U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

52–887 PDF 2010

S. HRG. 110–985 

OVERSIGHT OF RECENT EPA DECISIONS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND 

PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

FEBRUARY 6, 2007 

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

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress.senate 
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

BETTINA POIRIER, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

ANDREW WHEELER, Minority Staff Director 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

FEBRUARY 6, 2007 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

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

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma .................... 5 

Lautenberg, Hon. Frank, U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey ............... 8 

Isakson, Hon. Johnny, U.S. Senator from the State of Georgia .......................... 9 

Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland ................ 12 

Alexander, Hon. Lamar, U.S. Senator from the State of Tennessee ................... 13 

Klobuchar, Hon. Amy, U.S. Senator from the State of Minnesota ...................... 13 

Craig, Hon. Larry E., U.S. Senator from the State of Idaho ............................... 14 

Vitter, Hon. David, U.S. Senator from the State of Louisiana ............................ 15 

Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware ................... 16 

Bond, Hon. Christopher S., U.S. Senator from the State of Missouri ................. 18 

Sanders, Hon. Bernard, U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 261 

WITNESSES 

Johnson, Stephen L., Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ... 19 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 21 

Charts: 

EPA Web site Statistics, December 2006, Number of Hits .................... 28 

EPA Web site Statistics, December 2006, Page Requests ..................... 29 

EPA Library Services for EPA Employees and the Public .................... 30 

TRI Total Disposal or Other Releases, 1988–2004 ................................. 31 

NAAQS Deadlines ..................................................................................... 32 

NAAQS Documentation ............................................................................ 33 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer............................................................................................. 34, 36 

Senator Lautenberg ................................................................................... 36 

Senator Whitehouse .................................................................................. 45 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 49 

Stephenson, John B., Director, Natural Resources and Environment, U.S. 

Government Accountability ................................................................................. 72 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 74 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe ............................... 94 

Sullivan, Thomas M., Chief Counsel for Advocacy, U.S. Small Business Administration .......................................................................................................... 97 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 98 

Article, The Washington Times, February 1, 2007 ........................................ 103 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe ............................... 105 

Report, Small Business Administration, Office of Advocacy; Review and 

Analysis of the Effect of EPA’s Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) Phase 

II Burden Reduction Proposal on TRI Data Uses, by E.H. Pechan 

& Associates, Durham, NC, June 2007 ................................................... 114–142 

Balmes, John R., M.D., on Behalf of the American Lung Association and 

the American Thoracic Society ............................................................................ 145 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 147 

Response to an additional question from: 

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 154 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 154 
Page

IV 

Solomon, Gina M., M.D., M.P.H., senior scientist, Natural Resources Defense 

Council .................................................................................................................. 154 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 156 

Memorandum, Bandrowski, Michael S., Chief, Air Toxics, Radiation and 

Indoor Air Office, Region IX, December 13, 2005 and March 10, 

2006 ............................................................................................................ 170–190 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe ............................... 191 

Burger, Leslie, president, American Library Association; director, Princeton 

Public Library ....................................................................................................... 194 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 196 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 200 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 201 

Letters from: 

Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA), August 

23, 2006 .................................................................................................. 207 

PEER, Presidents of Local Unions, June 29, 2006 ................................. 212 

ASEH, Resolution ...................................................................................... 216 

Society of Environmental Journalists (SEJ), August 8, 2006 ................ 222 

Connery, Robert T., Holland and Hart, Denver, CO ............................................ 224 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 225 

Klinefelter, Nancy, president, Baltimore Glassware Decorators ......................... 256 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 258 
(1) 

OVERSIGHT OF RECENT EPA DECISIONS 

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 2007 

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

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 o’clock a.m. in room 

406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, the Hon. Barbara Boxer 

(chairman of the committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Boxer, Inhofe, Lautenberg, Isakson, Cardin, 

Craig, Klobuchar, Vitter, Carper, Bond, Whitehouse, Alexander. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. The hearing will come to order. 

I want to welcome everybody today. We have three panels. The 

first is Stephen Johnson, Administrator of the EPA. The second is 

the Government Accountability Office and the U.S. Small Business 

Administration. The third panel is the American Lung Association 

and American Thoracic Society, the Natural Resources Defense 

Council, the American Library Association, Holland and Hart, and 

Baltimore Glassware Decorators. 

So we have a lot to get through. We are going to try to move 

through this hearing in 2 hours, 21⁄2 hours. 

We are going to have opening statements, 5 minutes each and 

then proceed to hear from the Administrator. At that point we will 

ask him some questions. Then we will move on. 

So I would like my clock to start now, if I could. 

Late in 2006, EPA rolled back several health protections and reduced public information about pollution. This was a series of unwelcome holiday gifts to the American people. These EPA rollbacks 

have common themes: they benefit polluters, bottom line, and they 

hurt our communities by allowing more pollution and reducing the 

information about pollution available to the public. 

Today is the first in a series of hearings. EPA has gone too long 

without meaningful oversight, in my opinion. I want to send a clear 

signal to EPA and to this Administration that we are watching, 

and the American public is watching and no longer will EPA 

rollbacks quietly escape scrutiny. The first of these rollbacks was 

the weakening of the community’s right to know. 

Toxic Release Inventory. I am extremely concerned about the 

Agency’s decision in December to weaken the community right to 

know rules for toxic chemicals used and released in communities 

across the Country. EPA’s weakening of these rules will quadruple, 
2 

quadruple, the amount of toxic pollutants that companies can release before they have to tell the public, and will reduce the 

amount of public information on long-lasting toxins that can buildup in the body. 

The chart I wanted to show you here, EPA went forward with 

these changes despite objections from 23 State agencies that are 

listed here, and attorneys general, and despite concerns raised by 

the Agency’s own science advisory board. Oklahoma’s Department 

of Environmental Quality is just one of the agencies that objected. 

You can see it is just a host of States. 

EPA’s libraries, closing them. Last year, EPA closed down or cut 

access to libraries across the Nation, including in my own State of 

California. EPA closed or reduced library operations in at least 7 

EPA regions covering 31 States. Since 1970, EPA has gathered a 

vast treasure trove of public health and environmental information. 

Closure of the libraries hurts America’s right to know about important information regarding the health and environmental hazards 

of pollution in their communities. The American Library Association and EPA scientists and staff opposed these actions. But despite letters from 18 members of the Senate and a public outcry, 

the fate of EPA’s libraries remains uncertain. 

Next, eliminating perchlorate testing. In December, EPA issued 

a rule which will result in no further testing of tap water for the 

toxin perchlorate. This toxin has been found in millions of Americans’ drinking water systems. GAO says it pollutes 35 States. Perchlorate interferes with the thyroid. It is especially risky to pregnant women and newborns. Yet, EPA has still not issued a health 

standard for perchlorate in tap water. 

EPA’s original 1999 rule ordered testing for perchlorate and in 

2005, EPA proposed to extend that requirement. But industry objected, and industry was heard. The new rule eliminated the perchlorate testing requirement. I am deeply distressed that not only 

has EPA failed to set a standard for perchlorate, but Americans 

will lack up to date information on whether their tap water is contaminated with this toxin. 

Next, cutting scientists out of the process of setting air quality 

standards. In December, EPA also backtracked on its decades-long 

policy of having key scientists work closely with EPA experts to 

help develop a range of recommended safe levels for clean air. Now, 

consistent with the recommendations of the American Petroleum 

Institute, EPA has taken a dangerous turn. Instead of basing 

health standards on the best science, they will now inject politics 

into the entire decision. Under EPA’s plan, key scientists will no 

longer work directly with top Government officials to help set 

health standards. EPA’s new approach is bad for America’s families, because it would likely lead to more politics rather than 

science-based standards, making weaker air standards and more 

early deaths and illnesses more likely. 

Then there is the lead air quality standard. In December, EPA 

also announced it is considering whether to revoke the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard for lead. The lead-acid battery industry had urged this step. If the standard is revoked, there is no 

assurance that lead will be monitored in air across the Country. 

Polluters could emit dangerous level of lead without being detected. 
3 

Yet if EPA were to use the new data showing that it is more 

toxic than previously known, the current lead standard would likely be substantially more stringent. That could force some poorly 

regulated lead polluters to use better controls. 

Lead is a potent brain and nerve toxin that hurts children and 

the elderly the most. What does it say about our values if we endanger the most vulnerable Americans? 

Increasing toxic air pollution. In December, EPA proposed to 

weaken its rules for controls on toxic air pollution. These rules 

apply to thousands of sources, including refineries, chemical plants 

and steel mills. EPA admits in its proposed rule that the rule could 

lead to an increase in toxic air emissions. The Agency’s own regional offices sent a memo to headquarters saying the rule change 

could be ‘‘detrimental to the environment and undermine the intent 

of the Clean Air Act.’’ Toxic air pollutants include some of the most 

dangerous cancer-causing and neurotoxic chemicals that pose a serious threat to America’s families. 

This is the conclusion I reach: the pattern of these year-end actions is striking. The public interest is sacrificed, and environmental protection compromised. Who gains from these rollbacks? 

Just look at who asked for them, like big oil and the battery industry. EPA’s actions and proposed actions make it clear who EPA is 

protecting, and sadly, it is not the American people. The purpose 

of this oversight hearing is to remind EPA, please understand, you 

are only accountable to the American people, not the special interests. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Boxer follows:] 

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

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Late in 2006, EPA rolled back several health protections and reduced public information about pollution. This was a series of unwelcome holiday gifts to the American people. 

These EPA rollbacks have common themes: they benefit polluters’ bottom line, 

and they hurt our communities by allowing more pollution and reducing the information about pollution available to the public. 

Today is the first in a series of hearings. EPA has gone too long without meaningful oversight. I want to send a clear signal to EPA and to this Administration. We 

are watching. The American public is watching. No longer will EPA rollbacks quietly escape scrutiny. 

WEAKENING THE COMMUNITY’S RIGHT TO KNOW (TOXIC RELEASE INVENTORY)

I am extremely concerned about the Agency’s decision in December to weaken the 

Community Right to Know rules for toxic chemicals used and released in communities across the country. EPA’s weakening of these rules will quadruple the amount 

of toxic pollutants that companies can release before they have to tell the public, 

and will reduce the amount of public information on long-lasting toxins that can 

build up in the body, like lead. 

EPA went forward with these changes despite objections from 23 State agencies 

and attorneys general, and despite concerns raised by the Agency’s own science advisory board. Oklahoma’s Department of Environmental Quality is just one of the 

agencies that objected. 

CLOSING EPA LIBRARIES

Last year EPA closed down or cut access to libraries across the Nation, including 

in my State of California. EPA closed or reduced library operations in at least 7 

EPA regions covering 31 States. 
4 

Since 1970, EPA has gathered a vast treasure trove of public health and environmental information. Closure of the libraries hurts Americans’ right to know about 

important information regarding the health and environmental hazards of pollution 

in their communities. The American Library Association and EPA scientists and 

staff oppose these actions. Despite letters from 18 members of the Senate and a public outcry, the fate of EPA’s libraries remains uncertain. 

ELIMINATING PERCHLORATE TESTING

In December, EPA issued a rule which will result in no further testing of tap 

water for the toxin perchlorate. This toxin has been found in millions of Americans’ 

drinking water. GAO says it pollutes 35 States. Perchlorate interferes with the thyroid and is especially risky to pregnant women and newborns. Yet EPA has still not 

issued a health standard for perchlorate in tap water. 

EPA’s original 1999 rule ordered testing for perchlorate, and in 2005 EPA proposed to extend that requirement. But industry objected, and the new rule eliminated the perchlorate testing requirement. 

I am deeply distressed that not only has EPA failed to set a standard for perchlorate, but Americans will lack up-to-date information on whether their tap water 

is contaminated with this toxin. 

CUTTING SCIENTISTS OUT OF THE PROCESS OF SETTING AIR QUALITY STANDARDS

In December EPA also backtracked on its decades-long policy of having key scientists work closely with EPA experts to help develop a range of recommended safe 

levels for clean air standards. Now, consistent with the recommendations of the 

American Petroleum Institute, EPA has taken a dangerous turn. Instead of basing 

health standards on the best science, they will now inject politics into the entire decision. Under EPA’s plan, key scientists will no longer work directly with top government officials to help set health standards. EPA’s new approach is bad for American families, because it will likely lead to more politics rather than science-based 

standards, making weaker air standards and more early deaths and illnesses more 

likely. 

THE LEAD AIR QUALITY STANDARD

In December, EPA also announced that it is considering whether to revoke the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for lead. The lead acid battery industry had urged this step. 

