7 $11,183.0 $11,183.0 12446.5 12446.5

06 .............. 50 TEXAS ..................... $59,210.0 $59,079.8 $59,079.8 62023.7 62023.7

07 .............. 10 IOWA ....................... $12,319.8 $12,292.7 $12,292.7 14784.6 14784.6

07 .............. 20 KANSAS ................... $10,970.8 $10,946.6 $10,946.6 9234.7 9234.7

07 .............. 30 MISSOURI ............... $10,496.0 $10,472.9 $10,472.9 11702.6 11702.6

07 .............. 40 NEBRASKA .............. $7,806.3 $7,789.1 $7,789.1 8052.5 8052.5

08 .............. 10 COLORADO .............. $10,503.4 $10,480.3 $10,480.3 13323 13323

08 .............. 20 MONTANA ................ $7,806.3 $7,789.1 $7,789.1 8052.5 8052.5

08 .............. 30 NORTH DAKOTA ...... $7,806.3 $7,789.1 $7,789.1 8052.5 8052.5

08 .............. 40 SOUTH DAKOTA ....... $7,806.3 $7,789.1 $7,789.1 8052.5 8052.5

08 .............. 50 UTAH ....................... $7,806.3 $7,789.1 $7,789.1 8052.5 8052.5

08 .............. 60 WYOMING ................ $7,806.3 $7,789.1 $7,789.1 8052.5 8052.5

41

Office of Water—Continued

Clean Water SRF and Drinking Water SRF

FY 01 and FY 02 Pres. Request/Enacted Levels

FY 2003 Proposed Level

Allowance

Holder

RC

State

Code

RC Title 2001 President’s Budget 2001 Enacted 2002 President’s Budget 2002 Enacted FY 2002 Estimates

09 .............. 10 ARIZONA ................. $7,955.4 $7,937.9 $7,937.9 9126.3 9126.3

09 .............. 20 CALIFORNIA ............ $84,525.4 $84,340.0 $84,340.0 82460.9 82460.9

09 .............. 30 HAWAII .................... $7,806.3 $7,789.1 $7,789.1 8052.5 8052.5

09 .............. 40 NEVADA .................. $7,806.3 $7,789.1 $7,789.1 8052.5 8052.5

10 .............. 10 ALASKA ................... $7,806.3 $7,789.1 $7,789.1 8052.5 8052.5

10 .............. 20 IDAHO ..................... $7,806.3 $7,789.1 $7,789.1 8052.5 8052.5

10 .............. 30 OREGON .................. $11,584.3 $11,558.8 $11,558.8 14148.9 14148.9

10 .............. 40 WASHINGTON .......... $21,013.0 $20,966.8 $20,966.8 19872 19872

40 .............. *N Undist. National

Resources.

$2,576.1 $2,570.4 $2,570.4 2657.3 2657.3

9R ............. *N Undist. National

Resources.

$44,375.0 $44,277.3 $44,277.3 44750 44750

RT .............. .......... ................................ $825,000.0 $823,185.0 $823,185.0 $850,000.0 $850,000.0

Question 2. I am troubled by what appears to be a precipitous decline in enforcement actions, including investigations, as well as criminal and civil enforcement

cases, while the EPA is asking for more enforcement funds. What is your view of

this decline in enforcement investigations, and can you explain why you need more

money to do a lot fewer actions?

Response. EPA’s enforcement program remains as strong as ever. Both last year’s

results and the enforcement actions we have pursued since January 2001 demonstrate the comprehensive efforts undertaken to reduce and eliminate harmful pollution:

• EPA showed record results last year from our enforcement activities nearly

doubling the amount spent by violators and liable parties on pollution controls and

cleanups; more than tripling the number of facilities voluntarily auditing and disclosing violations under EPA’s audit policy; almost doubling the civil judicial penalties assessed against environmental violators; and increasing the spending by violators on Supplemental Environmental Projects by 60 percent (see attached summary of our enforcement results from fiscal year 2001)

• Since January 2001, we have initiated (either investigated or filed) about 73

and concluded at least 52 ‘‘significant’’ cases. ‘‘Significant’’ cases are those judicial

or administrative actions where there is significant environmental impact; widespread violations of environmental laws at more than one facility; a significant environmental or programmatic issue; significant penalties, injunctive relief or supplemental environmental projects (SEPs); or where Headquarters has been extensively

involved. As with the fiscal year 2001 results reported above, the end of year results

for this year will report the complete results for all cases, not just the ‘‘significant’’

enforcement actions summarized here. As you know, exactly how soon or how many

cases will be concluded in any given year depends on the facts of each case.