If the standard is revoked, there is no assurance that lead will be monitored in 

air across the country. Polluters could emit dangerous levels of lead without being 

detected. Yet, if EPA were to use the new data showing lead is more toxic than previously known, the current lead standard would likely be substantially more stringent. That could force some poorly regulated lead polluters to use better controls. 

Lead is a potent brain and nerve toxin that hurts children and the elderly the 

most. What does it say about our values if we endanger the most vulnerable Americans? 

INCREASING TOXIC AIR POLLUTION

In December, EPA proposed to weaken its rules for controls on toxic air pollution. 

These rules apply to thousands of sources, including refineries, chemical plants and 

steel mills. 

EPA admits in its proposed rule that the rule could lead to an increase in toxic 

air emissions. The Agency’s own regional offices sent a memo to headquarters saying the rule change could be ‘‘detrimental to the environment and undermine the 

intent’’ of the Clean Air Act. 

Toxic air pollutants include some of the most dangerous cancer-causing and neurotoxic chemicals that pose a serious health threat to American families, especially 

pregnant women, infants and children. Increased levels of toxic air pollutants will 

only increase these risks. 

CONCLUSION

The pattern of these year-end actions is striking—the public interest is sacrificed 

and environmental protection compromised. Who gains from these rollbacks? Just 

look at who asked for them, like Big Oil and the battery industry. EPA’s actions 

and proposed actions make it clear who EPA is protecting. The purpose of these 

oversight hearings is to remind EPA who they are truly accountable to—the American people. 
5 

Senator BOXER. Senator Inhofe. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Before I start, let me just apologize, I will have to be going out 

and coming back during the course of this. We have a serious problem with other committee hearings taking place at the same time. 

I know that you have tried to work with us and some of the other 

committees are not quite as cooperative. So I will be in and out 

during this period of time. 

In the early days of the Clean Water Act, the NAAQS process as 

a whole probably worked because it required the collection of all 

health science related to the relevant pollution issues. But increasingly, the sheer volume of scientific data, often irrelevant data, involved has slowed the gears of the EPA regulatory process. As a 

result, the NAAQS review process is no longer managed by the 

Agency but by the courts. 

To meet statutorily required deadlines, the EPA needed a new 

approach, and I think the reforms that have been announced by 

the EPA are going to bring us in that direction. 

Lead. The NAAQS staff paper on lead is an example of a document written by mid-level EPA staff, without input from highranking officials. It is only one step—and a sometimes unnecessary 

one—of the many steps in the NAAQS review process. I don’t yet 

have a full enough understanding of this issue to have an informed 

opinion as to what direction EPA should take with its NAAQS 

standard for lead. The fact that we are discussing this today, however, is yet another example of why it is important that EPA reform the NAAQS process. I think it is important to point out that 

what we are talking about now this first step. This first step is a 

report, a preliminary report. It is my understanding it has not been 

reviewed by the Administration. 

The Once-In, Always-In. Perhaps no rule better exemplifies the 

inflexible command-and-control mechanism than the ‘‘Once-In, Always-in’’ rule. The simple fact is, we have much anecdotal evidence 

that suggests many plants would reduce their emissions of air pollution to avoid the expensive paperwork and other compliance costs 

of being treated as a major source. I commend Administrator Johnson for publishing a proposal that will collect vital information to 

examine whether indeed a little flexibility here in Washington can 

lead to large pollution reductions in the rest of the Country. 

Perchlorate and UCMR. Another subject we are going to discuss 

today is EPA’s decision to not list perchlorate on its second Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Report, or UCMR2 and, more 

broadly, EPA’s process for determining whether perchlorate should 

be regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act through the 

UCMR1. EPA now has data related to perchlorate occurrence in 

drinking water. Now the Agency must gather better information on 

the relative source contribution from other sources, primarily food. 

Perchlorate is not only an industrial product vital to our Nation’s 

defense, industry and space exploration, but also a naturally occurring substance. It is critical that EPA fully understand how much 

exposure comes from drinking water and how much comes from 
6 

natural and other sources, before we set out creating an unfunded 

mandate on our local drinking water systems. 

TRI. I would like to applaud the Agency’s recent efforts to reduce 

the compliance burden associated with the Toxic Release Inventory, 

while at the same time giving reporters, and here we are talking 

about people who are reporting these releases, incentives to decrease their releases of toxins. EPA’s revised TRI rule allows for 

certain reporters to use the shorter TRI Form A instead of the 

longer Form R. I appreciate the careful balance EPA has struck between the burden reduction efforts and the Agency’s commitment 

to providing information to the public. 

I am very pleased that the Small Business Administration is 

here today, as well as a bona fide small business representative 

from Baltimore, MD, Ms. Klinefelter. I look forward to hearing 

from both of them about the burdens placed on small business by 

the TRI program and how EPA’s Form changes will ease those burdens. 

Libraries. Nearly 4 years ago, the EPA began planning to modernize its library system, which has resulted in EPA consolidating 

its resources, making its information more accessible than ever before online, and saving $2 million in the process. EPA has maintained 26 libraries located in Washington and at its regional offices, but the number of people walking into any of these libraries 

has steadily decreased. Let me provide some examples. EPA reports that at the Region 6 library in Dallas, three people walked 

in per month over the past 3 years. At the Region 7 library in Denver, 20 people walked in during a 7-month period just last year. At 

the Region 5 library in Chicago, most people who walked in were 

simply looking for directions. At the library here in Washington, 

EPA’s own employee use has dropped 71 percent over the past 2 

years. It’s no wonder some of the libraries are closing. 

However, all information held at these closed libraries and the 

other remaining libraries remains available to EPA employees and 

the public online. Through EPA’s Online Library System, anyone 

can access information in EPA’s library collections and either view 

documents online or request documents through a library loan with 

EPA from nearly 42,000 libraries in the United States and around 

the world. In other words, you can go to the Sacramento library 

and get the same thing as if you were going to one of the libraries 

that allegedly is being closed. 

Not surprisingly, these changes have been met with some 

hysterical criticism. One of our witnesses today has written that 

EPA is now withholding ‘‘life-saving information.’’ The director of 

a public employees group has even gone so far to say that EPA’s 

actions ‘‘threaten to subtract from the sum total of human knowledge.’’ I have discovered that these criticisms appear to be unfounded, and I am glad the Administrator is here to shed further 

light on that. 

I think there is, this is the information age. People are getting 

things, my grandkids are getting things online that I never 

dreamed possible in the whole library system. It has nothing to do 

with just this subject for today. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:] 
7 

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

STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Thank you, Madam Chairman. I am glad to have the opportunity to speak about 

each of the six subjects we are addressing in today’s hearing. 

NAAQS REFORM

In the early days of the Clean Air Act, the NAAQS process as a whole probably 

worked because it required the collection of all health science related to the relevant 

pollution issues. But as the sheer volume of scientific information increased dramatically, what once worked became an unmanageable monstrosity of data—often 

irrelevant data—that slowed the gears of the EPA regulatory process. 

So now, as a result, the NAAQS review process is no longer managed by the 

Agency, but by the courts. To meet statutorily required deadlines, the EPA needed 

a new approach. I think the reforms EPA has announced are a major step in the 

right direction. Perhaps the single most important reform that EPA has come forward with is the focus of its scientific research efforts toward answering the most 

relevant questions that need to be answered to effectively review the NAAQS standards. 

NAAQS–LEAD

The NAAQS staff paper on lead is an example of a document written by mid-level 

EPA staff, without input from high-ranking officials, that is only one step—and a 

sometimes unnecessary one—of the many steps in the NAAQS review process. 

In the past 35 years, we have taken 97 percent of the lead emissions out of the 

air in the United States one of the major environmental success stories in our Nation’s history. While it is important to remember our successes, I believe we should 

focus our attention most directly on the major pollution problems still facing us. As 

I have not yet looked at the underlying science pertaining to this subject, I do not 

yet have a full enough understanding of the issue to have an informed opinion of 

what direction the EPA should take with its lead NAAQS program. However, the 

fact that we’re discussing this today is yet another example of why it’s important 

that EPA reform the NAAQS process. 

ONCE IN, ALWAYS IN

Perhaps no rule better exemplifies the inflexible command-and-control mechanism 

than the ‘‘Once-in, always-in’’ rule. The simple fact is, we have much anecdotal evidence that suggests many plants would reduce their emissions of air pollution to 

avoid the expensive paperwork compliance costs of being treated as a major source. 

To my knowledge, anecdotal evidence does NOT exist that plants would increase 

their air pollution if they were instead treated as an area source. I commend Administrator Johnson for publishing a proposal that will collect vital information to examine whether indeed a little flexibility here in Washington can lead to large pollution reductions in the rest of the country. 

PERCHLORATE/UCMR

Another subject we are going to discuss today is EPA’s decision to not list perchlorate on its second Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Report (UCMR2) and, 

more broadly, EPA’s process for determining whether perchlorate should be regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act. It should be noted that EPA did list perchlorate on its UCMR1. When this Committee created this process, it was designed 

to be a one-time occurrence to collect a discrete data set from which to judge the 

need for a drinking water standard. As stated in the Senate report to accompany 

the 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act amendments, ‘‘The Administrator is to revise the 

list every 5 years removing the contaminants for which sufficient information has 

been collected to satisfy future regulatory needs.’’ As EPA noted in the final UCMR2 

rule, ‘‘The data collected [from UCMR1] represents a statistically valid set of high 

quality data that will inform EPA on the occurrence and potential exposure to perchlorate from public drinking water supplies.’’ 

Now that EPA has data related to perchlorate’s occurrence in drinking water, the 

Agency must gather better information on the relative source contribution from 

other sources, primarily food. Research into this very important subject, how much 

perchlorate comes from what source, continues aggressively. 

Perchlorate is not only an industrial product vital to our national defense industry 

and space exploration, but also a naturally occurring substance. It has been found 

in places where there is absolutely no possible connection nexus to the Department 

of Defense or NASA. It has also been found in our Nation’s food supply. So it is 
8 

critical that EPA fully understand how much exposure comes from drinking water 

and how much comes from natural and other sources before we set out creating an 

unfunded mandate on our local drinking water systems requiring them to spend 

scarce water resources chasing after a chemical over which mother nature has significant control. 

TRI

I would like to applaud the Agency’s recent efforts to reduce the compliance burden associated with the Toxic Release Inventory, while at the same time giving reporters incentives to decrease their releases of toxics. EPA’s revised TRI rule allows 

for certain reporters to use the shorter TRI Form A instead of the longer Form R. 

I appreciate the careful balance EPA has struck between burden reduction efforts 

and the Agency’s commitment to providing information to the public. I am very 

pleased that the Small Business Administration is here today, as well as a bona fide 

small business representative from Baltimore, Maryland—Ms. Nancy Klinefelter. I 

look forward to hearing from both of them about the burdens placed on small business by the TRI program and how EPA’s Form changes will ease those burdens. 

EPA LIBRARIES

Nearly 4 years ago, the EPA began planning to modernize its library system, 

which has resulted in EPA consolidating its resources, making its information more 

accessible than ever before online, and saving $2 million in the process. EPA has 

maintained 26 libraries located in Washington and at its regional offices, but the 

number of people walking into any of these libraries has steadily decreased. Let me 

provide some examples. EPA reports that at the Region 6 library in Dallas, three 

people walked in per month over the past 3 years. At the Region 7 library in Denver, 20 people walked in during a 7-month period just last year. At the Region 5 

library in Chicago, most people who walked in were simply looking for directions. 

At the library here in Washington, EPA’s own employee use has dropped 71 percent 

over the past 2 years. It’s no wonder these libraries were closed. 

However, all information held at these closed libraries and the other remaining 

libraries remains available to EPA employees and the public online. Through EPA’s 

Online Library System, anyone can access information in EPA’s library collections 

and either view documents online or request documents through a library loan with 

EPA from nearly 42,000 libraries in the United States and around the world. 

Not surprisingly, these changes have been met with some hysterical criticism. 

One of our witnesses today has written that EPA is now withholding ‘‘life-saving 

information.’’ The director of a public employees group has even gone so far to say 

that EPA’s actions ‘‘threaten to subtract from the sum total of human knowledge.’’ 

I have discovered that these criticisms appear to be unfounded, and I am glad the 

Administrator is here to shed further light on EPA’s library plans. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman, and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses 

this morning. 