Specific examples of enforcement successes already achieved since January 2001

include:

• We have filed and concluded 5 major cases against refineries for NSR violations the combined effect of which will be an estimated reduction of 76,000 tons of

sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions per year and 31,000 tons of nitrogen oxides (NOx)

emissions per year

• We also filed and concluded a major case against a power plant, PSEG, which

alone will reduce the company’s emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) by 90 percent and

its emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) by more than 80 percent. These decreases

represent 32 percent of all the SO2 and 20 percent of all the NOx emitted from stationary sources in New Jersey, and 19 percent of all the SO2 and 5 percent of all

the NOx from all sources in the State, including cars and trucks

• We issued many imminent hazard orders to address immediate threats to

human health and the environment. For example, EPA issued two imminent hazard

orders under RCRA to Magnesium Corporation to address dangerous dioxin levels

at the facility and the threat to workers’ health from extremely high levels of

hexachlorobenzene in anode dust. EPA also issued two imminent hazard orders

42

against Seaboard Farms under the Clean Water Act and RCRA to address contaminated drinking water resulting from hog farm waste.

• We also issued an Administrative order (made final on appeal in April 2001)

under RCRA to address imminent threats from the improper storage and disposal

of large volumes of munitions and unexploded ordnance that had been buried at the

Massachusetts Military Reservation on Cape Cod. The emergency order required the

National Guard Bureau to detonate the munitions in a special ‘‘controlled demolition

chamber’’ that was present at MMR, except for those munitions and ordnance that

were unsafe to move (and which could be detonated in place).

• With respect to criminal enforcement, the number of criminal enforcement activities has remained steady for the past two fiscal years relative to cases initiated,

referral of cases for prosecution, and defendants charged. During the first quarter

of fiscal year 2002, the criminal enforcement program has initiated more cases with

more defendants charged than during same period in fiscal year 2001. The number

of cases initiated include activities which support Homeland Security as well as traditional environmental crimes enforcement, while the rise in defendants is solely attributable to violations of environmental statutes. These results are attributable to

the extraordinary effort of our investigative staff, who are working to meet the ongoing requirement of enforcing our nation’s environmental laws while also responding

to the President’s No. 1 priority—Homeland Security.

Criminal Enforcement Snapshot

Fiscal Year Cases Initiated Referrals Defendants

2000 ............................ 477 .......................................... 236 .......................................... 360

2001 ............................ 482 .......................................... 256 .......................................... 372

EPA continues to successfully address environmental violations using the various

tools available, ranging from voluntary incentives to imminent hazard orders. Concluding cases is no small feat, and we are proud of the accomplishments achieved

and will continue to pursue enforcement in order to achieve similar results in the

future.

Enforcement Accomplishments fiscal year 2001

EPA’s enforcement program achieved tremendous success in fiscal year 2001, protecting human health and the environment through record setting amounts in injunctive relief, significant reductions in pollutant loadings, an estimated reduction

of more than 660 million pounds of harmful pollutants and the treatment and safe

management of an estimated record 1.84 billion pounds of pollutants, in addition

to a significant increase in the commitment on the part of violators to spend on supplemental environmental projects:

• Number of facilities voluntarily auditing and disclosing violations under EPA’s

audit policy more than tripled—from 437 in fiscal year 2000 to 1,754 in fiscal year

2001

• Spending by violators on Supplemental Environmental Projects was up 60 percent from $56 million in fiscal year 2000 to $89 million in fiscal year 2001

• Amount spent by violators and liable parties on pollution controls and cleanups

nearly doubled from $2.6 billion in fiscal year 2000 to $4.4 billion in fiscal year

2001.

• Civil judicial penalties assessed against environmental violators nearly doubled

from $55 million in fiscal year 2000 to $102 million in fiscal year 2001; civil administrative penalties levied by EPA were down slightly at $1.5 million from about

$25.5 million in fiscal year 2000 $24 million in fiscal year 2001. Overall, penalties

increased as our strategy focused on large judicial cases.

• Total years for criminal sentences for environmental violations rose from 146

years in fiscal year 2001 to 256 years in fiscal year 2001 as a result of EPA’s strategy to, as a priority, seek jail time for significant criminal cases.