Senator INHOFE. Madam Chairman, I may not be here to question the second panel, so I would like to submit several documents 

for the record. I have two letters DOD sent to GAO regarding its 

December 2005 report and study done by professors at Texas Tech. 

So I will be doing that. 

Could I ask one question, to see how many people have opening 

statements, so I can know whether to go down to Armed Services? 

Senator BOXER. Will colleagues raise your hand if you have an 

opening statement? One, two, three, four, five. 

Senator INHOFE. OK, I will go down and come back. Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. I am going to ask colleagues to try to keep it to 

4 minutes. If you go over that, I will give you a little extra time, 

but we are trying to move forward. 

Senator Lautenberg, welcome. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK LAUTENBERG, U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

Thank you for putting the energy and the leadership in fighting for 
9 

the health and well-being of Americans. It is a cause that looks like 

it is losing its present rules and we don’t want that to happen. So 

I commend you for holding today’s hearing on the environmental 

protections that the Bush administration has proposed to cut or already has cut and the effects of those decisions on public health. 

Over the last 6 years, this Administration has made decisions 

that harmed the public it swore to protect. By way of example, proposed to allow some facilities to increase the air toxins they can release, such as benzene and arsenic. It shuts EPA libraries, keeping 

scientific research from staff and citizens. It stopped monitoring 

drinking water for perchlorate, a toxin that has been found in the 

water of 35 States, including New Jersey. 

From air pollution to global warming, the Bush administration 

has shown too little concern for Americans’ health, especially the 

health of children and too much care about the oil, chemical, coal 

and auto industries. Just this weekend, Chairman Boxer and I 

were at a Superfund site in New Jersey, working to get the program back on track. Today we can begin the task of putting the 

word protection back in the Environmental Protection Agency. 

In 1986, with knowledge of what took place in Bhopal, that disaster led me to work to create the EPA’s public right to know program, which gives Americans information on toxic chemicals released or stored in their communities. Yet last December, EPA gutted this program. Examining the data over the last 6 years, the 

EPA’s weakened rules would have the following impacts on my 

home State of New Jersey: information on the release and disposal 

of 700,000 pounds of cancer-causing chemicals will not be available 

to the public. 

Nearly a third of chemical facilities in the State will now be exempted from any reporting requirements. Now, 42 communities in 

New Jersey would no longer have access to information on the release of chemicals into their neighborhoods. The GAO report presented here today says that, in reference to a poster that it has, 

Delaware, Georgia, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Vermont, West Virginia, 

could no longer have quantitative information for at least 20 percent of all of the reported chemicals in their States. The EPA has 

justified this gutting of the law as burden reduction, mind you, 

burden reduction for industries. 

But what about the burden of families and children? We cannot 

allow these changes to stand. That’s why I plan to be introducing 

legislation that fully restores this important program. With my bill, 

I will return the public’s right to know about toxics where they 

live. They deserve that information. Under Chairman Boxer’s leadership, we will continue to conduct the type of oversight that EPA 

needs to help create those conditions and to prevent more rollbacks 

of laws that protect the American public. 

Once again, I thank you, Madam Chairman, for your leadership. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much, Senator, for staying within 

the time and for being very clear in your remarks. 

Senator Isakson. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHNNY ISAKSON, U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA 

Senator ISAKSON. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 
10 

I welcome the Administrator to the hearing today and thank him 

for the many cooperative things he has done with my office since 

I have been in Washington. I appreciate it very much. 

I want to for a minute address the ambient air quality standards, 

which as we know the Agency is required to set, and then on a 5- 

year basis, review and revise. For the last 15 years, quite frankly, 

EPA has had some real problems with this, which has resulted, 

more often than not, in judges setting standards and setting deadlines, not scientists or the Agency. 

These delays are as a result of a combination of a number of 

things: the process of information gathering into a criteria document; the types and amounts of information that are available and 

examined has increased exponentially. The process has become so 

burdened that in practice, EPA staff and not the Clean Air Science 

Advisory Committee, a statutorily set part of the process, have prepared these reviews. CASAC’s role has been to review and approve 

these EPA documents before they went to the Agency’s appointee 

and the Administrator for final decisions. The result is that members of CASAC did not read all the materials that were presented 

to them, and instead, make individual judgments of what is and is 

not important. 

Recognizing how cumbersome the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards review process has become, EPA has rightfully begin an 

internal review in December 2005 on how to streamline the process. After a year, in December 2006, it revised the process to make 

it more manageable and to ensure it meets its 5-year statutory 

deadlines. The four key changes in that process are as follows: 

planning, integrated science assessment, risk exposure assessment 

and ANPR, replaced the staff paper with an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking, containing more narrowly focused assessment. 

ANPR will reflect the Agency’s views and present a range of policy 

options and accompanying rationales for the discussion. 

Even with these reforms, the CASAC will retain its advisory role 

in the National Ambient Air Quality Standard process on all four 

key elements. I believe EPA when they say that these improvements will help the Agency meet its goal of reviewing each ambient 

air quality standard on a 5-year scale, as required by the Clean Air 

Act, without compromising the scientific integrity of the process. 

I might add here, part of our problems in Northwest Georgia 

have been precisely because of the deals in establishing these 

standards on a timely basis. I would like to take a minute to address the concern of those who say the influence of CASAC is diminished under the new system. It is my understanding that 

CASAC has the opportunity to, but chose not to issue a formal response to the December 7 memo in which the new process was outlined. In fact, in response to a draft of the changes, the CASAC 

made a number of suggestions which were incorporated in the final 

memorandum. 

One of CASAC’s suggestions, the convening of a science workshop at the outset of the process to better focus the review, addressed a major concern that the old process spent too much time 

compiling an encyclopedic review of literature which had little relevance to the policy questions that needed to be addressed. With 

respect to the concerns some have voiced with regard to the EPA 
11 

taking comments from CASAC at the same time that it considers 

comments from the public, I would direct them to the comments of 

Dr. Rogene Henderson of the CASAC chair and the press on December 14, 2006, where Dr. Henderson said the following: ‘‘Some 

of the members were concerned, but most are not, because it 

doesn’t change CASAC’s ability to comment on the system.’’ 

I commend EPA for streamlining this unwieldy process and look 

forward to hearing from our witnesses today. I yield back the balance of my time, Madam Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Isakson follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHNNY ISAKSON, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA

Thank you Madam Chairman, and Senator Inhofe. I’d like to begin by welcoming 

all our witnesses to the Committee today, but especially Steve Johnson. I have been 

impressed by his performance to date and, while we may not have always agreed, 

I have always found him responsive to the needs of my constituents when called 

upon by them. 

As we conduct this hearing today to provide congressional oversight recent EPA 

decisions, I would like to focus my opening remarks on reforms to the process for 

setting National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). As we all know, the 

Clean Air Act requires EPA to set NAAQS for pollutants considered harmful to public health and the environment. 

The NAAQS are reviewed every 5 years and revised, if appropriate. By law, the 

NAAQS review results in rules that tighten, retain, or loosen the standards. 

The NAAQS process, however, has become unwieldy. The EPA for the past 15 

years has had a poor track record of meeting its 5-year statutory deadline. This has 

resulted in most NAAQS deadlines being set by the courts. This process has repeated itself without regard to which party is in power at the time of the deadline. 

These delays are the result of a combination of a number of things. The process 

of information gathering into a Criteria Document—where all information is considered regardless of its relevancy in the decisionmaking process for evaluating and potentially changing the standard—is onerous. The types and amount of information 

that is available and examined has increased exponentially. The process became so 

burdensome that, in practice, EPA staff and not the Clean Air Science Advisory 

Committee (CASAC), a statutorily set part of the process, have prepared these reviews. CASAC’s role has been to review and approve these EPA documents before 

they went to the Agency’s appointees and the Administrator for final decisions. 

The result is that the members of the CASAC do not read all the materials presented to them and instead make individual judgments of what is and is not important. Recognizing how cumbersome the NAAQS review process has become, EPA 

rightfully began an Agency internal review in December 2005 on how to streamline 

the process. After a year, in December 2006, it revised the process to make it more 

manageable, and to ensure it meets its 5-year statutory deadlines. 

The four key changes to the process consist of the following: 

1. Planning: Create one integrated plan early in the process so that all participants may focus on policy-relevant issues. 

2. Integrated Science Assessment: Replace the voluminous Criteria Document 

with a more concise synthesis of the most policy-relevant science. This includes creating a state-of-the-art electronic databases to catalog new studies. 

3. Risk/Exposure Assessment: Create a more concise document to focus on key results and uncertainties. 

4. ANPR: Replace the Staff Paper with an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking containing more narrowly focused assessment. ANPR will reflect Agency 

views and present a range of policy options and accompanying rationales for discussion. 

Even with these reforms, the CASAC will retain its advisory role in the NAAQS 

process on all four key elements. I believe EPA when they say that these improvements, will help the Agency meet the goal of reviewing each NAAQS on a 5-year 

cycle as required by the Clean Air Act, without compromising the scientific integrity 

of the process. 

I would like to take a minute to address the concerns of those who say the influence of the CASAC is diminished under the new system. It is my understanding 

that the CASAC had the opportunity to, but chose not to, issue a formal response 

to the December 7 memo in which the new process was outlined. In fact, in response 
12 

to a draft of the changes the CASAC made a number of suggestions which were incorporated in the final memorandum. 

One of CASAC’s suggestions, the convening of a science workshop at the outset 

of the process to better focus the review, addressed a major concern that the old 

process spent too much time compiling an encyclopedic review of the literature 

which had little relevance to the policy questions that needed to be addressed. 

With respect to the concerns some have voiced with regards to EPA taking comments from CASAC at the same time that it considers comments from the public, 

I would direct them to the comments of Dr. Rogene Henderson, the CASAC Chair, 

in the press on December 14, 2006. Dr. Henderson said the following: ‘‘[S]ome of 

the members were concerned but most are not, because it doesn’t change CASAC’s 

ability to comment.’’ 

I commend EPA for streamlining this unwieldy process and look forward to hearing from our witnesses today. I yield back my time. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much, Senator, for your views. 

Senator Cardin. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN CARDIN, U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND 

Senator CARDIN. Senator Boxer, thank you very much for convening this hearing. I welcome Administrator Johnson to our committee. 

I also want to acknowledge one of my constituents who is here, 

Nancy Klinefelter, the president of the Baltimore Glassware Decorators. I look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses. 

Madam Chair, generally speaking, people who run businesses 

don’t like regulation. But if, according to Oliver Wendell Holmes, 

Jr., taxes are the price we pay for a civilization, then I would submit regulations are the cost of doing business in a civilization. We 

all struggle to try to protect human health and the environment in 

a way that is least burdensome to our industries. 

This hearing will concentrate on six changes that EPA has put 

into effect. I want to just comment on two that are particularly 

troublesome to me. Scientists and public health experts at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have determined that no 

level of lead in a child’s blood can be considered safe. Yet EPA is 

considering revoking the ambient air quality standard for lead. In 

my own State of Maryland, this has been of particular concern. We 

are doing what we can on the Chesapeake Bay. We have hot spots 

in which lead levels are contributing to the concerns within the 

Bay. 

In our health issues with children, we have been very aggressive 

in our State, trying to deal with it from a legal and health point 

of view at the University of Maryland. Kennedy Kreiger Institute 

treats children that have high levels of lead. We have looked at the 

problems from lead paint, we have looked at the problems from 

lead in the air and drinking water. All that is important, but we 

need the Environmental Protection Agency working with us. The 

ambient levels are an important part of that effort. I am very concerned about revoking the ambient air quality standard for lead. 

On the community right to know, according to the testimony we 

will hear today from John Stephenson of GAO, the new EPA rules 

regarding toxic release inventory could allow nearly 3,600 facilities 

to avoid reporting any quantitative information on the toxic chemicals they release into the air, water and land. In my own State of 

Maryland, we receive currently about 800 reports. This could re-
13 

duce it by about 25 percent, the number of reports we will receive 

in our State. That could have a very dramatic impact on our own 

efforts within the State of Maryland and our communities’ right to 

know. I am concerned about those standards. 

So Madam Chair, I thank you for convening this hearing, because I think it will give us a chance to review all of the changes 

that have been implemented or suggested. We have a very important role on oversight. The standard that we must use is what is 

in the public health interest, which should always guide us in our 

judgment in oversight of the Agency. 

I will yield back the balance of my time. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Alexander. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LAMAR ALEXANDER, U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I would only 

say two things. One is welcome, Administrator Johnson. I am here 

to hear your testimony and that of the witnesses. 