• Criminal fines fell from $122 million in fiscal year 2000 to $95 million in fiscal

year 2001 again, our strategy was to seek jail time for significant criminal cases.

By focusing on environmental results or outcomes, such as the reductions in pollution, and by using all of the tools available, such as compliance assistance, incentives, and enforcement, EPA is continuing to aggressively address the most serious

environmental problems and achieve unprecedented results.

43

Snapshot: End of Year Results FY 1999 to 2001

Activity FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001

Audit Policy Settlements.106 companies ........................

624 facilities ...........................

217 companies ........................

437 facilities ...........................

304 companies

1754 facilities

Value of Injunctive Relief.$3.4 billion .............................. $2.6 billion .............................. $4.4 billion

Civil Judicial Penalties $141 million ............................ $55 million .............................. $102 million

Civil Administrative

Penalties.

$25.5 million ........................... $25.5 million ........................... $24 million

SEPs ............................. $237 million ............................ $56 million .............................. $89 million

Inspections .................. 22,000 ..................................... 20,000 ..................................... 18,000 (est.)

Administrative Actions 3500 ........................................ 5300 ........................................ 3200

Civil Referrals .............. 403 .......................................... 368 .......................................... 327

Criminal Referrals ....... 241 .......................................... 236 .......................................... 256

Criminal Sentences ..... 208 years ................................. 146 years ................................. 256 years

Criminal Fines ............. $62 million .............................. $122 million ............................ $95 million

Question 3. In describing the accomplishments of EPA’s climate protection programs, the 2003 Annual Performance Plan and Justification discusses the savings

associated with EPA’s climate change programs, including a reduction of growth in

greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent in the 1990–2010 period, with a total of 450

MMTCE. Please explain the relationship between these accomplishments and the

President’ s recent announcement on climate change, in which he announced a goal

of reducing the carbon intensity in the U.S. by 18 percent. Since the baseline improvements during the period cited by the President appears to be 14 percent,

please explain if the accomplishments of the EPA’s climate programs are factored

into that baseline improvement of 14 percent, and if so, what portion of the 14 percent improvement is attributable to the EPA programs. Since the President’s climate change proposal appears to increase the carbon intensity by 4 percent over the

baseline by 2012, could we reach the President’s goal by simply investing more in

the voluntary energy efficiency programs at EPA? How much more of an investment

would it take?

Response. In its 2003 Annual Performance Plan and Justification, EPA discusses

a number of accomplishments that are attributable to its climate protection programs. One of the savings figures cited, a cumulative reduction of 450 MMTCE

through 2010, is based on an EPA analysis of investments made to date through

EPA’s voluntary programs. Since many of the investments promoted through EPA’s climate programs involve energy-efficient equipment with lifetimes of decades or

more, the investments that have been spurred through 2001 will continue to deliver

environmental and economic benefits through 2010 and beyond. The second savings

figure cited is also based on accomplishments through 2001 and shows that EPA’s voluntary climate programs have reduced the growth in greenhouse gas emissions

since 1990 by about 20 percent from what it would have been without these programs. In 2001 alone, EPA’s climate protection programs reduced greenhouse gas

emissions by more than 65 MMTCE equivalent to the annual emissions from about

45 million cars.

EPA’s partnership programs play a key role in the President’s climate change

strategy. The accomplishments of EPA’s climate protection programs are a significant factor in the 14 percent business-as-usual improvements cited in the President’s policy, along with the effects of current regulations and autonomous improvements in efficiency. The President’s plan will require the full implementation and

continued funding for EPA’s existing climate protection partnership programs, such

as Energy Star, Natural Gas STAR, and the PFC Reduction Climate Partnership

with the Semiconductor Industry. In addition, new business challenges, such as the

recently announced EPA Climate Leaders program and the Combined Heat and

Power Partnership, will play a major role in meeting the President’s new emissions

reduction goal of more than 100 million metric tons of carbon equivalent in 2012.

Climate Leaders challenges businesses to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions

through setting an aggressive long-term emissions reduction goal and performing a

corporate-wide inventory to track their annual progress toward this goal, while the

CHP Partnership works with businesses to promote use of these highly efficient cogeneration technologies.