Second, to use this opportunity to thank you for paying attention 

to the importance of high standards for sulfur pollutants, especially 

as they affect the Great Smoky Mountain region of east Tennessee 

and North Carolina, which has a particular problem with that. We 

have talked about that before. Just as one Senator, I want to urge 

you to continue to insist that those standards be high. Because 

there is no way that communities in our part of the Country can 

meet the Federal clean air standards unless there is a strong national law that limits the pollution, especially of sulfur. Nitrogen 

and mercury are also important and carbon is important as well. 

But sulfur is the focus and I wanted to keep that at the front of 

your thinking. 

Thank you for being here. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much, Senator. 

Senator Klobuchar. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR, U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you, Senator Boxer, and thank you, 

Administrator Johnson, for being here. I am from Minnesota, 

where our license plates say Land of 10,000 Lakes when there is 

actually 15,000. So we of course are very focused on having clean 

air and clean water. 

The things that I am most concerned about today are the perchlorate in the drinking water standard, the lead air standard, 

some of the things my colleagues have talked about with the toxics, 

and a general concern about the use of science in setting air quality 

standards. But the thing that I would like to focus on today is the 

weakening of the right to know rules that our Country has lived 

by for 20 years. I come from this from the standard of being in law 

enforcement, where over the years we have moved to a much more 

open approach, and we have found it is good when communities 

know things, when they know about sex offenders, when they have 

open court proceedings for child protection. We have found that we 

get better law enforcement when information is out there. 
14 

Unfortunately, the new EPA right to know standard announced 

in December of last year is a significant weakening of the Toxics 

Release Inventory, the TRI. This inventory, as you know, is a 

handy tool. It is user friendly. You just type in your zip code and 

you are able to get a list of toxic chemicals that are released in 

your neighborhood. 

Increasing the amount of chemical releases and management 

that are exempt from the form are, I believe, undermines the purpose and effect of this whole reporting regime. I know Senator 

Cardin talked about this. But I just believe that this TRI gives 

communities the information they need to plan. It also helps first 

responders dealing with disasters. After Katrina, it was reported 

that TRI was a key source for determining what kind of industrial 

chemicals were stored by flooded companies. TRI helps investors, 

because it lets them know the difference between well and poorly 

managed companies. Some States also use TRI to impose fees on 

companies based on the types and amounts of hazardous chemicals 

that they report to the Federal inventory. Minnesota is one of those 

States. 

Some States like Minnesota have actually built their whole reporting regimes around TRI. So weakening TRI weakens the whole 

regime. Those are my concerns, and I will look forward to hearing 

your testimony in this matter. Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much, Senator. 

Senator Craig. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY E. CRAIG, U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO 

Senator CRAIG. Madam Chairman, thank you very much. Thank 

you for bringing Administrator Johnson before us. Welcome. We 

are glad you are before the committee. 

A couple of thank yous first. I do appreciate the way you are 

handling science. As it relates to drinking water standards, you 

know out west where arsenic is naturally occurring and the standards have been set, we are now still wrestling on how to bring 

about compliance in very difficult areas where the average human 

has consumed arsenic literally for hundreds of years with apparently no health problems. Perchlorate, let’s deal with it in the appropriate scientific way, and I think you are doing that. Naturally 

occurring elements within our atmosphere or within normal conditions sometimes are very, very costly to clean up. I am not quite 

sure we yet know how to get all that done. It does not mean it is 

important, if it is realistic to be able to that. 

Your work with my staff, myself and our State on obviously National Ambient Air Quality Standards, the Coarse Particulate 

Standard, or the PM10, for rural counties, rural environments, we 

are pretty sensitive to that, as you know, Administrator Johnson, 

we appreciate it. 

Now let me talk about something that up until a week ago I 

didn’t know you had, and that is a large library system across our 

Country. I am not so surprised and somewhat frustrated by it, but 

I am a little curious about some of the testimony we are going to 

hear today that speaks of a concern about alarmist testimony that 

we are denying the public the right to know. A couple of Fridays 
15 

ago, on visiting with my fourth grade granddaughter, and she said, 

Granddad, for a school project, I need this particular items. I said, 

‘‘oh, well, tomorrow I will go down to the library with you and we 

will get it’’. She said, ‘‘why would you want to do that? Let’s go into 

Grammy’s laptop and Google it.’’ We did. Ten minutes later, it was 

printed out and in her hands. 

The citizens of my State live 500 miles from your nearest library, 

and none of them make the great trek to Seattle to enter the library to get the information. They go to your Web site. 

Today is a very different world, that that granddaughter of mine 

is living in. I don’t think anyone in Idaho concerned about their environment is going to make the trek to Seattle. That doesn’t mean 

they won’t gain access to your information. They’ll gain it in a more 

ready fashion than they have in the past. 

You heard the Ranking Member talk, Madam Chairman, about 

those who come to the libraries nowadays. Few come. That doesn’t 

mean many don’t access the available information. Or they go and 

they use the library system in our Country to do so. It isn’t that 

we are not developing effective and responsible repositories of information. It means that you are saving money by modernizing 

your system and by maybe putting it in a different form than it 

was historically. 

So I compliment you for doing that, and I am very interested in 

whether the public is being denied their right to know or they are 

simply accessing it in a different form, like that granddaughter of 

mine who said, ‘‘Granddad, let’s Google it.’’ 

Thank you for being here today. 

Senator BOXER. Senator, I think the physicians in the Country 

and the librarians and many businesses are a little more concerned 

than your granddaughter. 

Senator CRAIG. Madam Chairman, I appreciate that. I understand that librarians are members of national associations and 

none of them like to create environments that under or un-employ 

them. 

Senator BOXER. I would also say, librarians as a group don’t tend 

to be hysterical or—what was the other word? Alarmist. Alarmist 

or hysterical. 

I think that the quote that was given by my dear, dear friend 

Jim Inhofe was that they were hysterical when they said, this closure of the libraries will subtract from the sum total of human 

knowledge. I don’t think that’s exactly hysterical. I think it’s a 

pretty sobering, thoughtful statement. But we are going to see 

what happens. 

Senator CRAIG. We will find out. 

Senator BOXER. I agree. 

Senator Vitter, you will close then the members’ comments. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID VITTER, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA 

Senator VITTER. Thank you, Madam Chair, for convening this 

hearing. Thank you, Mr. Administrator, for being here and for your 

work. I have a number of interests that will probably be covered 

today. 
16 

But one of them stems from the fact that I am the new Ranking 

Member of the subcommittee that has jurisdiction over water quality, and the Safe Drinking Water Act. One issue in that category 

in particular is how we handle and regulate perchlorate as a component of rocket fuel and explosives, it is widely used as an oxidizer by the military and NASA in solid rocket propellants. 

In 2002, EPA first issued a draft drinking water equivalent of 

one part per billion as the safe human exposure level of perchlorate. More recently, in January 2005, the National Academy of 

Sciences published a report recommending a safe level of 24.5 parts 

per billion as the drinking water standard equivalent. 

As I understand it, you are looking at this very carefully. Right 

now, you have a guidance on the subject pegged at that 24.5 parts 

per billion. But you are particularly focused on other sources of 

perchlorate in the environment, because there seem to be other significant sources, perhaps other dominant sources, besides drinking 

water. I know it has been found significantly in food sources, lettuce, milk, other things. As I understand it, the focus is on understanding those other sources so that you get any drinking water 

standard right, considering the universe we live in. 

I consider all of this the right approach and I support that approach. I think all of us would have a greater comfort level with 

it, however, if you can perhaps discuss it in a little bit more detail 

and also discuss a reasonable time line that you think are on with 

regard to examining perchlorate from all of its sources and therefore coming up with the right standards, including drinking water, 

so that there isn’t any fear that this is just slow walking the issue 

into oblivion, that we are on some reasonable time line to address 

it. 

But certainly we do need to get the right science together and address it in the right way. Obviously, a drinking water standard has 

to account for other sources and has to understand what those 

other sources are or are not, and how dominant they are, et cetera. 

So I appreciate your work in that regard. As I understand it, you 

are actively engaged with FDA and CDC in particular with regard 

to those other sources. 

So I would be very, very interested in that ongoing work and 

what reasonable time line that is on, so we can decide if there 

needs to be a standard versus an advisory and what that statutory 

legal standard should eventually be. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Administrator. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator Vitter. 

By the way, I really want to associate myself with your remarks 

about getting to a standard. Today we are really looking at the 

other question of why they are going to stop testing the water. But 

I think you are right, we need to finally solve this perchlorate problem, which you have described very well, I think. Thank you. 

Senator Carper, I think you will be the last Senator. You have 

4 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mr. Johnson, welcome. It is good to see you again. 
17 

On December 22d, I believe EPA finalized a ruling that was supposedly intended to reduce the paperwork burden of Toxic Release 

Inventory, something that I worked with when I was Governor and 

frankly found of great value, every year. In fact, we keyed on it 

every year in terms of the progress that we were making in my 

State of Delaware. 

Unfortunately many others, and it includes me, believe that this 

new rule will only result in denying some very important information to a number of States and communities, including my own 

State. So I approach it with real caution and trepidation. 

Specifically, this new rule will allow facilities that release or dispose of, I believe, 5,000 pounds or less of toxic chemicals to use a 

short certification to satisfy their Toxic Release Inventory reporting 

requirements. The short certification does not require facilities to 

disclose the actual amount of toxins they release or dispose of. 

Prior to this change, the cutoff for full disclosure was, I believe, 500 

pounds or one-tenth of what it is now. 

At first, this may not sound like this rule change is merely a paperwork exercise. At first blush, it is difficult to perceive how filling 

out a long form or a short form could have any impact on the environment. 

However, all one must do is to look at how the information in 

these reports is used. State officials in my State, and most if not 

all other States, have utilized these TRI reports to not only track 

pollution but to also determine where to focus our efforts on pollution reduction. I know that from personal experience. 

According to Delaware’s Department of Natural Resources and 

Environmental Control, this is what they say, my old team, the 

Toxic Release Inventory or TRI provides information that is not 

only crucial for making decisions concerning health and environment, but also has proven a valuable tool for more efficient environmental management. In Delaware, officials have found the TRI 

program extremely helpful in setting environmental and public 

health policy. Pollution has been reduced as a direct result of facility participation in the TRI program. Now is not the time to turn 

back the clock. Those are their words, and I would just say they’re 

my words as well. Unfortunately, according to Delaware and many 

other States who weighed in on these proposed changes, that is exactly what EPA is doing. 

In their formal comments to EPA on these rule changes, State 

agencies expressed their concerns that valuable and substantial information concerning the release and disposal of the most toxic 

chemicals reported under TRI would be lost. With these changes, 

our citizens will be told that a certain toxic chemical is in use or 

being produced in their community, but they will no longer be 

privy to how these toxic chemicals are being released in their environment, if at all. 

Additionally, our State agencies will no longer be able to track 

hot spots. They do not have the data on amounts and locations of 

toxins being used in their States. For example, in my State, 50 percent of one highly toxic chemical and 85 percent of another will no 

longer be required to be reported in new detail. These numbers 

represent important information to citizens in the communities 

where these facilities operate. 
18 

In closing, in my opinion, we should be encouraging facilities to 

be reducing or discontinuing the use of TRI chemicals, not hiding 

how much they are using. The most troubling aspect of these rule 

changes is EPA’s unwillingness to listen. According to OMB Watch, 

EPA received literally hundreds of thousands of comments opposed 

to these changes. Of those comments were 23 States like my own 

who expressed their opposition and outlined in detail the problem 

this rule change would cause. But these comment were ignored, 

and now communities will suffer. That is not environmental protection. 

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much, Senator Carper. 

Senator Bond, would you care to make an opening statement? 

You have 4 minutes, if you wish. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI 

Senator BOND. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I appreciate 

your holding this hearing over the regulatory actions. 

I think too often we get bogged down in details, policy minutiae, 

arcane regulatory angles and obscure legal arguments. I am afraid 

this hearing today could be a casualty of that affliction. I hope we 

will not lose sight of the forest as we examine the trees. The forest, 

the Bush administration, this EPA, has a strong environmental 

record. They are just a couple of examples. The Bush diesel rule 

will cleanup diesel truck exhaust, avoiding 37,000 premature 

deaths and provide over $250 billion in health and welfare related 

benefits annually. How can we seriously hold a hearing on whether 

library resources should be online or hard copy in the face of 

37,000 lives extended and $250 billion annually in health and welfare related benefits? 