The President has challenged American businesses and industries to reduce

greenhouse gas emissions and is confident that voluntary approaches can achieve

his commitment. Already, agreements with the semi-conductor and aluminum industries, and with industries that emit methane, are dramatically reducing emisVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:04 Jan 30, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\81724 SENENV1 PsN: SENENV1
44

sions of the most potent greenhouse gases. The President’s plan will build on these

successes, with broader agreements and greater reductions. The Administration is

confident that a combination of new EPA voluntary programs, such as Climate

Leaders, tax incentives for renewable energy and technology improvements, and enhanced baseline protection through an improved 1605(b) program will encourage

many more companies to undertake voluntary greenhouse gas reductions and thereby achieve the President’s goal. The President has also committed that if progress

is not sufficient by 2012, the United States will respond with additional measures

that may include a broad, market-based program, as well as additional incentives

and voluntary measures designed to accelerate technology development and deployment. The Administration is currently assessing what resources will be necessary

to accomplish the President’s goal, however the President’s fiscal year 2003 Budget includes $4.5 billion in spending and tax incentives related to addressing the challenge of climate change.

Question 4. Please explain the relationship of EPA’s request for funds ($9,775,800)

for the Montreal Protocol’s Multilateral Fund to the U.S. commitment to that Fund.

Please explain what other funds are being targeted to meeting this commitment. Is

EPA and the State Department requesting ‘‘full funding’’ for our present commitment; if not, what is the requested shortfall? Has the United States met all of its

past financial commitments to the Fund? If not, how much in arrears is the U.S.

in regarding its negotiated commitments to the Multilateral Fund?

Response. Every 3 years, the Protocol Parties commission a study on the funding

needed to meet the needs of developing countries through the next triennium. On

that basis, the Parties decide on a Fund budget. Payments of donor countries are

then based on the U.N. scale of assessment. After considering the last report in

1999, the eleventh meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol took Decision XI/

7, which set the US commitment for the Montreal Protocol Multilateral Fund for

2000, 2001 and 2002 at $36.7 per year. A report detailing the needs of the Fund

for the next triennium (2003–2005) is due to the Parties next month. It is widely

expected to suggest the need for increasing the level of replenishment in order to

enable developing countries to meet their upcoming 2005 phaseout requirements

which include a 50 percent reduction in CFCs and Halons, an 85 percent reduction

in carbon tetra chloride, and a 20 percent reduction in both methyl bromide and

methyl chloroform. As noted in your question, EPA is requesting $9,775,800 for 2003. We understand

that the State Department, which also requests funds for the Multilateral Fund, is

requesting $23m for 2003. The shortfall, if any, will not be known until the Parties

review the technical needs assessment report and reach a final decision on replenishment.

Because Fund payments are technically due at the beginning of the year, the US is currently some $58m in arrears to the Fund. However, taking into account the

US payments that are expected to be finalized in the next few months with fiscal

year 2002 funding, the US is expected to be some $25.5m in arrears compared with

its negotiated commitments. This is a cumulative shortfall which is a result of the

US funding at a level that is less than the commitment level over a number of years

due to reductions in funding by Congress.

RESPONSES OF HON. CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM

SENATOR SMITH

Question 1. As you may recall, during the 106th Congress, Senator Crapo and I

introduced legislation to create a TMDL pilot program which allowed local communities to experiment with different approaches to reaching their clean water goals.

I commend the Administration for proposing a similar initiative that would give

$21 million in grants for local watershed projects. Can you describe this initiative

in more detail and please explain, if and how it will help communities faced with

large TMDL implementation costs?

What would be the criteria to apply for this program and how will watersheds

be chosen to participate?

Response. The Administration plans to invest this money in community-based watershed efforts to protect and restore America’s waterways. The initiative will support watershed resources that sustain human health, economic stability, ecosystem

integrity, recreational opportunity, natural or cultural significance, or other important uses.

Most importantly, the initiative will foster and encourage the development and

implementation of innovative and novel approaches to clean water. For example,

grant money could be used to support projects such as third party TMDLs, pollutant

45

trading, watershed NPDES permits under the Clean Water Act, and other creative

approaches to advance protection of the resources.

EPA will distribute the funds through a competitive grant process. Candidates

can include States, municipalities, non-profit organizations, universities and other

groups. The Agency will be consulting with a wide variety of stakeholders in the

coming months to develop the most appropriate selection criteria. EPA hopes to

make the final selections as early as next fall and begin the process of dispersing

funds as soon as the budget is approved.