Another example is the Bush Clean Air Interstate Rule. The politics of polarization and gridlock blocked the President’s Clear Skies 

proposal, which I thought made a great deal of sense. It would 

have reduced smog, soot and mercury pollution from powerplants 

by 70 percent. So he went ahead with it administratively. The result, by 2015, the President’s Clean Air Interstate Rule will provide 

$85 billion to $100 billion annually in health benefits, prevent 

17,000 premature deaths and prevent 12,300 hospital admissions. 

But this doesn’t inspire commendation from the majority on the 

committee. They want to debate whether the EPA should require 

that respondents file Form A in lieu of Form R to the TRI program. 

I mean, are you kidding? We are focusing on the wrong things. 

Let’s talk about another tree sought for promotion instead of the 

forest. It really isn’t a tree, it is more like a little sapling. Most of 

you may find it obscure, I do. But EPA has guidance referred to 

as the Once-In, Always-In policy. Intended to be temporary in nature, it was issued as a memorandum in 1995. Of course, I might 

add, this was also a good way to avoid open and public process that 

would allow for public comment, require Agency response, and subject the Agency to judicial review. 

It is a lucky situation, because the legality of the situation is tenuous at best. The guidance says the requirements to the Clean Air 

Act no longer apply to you, will still be enforced against you by the 
19 

EPA. That doesn’t sound fair to me. According to EPA guidance, facilities that in the past emitted above a certain level established by 

section 112, major sources, which then reduce their emissions 

below that statutory level in an enforceable way, becoming a nonmajor, what EPA calls an area source, will still meet the requirements of a major source. 

That is like the IRS saying that a salesman making $150,000 

and paying the top tax bracket one year and then having a bad 

year and making only $35,000 in the second year would still have 

to pay the top tax bracket in the second year. Or like the gas company, which sends me a huge bill for natural gas during the winter, too high, of course, it’s artificially high because so many utilities are burning natural gas. That’s another debate. 

But when I turn down my thermostat and when warming may 

occur some time in March or April, if I use less gas, would they 

still send me a bill for my January gas usage? It doesn’t sound fair 

to me, it isn’t right. But that is not an incentive to improve the environment. So EPA stumbling into some common sense and fairness proposed to change the situation, they haven’t decided to 

make it, but instead they are gathering information. 

Today’s hearing, are we going to attack that? I prefer to focus on 

what the Administration has accomplished. I commend you, Mr. 

Administrator, for those accomplishments. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much, Senator. 

I just want to point out that I totally respect your view that this, 

I guess I would say using your words, we are focusing on minutiae. 

But I would also say that 23 States, agencies and attorneys general 

agree with this, that we should focus on this. They oppose the 

weakening of the public’s right to know. The investigative arm of 

Congress, the GAO, as you will hear, has many problems, the 

American Lung Association and others. 

So I think, but I do respect the fact that you consider this small 

compared to the bigger picture. 

Senator BOND. I appreciate your view. 

Senator BOXER. Yes. That is why we have two parties, I think. 

Anyway, thank you. 

Administrator, welcome. We have your testimony in full and I 

understand you are going to summarize it in how many minutes? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Shortly. Briefly. 

Senator BOXER. Well, just give me an idea of time. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Three minutes. 

Senator BOXER. Oh, you can have 5 minutes or 6 minutes, what 

would you prefer. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Really, 3 to 4 minutes. 

Senator BOXER. We will give you 5 minutes. So let’s go. 

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN L. JOHNSON, ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Mr. JOHNSON. Good morning, Chairman Boxer, and thank you, 

and Senator Inhofe and members of the committee. This is my first 

appearance before the 110th Congress, and it is an honor to have 

this opportunity to discuss EPA’s progress in accelerating the pace 
20 

of environmental protection and how to build on that record of success. 

Our environmental record is clear. America’s water, air, land, are 

cleaner today than they were a generation ago. Under the Bush administration, this progress continues. Two of the five most health 

protective clean air rules in EPA’s history—the Clean Air Non-Diesel rule and the Clean Air Interstate Rule—were adopted during 

the tenure of President Bush. We were the first Country in the 

world to adopt controls on mercury emissions from powerplants. As 

part of our new Clean Diesel rules, America’s gas stations are 

primed to pump ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel, the single greatest 

achievement in clean fuel since the removal of lead from gasoline. 

In addition to strengthening our standards, EPA is vigorously enforcing our Nation’s environmental laws. In fiscal year 2006, we obtained commitments to reduce pollution by nearly 900 million 

pounds. Our enforcement work has resulted in a sustained 3-year 

record of pollution cuts, totaling almost 3 billion pounds and requirements that companies invest almost $20 billion in pollution 

control equipment. 

Through innovation and partnerships, EPA is moving beyond 

traditional regulatory and enforcement approaches to achieve even 

greater environmental gains. Over 2 million children across the 

Nation are now riding in cleaner buses as a result of our Clean 

School Bus USA program, a public-private partnership. Through 

the brownfields program, EPA and our State partners have leveraged nearly $9 million in private investment and helped create 

more than 41,000 jobs. 

Also, EPA’s leadership in the mercury switch recovery program 

will remove 75 tons of mercury from the environment over the next 

15 years. At EPA, we are meeting the President’s goal of accelerating the pace of environmental protection while maintaining our 

Nation’s economic competitiveness. As we celebrate our environmental gains, we also look to the future, and I look forward to 

working with you and others in Congress to build on that record 

of success. 

As the Administrator of the premier environmental Agency in 

the world, I believe the first step in preparing for the future is investing in our employees. Our people are our greatest strength. In 

order to build an even stronger EPA, we need to continue to develop a highly trained, motivated work force and ensure that we 

have provided them with the right tools to meet the environmental 

challenges of tomorrow. I am ready to respond to your questions on 

the six specific issues you wished to discuss today. I have with me 

senior managers who can speak in greater detail. 

Each of these topics have been the subject of misinformation, and 

I welcome this opportunity to set the record straight. We are eager 

to continue a constructive dialog on these and other issues facing 

EPA. By working together, we can meet today’s challenges, while 

ensuring we hand down a healthier, cleaner environment to future 

generations. 

Thank you, and I would be happy to address any questions you 

may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:] 
21 

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN L. JOHNSON, ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY

Good morning Madam Chairman and Members of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today 

to discuss EPA’s significant progress in our efforts to accelerate the pace of environmental protection. 

INTRODUCTION

Regardless of rhetoric, our environmental record is clear. America’s air, water and 

land are cleaner today than it was a generation ago; and under the Bush administration this progress continues. 

Two of the five most health protective clean air rules in EPA’s history—the Clean 

Air Nonroad Diesel Rule and the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR)—were implemented during the tenure of President Bush. And, as part of our new clean diesel 

rules, last October, America’s gas stations were primed to pump ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel—the single greatest achievement in clean fuel since lead was removed from 

gasoline. When fully implemented, these efforts are estimated to prevent approximately 37,000 premature deaths and result in well over $250 billion in health and 

welfare-related benefits annually. 

The Bush administration’s recent record of success also includes the introduction 

of the Clean School Bus USA program to help protect our Nation’s children from 

diesel exhaust, the establishment of the renewable fuel standards to spur the Nation’s progress on energy security and cleaner-burning fuels, and the removal of the 

reformulated gasoline oxygenate requirement that resulted in MTBE threatening 

the quality of our drinking water. 

At EPA, we are meeting the President’s goal of accelerating the pace of environmental protection while maintaining our Nation’s economic competitiveness by putting both people and property back to work. By encouraging the cleanup and redevelopment of America’s abandoned and contaminated waste sites, EPA’s Brownfields 

program has leveraged more than $8.8 billion in private investment, helped create 

more than 41,000 jobs, and resulted in more than 9,100 site assessments. 

In addition to strengthening standards and promoting stewardship, EPA is committed to vigorously enforcing our Nation’s environmental laws. In fiscal year 2006, 

we obtained commitments from industry, governments, and other regulated entities 

to reduce pollution by nearly 900 million pounds. Our enforcement work has resulted in a sustained 3-year record of pollution reduction, totaling almost 3 billion 

pounds, and requiring companies to invest almost $20 billion in pollution control 

equipment. 

The American people deserve environmental results, and that is exactly what 

EPA and the Bush administration are delivering. I look forward to continuing a constructive dialogue on how to build on this record of success. Environmental responsibility is everyone’s responsibility, and by all of us working together, we can meet 

today’s challenges, while ensuring we hand down a healthier, cleaner environment 

to future generations. 

Now let me turn my attention to the actions or decisions you asked me to address 

at this hearing. Unfortunately, each of these topics has been the subject of misinformation, and I welcome the opportunity to set the record straight. Regardless of 

the rhetoric, EPA’s strong environmental record is clear. These decisions and actions 

all accelerate the pace of environmental protection. They all deliver environmental 

results. They all encourage innovation and collaboration by using the best available 

science to inform decisionmaking. 

MODERNIZATION OF EPA LIBRARIES

One way EPA is accelerating environmental progress is by making an unprecedented amount of environmental information more accessible to the public than ever 

before by posting materials on the Internet and converting paper documents to digital format. Demand for this type of information is high. In December 2006 alone, 

we received more than 230 million hits and more than 92 million page requests 

from EPA’s Web site, an increase of about 40 percent over this same time in 2005 

[see attachments]. This does not happen by accident—much work has been done to 

make information available to the widest possible audience. For several years we 

have been looking at ways to provide the public with better access to EPA materials 

through the use of the Internet and modernization of our library systems. EPA is 

in good company with this effort as more and more libraries across the country are 

proceeding with modernization efforts. 
22 

1 Unique EPA documents are documents created for or by EPA. Due to copyright law, EPA 

cannot digitize copyrighted materials. 

EPA is committed to providing the broadest possible access to environmental information, including the technical documents and reports currently contained in our 

libraries. To act on this commitment, we are making our full collection of environmental information accessible to scientists and the public through a variety of mechanisms [see attachment]. Our vision is to be the premier model for the next generation of Federal libraries by enhancing the electronic tools and resources that people 

use to look for information, while continuing to provide traditional library services. 

Let me also assure you that unique EPA material has been retained, catalogued, 

and is available to EPA and the public. 

EPA began this modernization effort to provide more people with better access. 

Over the last several years, EPA saw a decline in the walk-in traffic at many of 

our libraries. Coupled with the explosive growth in on-line and other electronic 

media, we examined ways to modernize our library system to seek a balance between physical library space and automated resources. We discontinued walk-in 

services at five of our 26 libraries and reduced the hours of operations at some other 

libraries. However, the services provided remain unchanged. 

Through this modernization effort, we are providing more information to a greater 

audience than ever before. Our research libraries remain open for use by our scientists, and EPA employees continue to have electronic access to additional information from more than 120,000 resources from their desktops. We also plan on continuing a strong network of physical libraries. Some will serve as repositories to 

hold hard copies of our collection and some will continue to provide walk-in services. 

To ensure that our efforts move forward, I have asked the Agency’s new Assistant 

Administrator for Environmental Information and Chief Information Officer, Molly 

O’Neill, to conduct an assessment of where we are and to evaluate our overall library modernization effort. As we have throughout this effort, we will continue to 

share our information with our employees, stakeholders, and library users. 

In the meantime, our collection of approximately 500,000 items (including books, 

journals, microfiches and other items) is accessible today, and digitized versions of 

EPA documents will allow even greater access to more people, in a more timely and 

efficient manner. We will complete digitization of the unique EPA documents1 that 

were held by EPA libraries that no longer provide walk-in services in the near future. 

In summary, our library modernization effort has and will continue to provide 

more people with more access to EPA information, both online and through traditional library services. The public and EPA scientists continue to have access to 

EPA’s robust Online Library System (http://www.epa.gov/natlibra/ols.htm), as 

well as EPA documents digitized to date (more than 25,000) from the National Environmental Publications Internet site (http://nepis.epa.gov/), and over 7,000 titles in 

hard copy free of charge from the National Service Center for Environmental Publications. To facilitate access to materials, EPA libraries post information on its web 

site about how to request hard copy documents and obtain answers to questions. 

Members of the public who do not have Internet access can request EPA documents 

from their public library via the On-Line Computer Library Center’s (OCLC’s) Interlibrary Loan Services. OCLC includes 41,555 libraries across the world. 

TOXICS RELEASE INVENTORY (TRI) PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS

Our programs in air, water, land and toxics are all designed to ensure the health 

and safety of the American people and our environment. The Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) program is one of those programs. TRI has contributed to the reduction 

of chemical releases and better waste management practices. We want to see this 

trend continue. 

As you know, EPA’s TRI program provides information on the releases and waste 

management activities for nearly 650 chemicals reported from industry. Environmental information has many uses, and one of the most effective is to encourage 

facilities to reduce their emissions. As successful as the program has been, we have 

been challenged by the fact that, at a national level, reductions in TRI releases have 

plateaued [see attachment]. So we have asked ourselves: How do we achieve further 

reductions? How do we encourage zero releases and better waste management practices? How do we accelerate this program? 

We began looking at these questions in response to requests that the Agency consider whether the reporting burdens associated with TRI could be reduced. We 

agreed, but only if the burden reduction opportunities identified allowed us to con-
23 

tinue to provide useful information to communities. Our changes to the TRI program have accomplished this goal. 

In short, providing incentives to encourage better waste management practices is 

good for the environment, good for facilities, and good for the people who live around 

them. The final rule provides such incentives. 

As a result of our review, on December 18, 2006, EPA announced a final rule that 

expands eligibility for TRI reporters who meet certain narrow criteria to use the 

shorter ‘‘Form A’’ in lieu of the ‘‘Form R.’’ In the new final rule, certain facilities 

will be able to provide more efficient reporting if they can meet one of two requirements: (1) completely eliminate environmental releases of Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic chemicals (known as ‘‘PBTs’’); or (2) reduce the non-PBT chemical 

releases to no more than 2,000 pounds over the course of a year as part of an overall 

limit of 5,000 pounds of total waste management. The reduction in reporting is 

about 15 hours for each PBT report submitted on a short form and about 9 hours 

for a non-PBT chemical. Under this rule, facilities must continue to report for dioxin 

and dioxin-like compounds on the more detailed Form R regardless of the amount 

used or released. 

For the first time, facilities may use the shorter, less onerous reporting form for 

PBTs when there have been no releases into the environment and the total amount 

of the PBT chemical managed by treatment, energy recovery, and/or recycling is not 

more than 500 pounds. The final rule enables us to reduce the reporting burden for 

those reporters that are successfully managing their facilities to ensure there are 

zero releases to the environment. 

The final rule encourages businesses to reduce their chemical emissions and increase proper recycling and treatment, which are both good for the environment and 

good for the economy. By structuring expanded ‘‘short form’’ eligibility for TRI 

chemicals in this way we are encouraging practices such as recycling and treatment 

over disposal and other releases. The result is a cleaner environment for us all. 

Members of the Committee, I want to provide clarification on two important 

points regarding this rule: (1) The final rule does not exempt any facility from reporting its releases, nor does it remove any chemicals from the TRI; and, (2) It has 

no impact on the primary source of information for emergency responders—first responders receive chemical inventory data under Section 312 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act, not from TRI. 

In all, the Agency has spent many years evaluating various ways to strengthen 

the TRI program. As part of this effort, EPA announced in the fall of 2005 that it 

was exploring possible revisions to the frequency of reporting. No changes were proposed, but EPA notified Congress and the public that it was considering such 

changes. After careful consideration of the issues involved and the public comment 

received, EPA announced on December 18, 2006 that it will maintain annual TRI 

reporting. EPA concluded that consistent annual reporting adds significant value to 

the information collected, and furthers the statutory purposes of the program. 

Additionally, beyond just utilizing the Agency’s regulatory authorities, EPA is improving TRI by expanding the use of available technology to expedite the submission 

and availability of TRI data. Technological improvements to the TRI Program include: the Electronic-Facility Data Release (E–FDR); and, a new web-based version 

of the Toxics Release Inventory—Made Easy (TRI–ME) software. Through these improvements to the TRI, we are expediting the submission and availability of TRI 

data. We expect this trend to continue in the future. 

I am committed to providing the public timely and reliable information. By retaining annual reporting and encouraging businesses to reduce their chemical emissions 

and increase recycling and treatment, EPA is ensuring the TRI will continue to 

serve as an important source of information on chemical releases from facilities nationwide. 

NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS (NAAQS) REVIEW PROCESS

Central to ensuring clean air across the Nation are the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) that EPA sets under the Clean Air Act (CAA). As part of 

this charge, we are required to review the science upon which the NAAQS are based 

and the standards themselves every 5 years. But the fact is the process is broken. 

In the past, EPA has often failed to complete reviews in the statutory timeframe 

[see attachment]. We have also found it impossible to use the most up-to-date scientific information when following the inefficient past process for NAAQS review. 

In an effort to address these issues, Deputy Administrator Marcus Peacock requested a thorough review of the process. In particular, he asked that the review 

focus on four key areas: (1) timeliness (i.e. how to complete NAAQS reviews on a 

5-year cycle as required by the CAA); (2) consideration of the most up-to-date sci-
24 

entific information; (3) clarifying the differences between scientific and policy judgments; and, (4) defining and expressing uncertainties in scientific and technical information. To help accomplish this task, EPA formed an internal workgroup that 

consulted with environmental and public health groups, industry, States, and the 

Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC)—the group of independent scientific experts established under the CAA to provide the Agency with advice and 

recommendations on the scientific basis and adequacy of NAAQS. CASAC indicated 

that ‘‘[N]ow is the time to think ‘outside the box’ and develop a significantly-enhanced and streamlined NAAQS review process.’’ I agree. 

As a result of our internal deliberations and input from stakeholders and CASAC, 

EPA is changing the way we review NAAQS to enhance the efficiency, transparency, 

and accountability of the process while protecting its scientific integrity. 

To ensure a more effective, streamlined process, EPA will develop and implement 

a single integrated plan to guide the entire review of each NAAQS, rather than the 

two-phased planning approach that has been used in the past. We will focus on providing the complete record of the available scientific information in a science assessment support document and producing a concise Integrated Science Assessment— 

rather than a voluminous Criteria Document—to inform decisionmaking. We are 

also moving towards a continuous review of the latest scientific evidence, supported 

by a state-of-the-art scientific database. In addition, we will issue a concise Risk and 

Exposure Assessment focused on identifying the major risks and uncertainties. 

Finally, we will issue our policy assessment as an Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (ANPR) that will reflect Agency views on the appropriate range of policy options. The addition of an ANPR will result in a more open and transparent 

process by seeking the public’s input on Agency management’s views earlier and 

more frequently than what previously occurred. In this way, the NAAQS process 

will be consistent with EPA’s approach to rulemaking in virtually every other arena. 

CASAC will continue to have multiple opportunities to provide advice and recommendations throughout the NAAQS review process, both with regard to the underlying scientific and risk information and the policy options being considered by 

the Agency [see attachment]. EPA appreciates the important contribution CASAC 

makes to the NAAQS process and the revised process respects and preserves 

CASAC’s role. 

EPA is committed to meeting the 5-year deadline for review of the NAAQS 

through this improved process. The changes we are instituting will enhance the 

Agency’s ability to issue timely, well-informed policy decisions based on the best 

available science while continuing to promote broad participation by experts in the 

scientific community. 

LEAD NAAQS REVIEW

Exposure to lead poses significant dangers, particularly to children, and we are 

committed to protecting public health and welfare from the dangers of lead. EPA 

is currently reviewing the NAAQS for lead, which was listed as a criteria pollutant 

in 1976, and EPA issued the first lead NAAQS in 1978. As with all of our reviews 

and regulations, we undertake this effort to help ensure that we continue to protect 

public health and our environment. 

We are proud of the progress EPA has made since the 1970s in reducing lead 

emissions and levels of lead in ambient air. As a result of the ban on lead additives 

in motor vehicle gasoline, implementation of the NAAQS, and other EPA regulations 

and programs, including efforts to reduce lead in housing, average lead concentrations in the air have dropped by more than 95 percent since 1980. There has been 

a significant shift not only in the magnitude of emissions, but also in the types of 

sources with the greatest lead emissions. In addition, the 1990 CAA Amendments 

required EPA to regulate lead compounds as hazardous air pollutants under section 

112. As required by section 112, EPA has established technology-based emission 

standards (called Maximum Achievable Control Technology, or ‘‘MACT,’’ standards) 

for many facilities emitting lead compounds, and will establish additional risk-based 

standards for those industries where additional protection from residual risks is 

necessary. Moreover, EPA has worked hard to reduce the risk of lead exposure 

through a variety of other programs, including Superfund and drinking water programs and lead paint initiatives. EPA remains strongly committed to protecting 

public health and the environment from the dangers of lead pollution, and will carefully consider potential impacts—including impacts on children—of any regulatory 

decision regarding lead. 

We are still very early in the process of reviewing the NAAQS. As part of our review, we have issued a completely revised lead Criteria Document that presents a 

comprehensive, up-to-date summary of our knowledge about lead and its effects on 
25 

human health and the environment. We have a great deal of scientific evidence that 

associates lead with significant adverse effects on human health, especially for children, at much lower levels in the body than we previously knew. We will consider 

all of this information in reviewing the lead NAAQS and making decisions about 

whether revisions to the standards are appropriate. As we move forward in this lead 

NAAQS review, we will review the most up-to-date science, assess risks and exposures, and develop appropriate policy options in light of all the available information. 

EPA’S RECENT PROPOSAL TO REPLACE THE ONCE-IN-ALWAYS-IN POLICY

Another vital component of our clean air program is the comprehensive regime 

established by section 112 of the CAA for reducing toxic air pollutants. CAA section 

112 lists over 180 chemicals as hazardous air pollutants and includes several provisions requiring control of emissions of these pollutants into the air. Under section 

112, EPA establishes Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards, 

and these standards generally apply only to ‘‘major sources.’’ Major sources are facilities that emit or have the potential to emit, ‘‘considering controls,’’ 10 tons per 

year or more of a single toxic air pollutant or 25 tons per year or more of any combination of toxic air pollutants. Facilities that emit less than these amounts are 

called ‘‘area sources.’’ The CAA requires EPA to establish standards for area 

sources, and these standards can be less stringent than the MACT standards. While 

the law plainly defines what constitutes a ‘‘major’’ and ‘‘area’’ source, the CAA is 

silent as to when controls must be in place for the purpose of assessing a source’s 

emissions and determining whether that source is a major or area source. 

In May 1995, EPA issued the ‘‘once in, always in’’ policy to address the issue of 

when controls must be in place. The policy generally provides that only the controls 

in place by the deadline for complying with the MACT standard count in determining whether the facility is a major or area source. Under the policy, if a facility 

emits at or above the major source threshold levels on the compliance date of the 

MACT standard, the facility will always be subject to that MACT standard, even 

if the facility later adds controls that reduce its emissions below major source levels. 

The current policy is environmentally counterproductive. For example, we heard 

from several States and industry representatives that the current policy discourages 

facilities from instituting new pollution prevention measures after a MACT standard applies because, even if a facility later reduces toxic emissions through pollution 

prevention measures, it must continue to comply with the MACT standard and 

other related requirements. The policy also creates an uneven playing field by allowing facilities to avoid major source status if they put on controls before the MACT 

standard applied, but not if they added controls after that date. 

The ‘‘once in, always in’’ policy was issued in the form of a memorandum and was 

intended to be only temporary. In light of its importance in determining the applicability of MACT standards, the Agency stated in the memorandum announcing the 

policy that it intended to arrive at a final approach through rulemaking. In December of last year, EPA began that rulemaking process by announcing a proposal that 

would replace the once-in-always-in policy. Under the December proposal, a major 

source could become an area source at any time if it limits its potential to emit toxic 

air pollutants to below the major source threshold levels. The source would be required, however, to obtain a permit that limits it emission to below the major source 

levels, and would be subject to any area source standard applicable to its industry 

sector. 

A major source that made the capital investment necessary to reduce its potential 

to emit to below the major source threshold levels could become an area source at 

any time, provided it has a permit that appropriately limits its potential to emit. 

As part of the rulemaking, we are seeking more information on sources’ likely responses to the proposed approach so that the Agency can better assess the potential 

emissions implications before making a final decision. We look forward to receiving 

and evaluating public comments on the proposal. 

PERCHLORATE AND THE IMPORTANCE OF SCIENCE

One of my key principles is to use the best available science for decisionmaking 

to accelerate the pace of environmental protection in our country, and this principle 

extends to perchlorate. To inform our decisionmaking, we are working with other 

Federal Agencies, such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), to 

gather and understand information on the sources of perchlorate exposure. 