One of the pressing issues facing EPA and States is how TMDLs can be implemented more cost-effectively. The development of more cost-effective TMDLs on a

watershed basis creates opportunities to shift pollution control responsibilities from

high cost controls over point source discharges to comparatively low cost controls

over nonpoint sources.

Question 2. In the Department of Defense fiscal year 2002 appropriations bill,

Congress provided EPA with $90 million for drinking water vulnerability assessments, security at EPA labs and anthrax decontamination activities.

I am particularly interested in making sure that the vulnerability assessment

funds are distributed to drinking water systems as quickly as possible so that

vulnerabilities can be identified and appropriate safeguards put in place. Can you

shed some light on how your Agency plans to distribute these funds to drinking

water systems? And the time line for doing so?

Response. EPA is continuing to partner with the States, tribes, U.S. Territories,

and water quality organizations to identify the most efficient and effective distribution of the funds to increase protection of our Nation’s critical water infrastructure.

EPA’s goal is to help make the most systems safest soonest. The Office of Water

received the Supplemental Security funds within 3 appropriations; Science and

Technology, State and Tribal Assistance Grants, and Environmental Programs and

Management. The proposed breakout within each appropriation is as follows:

Science and Technology (S&T)/Budgetary Resources (in millions). $82.8 Timing of

Obligation.

• About $50.0 M of these funds will be used to provide direct assistance to the

approximately 400 largest drinking water systems to carry out vulnerability assessments and enhance emergency response plans. EPA’s goal is to complete the majority of the awards by the end of July 2002.

• $23.0 M will support technical assistance and training to small and medium

drinking water systems on vulnerability assessments and either developing emergency response plans or strengthening existing plans. EPA is working jointly with

States and utility organizations in determining a specific allocation plan, and expects to begin obligation of funds in July through September 2002.

• $3.0 M will support wastewater utilities’ undertaking of vulnerability assessments, developing emergency operations plans, and collecting data on appropriate

remediation efforts. EPA intends to award funds by September 2002.

• About $5.8 M will support activities to further develop and conduct additional

training on vulnerability assessments and other counter terrorism tools, and investigate security-related detection, monitoring, and treatment tools. EPA intends to

begin awarding funds from July through September 2002.

• About $1.0 M will support salaries and travel expenses of 10 FTEs in both

EPA Headquarters and Regional Offices who are working exclusively on critical

water infrastructure protection.

Obstacles to Obligation of Funds

• At the request of the Governors, EPA will jointly review grant applications

from the largest drinking water systems with State Drinking Water and Emergency

Response agencies. Timely award of funds will depend on receipt of State comments

and resolution of any issues.

• Award of remaining funds will depend on completion of interagency research

plans and State/EPA medium and small systems strategy.

State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG)/Budgetary Resources (in millions). $5.0

Timing of Obligation:

• $5.0 M will be awarded to States and Territories to support counter-terrorism

coordination work in conjunction with EPA and drinking water utilities to implement homeland security activities. Funds will be awarded by the September fiscal

year 2002.

Obstacles to Obligation of Funds:

46

• Award of funds to support counter-terrorism coordinators is subject to receipt

of grant applications from States which may be dependent on internal State processes.

Environmental Programs and Management (EPM)/ Budgetary Resources (in millions). $1.0

Timing of Obligation:

• $1.0M will support wastewater utilities activities, including development and

testing of counter terrorism tools and training for vulnerability assessments. EPA

intends to award funds by September 2002.

Obstacles to Obligation of Funds:

• At the request of the Governors, EPA will jointly review grant applications

from the largest drinking water systems with State Drinking Water and Emergency

Response agencies. Timely award of funds will depend on receipt of State comments

and resolution of any issues.

Question 3. As you know, EPA failed to finalize a large number of MACT regulations within the statutory deadlines, because both the Clinton and Bush Administrations denied the Air Office the 3–4 million per year that would have allowed

timely completion.

As a result, by March, each State will now have to develop its own emission

standard for each industry and substance without a MACT. This is a superb example of penny-wise and pound foolish. What plans does the EPA have regarding finishing these regulations and addressing the burden on States?