When looking at specific contaminants, one of the key factors we must consider 

is the reference dose (RfD). The reference dose is an estimate of a daily oral expo-
26 

sure to the human population (including sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be 

without an appreciable risk of adverse effects during a lifetime. To develop the RfD 

for perchlorate, EPA consulted the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to ensure 

a thorough, unbiased application of science. The NAS reviewed available data on the 

effects of perchlorate, selected the most appropriate study, and applied EPA’s 

science policy guidance in developing an RfD of 0.0007 mg/kg/day, which was subsequently adopted by the Agency. 

In carrying out their analysis, the NAS used an approach that protects the most 

sensitive population, the fetuses of pregnant women who might have 

hypothyroidism or iodide deficiency. To protect this subpopulation, the NAS recommended that the RfD be derived by taking the dose at which no observable effect 

(whether adverse or not), is anticipated in healthy adults, and reducing it by a further 10-fold factor to account for sensitive sub-populations. Deriving the RfD to prevent a nonadverse precursor effect is a more conservative and health-protective approach to perchlorate hazard assessment compared to our traditional approach of 

basing RfDs on prevention of adverse effects. 

We know that questions have been raised about the current RfD, particularly 

given recently published scientific articles. EPA is reviewing and analyzing these 

findings to assess the relevance of the study results for predicting adverse health 

effects that may result from perchlorate exposure. The Agency has a great deal of 

interest in the findings regarding perchlorate exposure and thyroid function that 

were recently reported by CDC researchers. The CDC researchers acknowledged 

that there is a need for additional research to confirm their results and improve 

upon some of the limitations of the study, and we look forward to reviewing these 

additional studies. 

Regarding the need for Federal regulation to address perchlorate, the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) has an established process for determining if unregulated 

contaminants pose a sufficient risk to public health to warrant regulation. Perchlorate is on our second Contaminant Candidate List (or CCL), which was published in February 2005. The CCL is a list of unregulated contaminants that may 

(or may not) require regulation. In the near future, we will propose regulatory determinations on a number of contaminants from that list. This notice will include an 

extensive update on the Agency’s review of perchlorate, including a summary of recent research. 

Before the Agency can make a determination as to whether it is appropriate to 

regulate perchlorate in drinking water (i.e. whether setting a drinking water standard would provide a meaningful opportunity to reduce risk for people served by public water systems), we need to better understand total perchlorate exposure and the 

relative exposure to perchlorate from water as opposed to food sources, which we 

refer to as the ‘‘relative source contribution.’’ An increasing number of studies have 

reported the presence of perchlorate in samples of various foods (e.g. milk, lettuce, 

melons) and with this and other food information becoming available, use of a default assumption for the relative source contribution may not be the best means to 

determine whether it is appropriate to regulate perchlorate in drinking water. We 

need to determine whether setting a drinking water standard would provide a 

meaningful opportunity to reduce risk for people served by public water systems, 

and we need to understand how public exposure compares to the RfD and what portion of the exposure comes from food versus water. 

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has been conducting surveys to determine perchlorate levels in food since FY 2004. The Agency is particularly interested 

in reviewing the results and associated planned exposure assessment from FDA’s 

2006 Total Diet Study when it has been peer reviewed and finalized. This will be 

the most comprehensive assessment of food exposure to date and is designed to provide estimates of total food exposure by region based on a representative market 

basket approach. Additionally, the CDC has included perchlorate in its National 

Biomonitoring Program which develops methods to measure environmental chemicals in humans, for example, by analyzing blood and urine samples. With this information, the CDC can obtain data on levels and trends of exposure to environmental 

chemicals in the U.S. population. EPA may be able to use the results of CDC’s studies to estimate perchlorate exposure and inform a determination as to whether regulation of perchlorate in drinking water is necessary to protect public health. 

Finally, I would like to clarify an issue related to monitoring for perchlorate in 

public water systems. To support our regulatory development process, the Agency 

requires short-term monitoring for specific contaminants under the Unregulated 

Contaminant Monitoring program (UCMR). During the first round of this program, 

3,858 water systems were monitored for perchlorate during a 1-year period between 

2001 and 2003. This monitoring was designed to provide an assessment of perchlorate occurrence in public water supplies that was broadly representative of com-
27 

munity water systems throughout the country. Perchlorate was detected at levels 

above the minimum reporting level of 4 parts per billion (ppb) in approximately 2 

percent of the more than 34,000 samples analyzed. The average concentration of the 

detected values was 9.8 ppb and the median concentration was 6.4 ppb. (For context, the reference dose is equivalent to about 25 ppb in water.) The samples in 

which perchlorate was detected were collected from 160 of 3,858 public water systems (4 percent of systems) located in 26 States and 2 territories. We have determined that the existing data is sufficient to support our regulatory decisionmaking 

and, as such, it is not necessary to conduct additional perchlorate monitoring under 

the second UCMR, which in any case would not be completed until 2010. Of course, 

if EPA determines that regulation of perchlorate in drinking water is necessary, ongoing compliance monitoring of perchlorate would be part of any new standard. 

Considering this new information in conjunction with the wider body of research 

in this area will improve our understanding of perchlorate toxicity and exposure. If 

necessary, EPA can require additional monitoring at a later time if new information 

indicates that additional sampling is warranted. EPA will continue to review and 

analyze new science and information on perchlorate as it becomes available and will 

rely on the best available science as we move toward a decision on whether or not 

to regulate perchlorate. EPA is committed to protecting public health, including sensitive populations. 

CONCLUSION

Madam Chairman, as I mentioned before, regardless of rhetoric, our environmental record is clear. America’s environment has steadily improved over the past 

30 years, and under the Bush administration this progress continues. I am proud 

of EPA’s environmental record. Each of the six actions or decisions that I have described will provide the American people with beneficial environmental results 

through efficiency, transparency, innovation, collaboration, and the use of the best 

available science. Thank you for providing me with an opportunity to explain the 

goals of and reasoning for our decisions. I look forward to working with you in the 

future and to providing additional information about the activities of this Agency. 

I would be happy to address any questions that you may have at this time. 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 

RESPONSES BY STEPHEN L. JOHNSON TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM

SENATOR BOXER

PERCHLORATE

Question 1a. Does EPA’s Drinking Water Equivalent Level (DWEL) and Preliminary Remediation Goal (PRG) for perchlorate: 

Address the amount of perchlorate exposure an individual could receive from consuming food as well as drinking water? If so, what percent does EPA assign to each 

route of exposure? Provide all EPA records, including any memoranda, email, meeting notes, telephone logs or other EPA records that describe EPA’s process for selecting these exposure figures. 

Response. The Drinking Water Equivalent Level (DWEL) is a lifetime exposure 

concentration protective of non-cancer health effects that assumes all of the exposure to a contaminant is from drinking water. The DWEL does not address or account for contaminant exposure from sources other than drinking water. 

EPA’s Assessment Guidance for Perchlorate (January 26, 2006) provides guidance 

on the development of preliminary remediation goals (PRG) for perchlorate. Typically, PRGs are specific statements of desired endpoint concentrations or risk levels 

(55 Fed. Reg. 8713 (March 8, 1990)) that are conservative, default endpoint concentrations used in screening and initial development of remedial alternatives before consideration of information from the site-specific risk assessment. 

However, PRGs are not final cleanup levels, but merely the starting point for 

identifying site-specific goals. As a matter of standard practice (and in accordance 

with the National Contingency Plan), preliminary remediation goals are further 

evaluated and modified, if necessary, before final clean-up goals are established 

based on information that becomes available during the remedial investigation/ feasibility study. This may include assessing factors, such as actual and potential exposure pathways through environmental media and actual and potential exposure 

routes. While there is information available that indicates that perchlorate has been 

found in food, EPA believes that the currently available data are too limited to calculate, on a national level, the relative exposure to perchlorate from water as opposed to food (the RSC). Therefore, EPA’s Assessment Guidance for Perchlorate recommends that contribution from non-water sources of perchlorate should be considered based onsite-specific data where assessors believe that there may be significant 

exposures to perchlorate from such sources. In such instances, it is appropriate to 

consider such information in determining the final cleanup goal, and thus, the remedy for the site. 

We are continuing to search for the specific records that you have requested and 

will update our response as our search progresses. 

Question 1b. Account for children’s unique exposure and vulnerabilities, including 

making adjustments for infants and children’s weight and the lack of a biological 

reserve of thyroid hormone to off-set potential exposures to perchlorate? 

Response. The Drinking Water Equivalent Level (DWEL) is a lifetime exposure 

concentration protective of non-cancer health effects that assumes all of the exposure to a contaminant is from drinking water. The DWEL is based on the Reference 

Dose (RfD), body weight (BW) and Drinking Water Intake (DWI). 

DWEL = (RfD) x (BW)/(DWI) 

The RfD is an estimate of a daily oral exposure to the human population (including sensitive subgroups, including infants and children) that is likely to be without 

an appreciable risk of adverse effects during a lifetime. To develop the RfD for perchlorate, EPA consulted the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to ensure a thorough, unbiased application of science. The NAS reviewed available data on the effects of perchlorate, selected the most appropriate study as the basis, and applied 

EPA’s science policy guidance in developing an RfD of 0.0007 mg/kg/day, which was 

subsequently adopted by the Agency. In carrying out their analysis, the NAS used 

an approach to protect the most sensitive population, the fetuses of pregnant women 

who might have hypothyroidism or iodide deficiency. To protect this subpopulation, 

the NAS recommended that the RfD be derived by taking the dose at which no observable effect, non-adverse or adverse, is anticipated in healthy adults, and reducing it further by an order of magnitude. Using a non-adverse effect that is upstream 

of the adverse effect is a conservative and health protective approach to perchlorate 

hazard assessment. Because the NAS determined that the most sensitive subpopulation is the fetuses of iodide deficient or hypothyroid pregnant women, EPA used a 

body weight (70 kg) and drinking water intake (2 liters/day) relevant to the pregnant woman to derive the DWEL. 

Question 2. Did leading scientists from the National Academies of Sciences’ National Research Council panel on perchlorate recommend that their suggested safe 
35 

level of exposure to perchlorate be adjusted when used to create any type of standard, such as a drinking water standard, for the different levels of exposure from 

water and food, as well as the need to account for the weight of children relative 

to adults? 

Response. No recommendations were made regarding adjustments for varying 

sources of exposure or body weight differences in standard setting for perchlorate 

exposure. The NAS panel evaluated the scientific evidence on perchlorate and recommended a single safety level (i.e., referred to as a chronic reference dose or RfD) 

that would be protective of the most sensitive subgroup in the population, the 

fetuses of iodide deficient or hypothyroid women. 

Question 3. EPA issued an Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule in December 20, 2006 that excluded perchlorate from tap water testing requirements. Provide 

all EPA records, including any memoranda, email, meeting notes, telephone logs or 

other EPA records that describe any interaction between EPA and the Office of 

Management and Budget, Department of Defense, National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration, other Federal Agencies contractors for the Department of Defense, 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration other Federal Agencies, or any nonFederal individuals or institutions concerning this rule. 

Response. We are continuing to search for the specific records that you have requested and will update our response as our search progresses. 

Question 4. In 2005, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report 

on the status of perchlorate monitoring in the United States. In this report, the 

GAO recommended that ‘‘EPA use existing authorities or seek additional authority, 

if necessary, to establish a formal structure to centrally track and monitor perchlorate detections and the status of cleanup efforts across the Federal Government 

and State agencies.’’ Describe whether EPA has implemented GAO’s recommendations. Provide all EPA records, including any memoranda, email, meeting notes, 

telephone logs or other EPA records that describe the status of the Agency’s efforts 

to implement these recommendations. 

Response. EPA does not agree with the proposed GAO recommendation that ‘‘EPA 

establish a formal structure to centrally track and monitor perchlorate detections 

and the status of cleanup efforts across the Federal Government and State agencies.’’ EPA already has significant information and data on perchlorate concentrations in various environmental media; which is available on our Web site. Much of 

the information is obtained from our partners in other Federal Agencies and States 

and by private parties, among others. The currently available information indicates 

the extent of contamination nationally. While it is true that EPA does not have all 

the data that a tracking system could provide, the benefits of such a tracking system as GAO recommended are unclear. In order to justify a tracking system, EPA 

would have to analyze its associated costs and benefits and weight them against 

projects in other environmental programs. At this time, EPA does not see sufficient 

benefit for establishing such a system. 

We are continuing to search for the specific records that you have requested and 

will update our response as our search progresses. 