Response. This Administration is committed to reducing toxic air pollution. As you

know, the Clean Air Act set out ambitious schedules for EPA to promulgate technology-based standards for 189 hazardous air pollutants emitted from 174 source

categories. The programs to reduce toxic air pollution have removed hundreds of

thousands of tons of toxics from the air since the program began in 1990 historic

reductions that dwarf all previous efforts to control emissions of carcinogenic chemicals. As you have noted, delays in the Maximum Achievable Control Technology

(MACT) program preceded the current Administration. Appropriations constraints

and legal challenges have contributed to slow progress in this program. The deadline for all of the technology-based MACT standards was November 2000. EPA

missed that deadline. The time lost cannot be made up now.

However, when Governor Whitman came into office, she confirmed that we need

to issue these standards as soon as possible, and EPA is now on a tight time line

to complete all of the regulations by May 2004. The Governor has signed 14 MACT

standards either proposals or final rules since she took office. In addition, EPA staff

has drafts of all but 3 of the 21 remaining MACTs to be proposed. After the May

15, 2002 deadline, 34 standards will remain to be finalized, which will then be subject to the Clean Air Act Section 112(j) ‘‘hammer’’ provisions.

We believe there will be little or no burden on States if we complete all the standards by May 2004. The Section 112(j) provisions require major sources to submit a

part 1 Title V operating permit application on May 15, 2002 followed by a part 2

permit application 2 years later, or May 15, 2004. In a Part 1 application, the source

sends general information about the facility to the permitting authority usually the

State. Part 2 is a more comprehensive, detailed application containing information

on specific pollutants, emission points, and controls to the permitting authority.

However, barring further legal challenges and assuming that EPA hews to the time

line, all MACT standards will be promulgated before the part 2 application is due.

Therefore, the sources will not need to submit the part 2 and permitting authorities

will not need to develop case-by-case MACT.

RESPONSES OF HON. CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM

SENATOR WYDEN

The purpose of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) STAR Fellowship program is to encourage promising students to obtain advanced degrees and pursue careers in environmentally related fields. The program is consistent with the mission

of EPA to provide leadership in the nation’s environmental science, research, education, assessment, restoration, and preservation efforts.

STAR Fellowships have provided a unique opportunity for students at Oregon

State University and doubtless many other universities as well. The program allows

the best students to choose their own cutting edge area for research and multidisciplinary training.

One of EPA’s targets is environmental monitoring and impact assessment. Many

of the STAR fellows in Oregon have worked on biodiversity and ecological research

47

with an applied focus. This program often provides the sole source of support for

these students and is instrumental in developing a pipeline of environmental professionals to meet national needs.

In your fiscal year 2003 Annual Performance Plan and congressional justification

you stated, ‘‘A blue ribbon panel of the Science Advisory Board recommended in

1994 that EPA enhance its environmental education programs for training the next

generation of scientists and engineers.’’

Question 1. In view of this recommendation from your own Science Advisory

Board and the national demand for talented, environmental professionals, how can

you justify cutting the STAR program from your fiscal year 2003 budget?

Response. The President’s Budget proposes to strengthen math and science education in the United States by improving the quality of math and science education

in grades K–12 and by attracting the most promising U.S. students into graduate

level science and engineering by providing more competitive stipends. The President’s K–12 math and science initiative and the higher graduate stipends are being

funded through the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) budget. NSF is noted for

its expertise and success in funding competitive programs in math and science. The

Budget increases NSF’s annual stipends for fellowship and tranineeship programs

from $21,500 to $25,000. Funding for EPA’s STAR Fellowship Program was eliminated in fiscal year 2003 as part of the larger initiative to strengthen math and

science programs through the National Science Foundation (NSF). However, EPA

will continue funding for its Minority Academic Institutions (MAI) Fellowships program at $1.5 million in fiscal year 2003.

Question 2. EPA is apparently transferring part of the funding formerly used for

the STAR program to support education programs at the National Science Foundation (NSF). Do you believe that NSF has the capability and track record to provide

educational opportunities comparable to EPA, and if so, please provide me with the

rationale and the safeguards that will be used to ensure that the money goes for

the same purpose and not research or other activities.

Response. As stated in the response to question a, the President’s Budget proposes

to strengthen math and science education in the United States by improving the

quality of math and science education in grades K–12 and by attracting the most

promising U.S. students into graduate level science and engineering by providing

more competitive stipends. NSF is noted for its expertise and success in funding

competitive programs in math and science. Funding for EPA’s STAR Fellowship Program was eliminated as part of the larger initiative to strengthen math and science

programs through the National Science Foundation (NSF). NSF has conducted an

excellent graduate research fellowship program in many science disciplines for many

years.

Æ