Question 5. Describe the status of EPA’s efforts to establish a drinking water 

standard for perchlorate. Include a timeline for the Agency’s activities, the anticipated date that EPA will issue a proposed and final drinking water standard, and 

describe whether EPA will rely on the studies that the Centers for Disease Control 

published in 2006. Provide all EPA records, including any memoranda, email, meeting notes, telephone logs or other EPA records that describe any interaction between 

EPA and the Office of Management and Budget, Department of Defense, National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration, other Federal Agencies, contractors for the 

Department of Defense, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, other 

Federal Agencies, or any non-Federal individuals or institutions concerning EPA’s 

activities to establish a drinking water standard for perchlorate. 

Response. EPA is currently working to gather the data to make a determination 

as to whether or not to establish a drinking water standard for perchlorate in accordance with the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) section 1412.b.1. On May 1, 

2007, EPA published a Federal Register notice providing regulatory determinations 

for 11 CCL 2 contaminants, and discussing the status of the Agency’s evaluation of 

perchlorate. EPA has not made a preliminary regulatory determination for perchlorate because the Agency believes additional information is needed to fully characterize perchlorate exposure and determine whether a national drinking water regulation for perchlorate presents a meaningful opportunity for public health risk reduction. This is one of the three criteria under the SDWA that EPA must determine 

before it can make a preliminary regulatory determination. 
36 

The May 1, FR Notice describes several potential options for characterizing perchlorate exposure and proceeding with a regulatory determination for perchlorate. 

These options include using the forthcoming Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) 

Total Diet Study and/or further analysis of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) biomonitoring data. Currently, FDA anticipates the Total Diet 

Study for perchlorate will be published in the fall of 2007 and EPA is working with 

the CDC to conduct additional analyses of biomonitoring data. EPA intends to move 

expeditiously to publish a preliminary determination for perchlorate once the Agency has analyzed these data and determined the best approach to evaluating the opportunity for public health risk reduction. EPA anticipates this could be done within 

2 months of the release of the FDA Total Diet Study for perchlorate. EPA may be 

able to publish a final regulatory determination for perchlorate as part of the final 

CCL 2 regulatory determinations due by July 2008. If not, the Agency will publish 

its final determination for perchlorate as soon as possible thereafter. 

If EPA makes a determination to regulate perchlorate, the SDWA provides EPA 

with 24 months to propose a standard and another 18 months after the proposal 

to issue a final regulation. Final promulgation can be extended for up to 9 additional months. A considerable amount of work needs to be done to propose and finalize a national primary drinking water regulation. As part of the rulemaking process, 

the Agency must complete a Health Risk Reduction and Cost Analysis (HRCCA), 

identify feasible technologies, and identify small system compliance technologies. 

We are continuing to search for the specific records that you have requested and 

will update our response as our search progresses. 

RESPONSES BY STEPHEN L. JOHNSON TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM

SENATORS BOXER AND LAUTENBERG

Question 1a. EPA Libraries.—The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) claims 

that it is closing libraries in an effort to modernize its library collections by emphasizing the electronic access and retrieval of EPA documents, especially including 

unique Agency documents. Please describe: 

Whether EPA personnel have ever ordered the removal of on-line material—including archival material—from the Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances’ (OPPTS) library. Please do not include routine maintenance activities (i.e. 

updating WebPages) as a removal of material. If this occurred, please provide copies 

of the material that EPA personnel ordered to be removed (provide these documents 

in paper and electronic format). 

Provide all EPA records, including any memoranda, email, meeting notes, telephone logs or other EPA records that describe the date that the order to remove 

the material was given, the reason for the removal, whether any EPA staff or contractors raised concerns or asked for confirmation of the removal order, the reason 

for replacing any of the material on EPA’s Web site, and the date such material was 

replaced. 

Response. On December 1, the Agency updated the OPPTS library web site to 

note that the Library had closed and to provide information to the public on how 

to access publications and other documents. Unfortunately, several links were inadvertently dropped during this update process. Once the Agency discovered the links 

were dropped, they were promptly restored. Here is the chronology and the specific 

links. 

On Friday, December 1, 2006, OPPTS updated its chemical library site. These 

pages were taken down: 

http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/library/pubs/archive/ 

http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/library/pubs/collectn.htm 

http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/library/pubs/currents.htm 

http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/library/pubs/journals.htm 

On Monday, December 4, 2006, OPPTS re-established these pages: 

http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/library/pubs/archive/ 

http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/library/pubs/collectn.htm 

On Thursday, December 7, 2006 OPPTS re-established these pages: 

http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/library/pubs/currentjs.htm 

http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/library/pubs/journals.htm 

We are continuing to search for the specific records that you have requested and 

will update our response as our search progresses. 

Question 1b. Whether EPA personnel have ever ordered the removal of on-line 

material from other EPA libraries. Please do not include routine maintenance activities (i.e. updating WebPages) as a removal of material. If this occurred, please pro-
37 

vide copies of the material that EPA personnel ordered to be removed (provide these 

documents in paper and electronic format). 

Provide all EPA records, including any memoranda, email, meeting notes, telephone logs or other EPA records that describe the date that the order to remove 

the material was given, the reason for the removal, whether any EPA staff or contractors raised concerns or asked for confirmation of the removal order, the reason 

for replacing any of the material on EPA’s Web site, and the date such material was 

replaced. 

Response. The Agency is not aware of any such order being given to remove online 

materials. As is routine practice with any Web site, the information for individual 

libraries is reviewed for accuracy by the central program managers. Where information was outdated (such as stating that a physical library was still open when in 

fact it had closed to walk in traffic), libraries were asked to correct their Web sites. 

In some cases public access to that Web site may have been briefly interrupted 

while the site was updated. In all cases the material being changed focused on ensuring that service delivery information was accurate rather than any attempt to 

limit either internal or external access to any documents. 

Question 1c. The handling of any inquires to EPA librarians from EPA staff, agencies, individuals or institutions that could not access on-line material during any 

time period that on-line material was removed from EPA’s Web site, as described 

in the paragraphs above. 

Response. The Agency is not aware of any such order being given to remove online 

materials. However; OPPTS received one request for information that was inadvertently removed through broken links as described in the response to 1(A) above. This 

request alerted OPPTS to the inadvertent removal of materials which were subsequently restored. 

Question 1d. Whether EPA used any formal or informal standards or guidelines 

to determine how to close libraries and digitize their holdings. If so, please provide 

the document or documents, the name of the governmental or non governmental entity that authored the material and the date that the standard or guideline was 

published. 

Response. The 2007 Library Plan, issued on August 15, 2006, provides Agencywide guidance for offices to utilize when determining the status of their physical library space. For your convenience, a copy of the Plan has been attached to this response. Developed by EPA professional librarians and individuals with related professional credentials, the plan outlines a process whereby libraries that closed were 

required to review their collections and thoughtfully prepare unique EPA titles for 

digitization (see further discussion in F). At the same time, such materials were required to be available to meet the needs of in-house staff or for inter-library loan. 

This Plan drew upon both the extensive experience of these individuals as well as 

best library practices as identified by the Library of Congress, professional library 

associations and other professional organizations. Ultimately, the criteria used to review collections are set by each library to be certain that they are appropriate to 

that collection and its users. 

Question 1e. Whether EPA considered leaving all of its libraries open while the 

Agency digitized documents, rather than closing its libraries and then digitizing documents. Please also provide all EPA records, including any memoranda, email, 

meeting notes, telephone logs or other EPA records that describe the Agency’s consideration and rejection of this option, as well as the reason for any such rejection. 

Response. Utilizing the 2007 Library Plan, each library in the Network considered 

many factors in determining the status of their physical library spaces. Such decisions were made at the local level based upon various factors including the annual 

costs associated with having facility agreements and contracts for library services 

in place for fiscal year 2007 and walk-in traffic in the physical library space to name 

a few. In all cases however, EPA made every effort to ensure that the holdings of 

each of the libraries which decided to close their physical space were available to 

the staff and to the public. 

Question 1f(1). The number of documents that the Agency does not intend to 

digitize that are held or that were formerly held at EPA libraries that are now 

closed. Describe the types of documents by category, the total number of documents 

in each category, the total number of documents that EPA will not be able to 

digitize, and the percentage of the documents in each category and in the aggregate 

that the Agency will not be able to digitize. 

Response. Overall, EPA’s collection includes approximately 500,000 library items; 

however, EPA estimates that only 51,000 are unique EPA titles (across the entire 

Network, not just the closed libraries). EPA has digitized over 14,000 items from 

those libraries which have closed their physical space. The remaining items are pub-
38 

lished by organizations outside EPA including grantees which the Agency is prohibited from digitizing due to copyright laws. These items also include monographs, 

microfiches, journals, maps, audiovisual materials, CDs and documents published by 

non-EPA entities. All of these items are still available to EPA staff from their servicing library and the public via interlibrary loans. 

Question 1f(2). Also describe the total amount of money that EPA needs to digitize 

all of the documents that the Agency intends to digitize and the timeline for 

digitizing all of the documents. 

Response. EPA spent approximately $78,950 for digitizing materials for closed libraries in fiscal year 2007. EPA has an additional $170,000 remaining for 

digitization in fiscal year 2007. 

Question 1f(3). Provide any formal or informal estimate that the Agency has on 

the cost of digitizing the documents that EPA does not intend to digitize. 

Response. EPA plans to digitize all documents in our collection which we have the 

right to digitize. The digitization of the remaining unique EPA documents awaits 

the completion of the independent expert review of our digitization specifications 

and procedures. Once the review is both completed and peer-reviewed, we will develop a revised digitization plan, including budget requirements. 

Question 1g. Whether EPA analyzed the number of people who do not have or use 

the Internet and the impact that the library closures would have on these individuals’ ability to access library material. Please also provide all EPA records, including any memoranda, email, meeting notes, telephone logs or other EPA records that 

describe the Agency’s analysis and plan to address the needs of these types of library users. 

Response. EPA did not conduct such an analysis as it would have been cost prohibitive to try to ascertain who in the general public did not have access to the 

Internet. However, all 18,000+ EPA employees continue to have access to library 

materials, both in electronic and hard copy format. Additionally, the public will continue to have access to EPA library materials through interlibrary loans via any of 

the 57,000 libraries in the U.S. and abroad which participate in the Online Computer Library Center (OCLC). 

Question 1h. Whether EPA intends to maintain paper copies of digitized documents. Please describe the number of such documents that EPA intends to maintain 

and the Agency’s reasons for maintaining this number of documents. 

Response. After additional discussions with our stakeholders, EPA has modified 

our plans to maintain a minimum of two paper copies of digitized documents within 

our library network. Originally the Agency had discussed keeping one copy in the 

repository, but as part of our continuing dialog with stakeholders it was recommended that two copies be kept. This will be incorporated in the Repository Procedures document which should be finalized by the 1st quarter of fiscal year 2008. 

Question 1i. Whether EPA librarians have had difficulty finding and providing 

documents from EPA libraries that the Agency has closed or at which the Agency 

has reduced staff and hours of operation. If this has occurred, please provide all 

EPA records, including memoranda, email, meeting notes, telephone logs or other 

EPA records that describe the title and subject matter of the material at issue, the 

reason for the difficulty in finding or providing the document and whether EPA ever 

satisfied the request, including the amount of time it took the Agency to satisfy the 

request. 

Response. The Agency is not aware of any reports of EPA librarians having difficulty finding and providing documents from EPA libraries which have closed or at 

which the Agency has reduced hours of operation. 

As an illustrative example of the efforts EPA has made to ensure documents are 

still available for use by staff and the public, EPA received a request on the afternoon of Thursday, June 7, from the congressional Research Service at the Library 

of Congress, for a print copy of a document identified in EPA’s Online Library System (OLS) as being held in the EPA Headquarters Repository. This document is 

available online and is also held in several of the libraries in the EPA National Library Network. Because the person for whom he was requesting the item specifically wanted to use a print copy of the document, the requestor wanted to come to 

EPA Headquarters to get the physical document (picking up the document in person 

would not only allow faster access to the item, but would avoid the risk of damage 

to our document due to Library of Congress mailroom procedures for x-raying items 

arriving via mail or courier). 

The requested item was among the materials that had been transferred from the 

Region 5 Library. The contract librarian at the EPA Headquarters Repository was 

able to locate the document within the hour. EPA made arrangements with the re-
39 

questor for the librarian to meet him and the document was delivered to him on 

Friday morning, June 8. Follow-up contact with the requestor confirmed that he received what he needed and was very pleased with the quick response from EPA Libraries. 

Question 1j. Whether, when EPA has switched a journal subscription from paper 

to electronic format in fiscal years 2005, 2006, and 2007, the Agency has ensured 

that it has the right to access—at any time—material published during the subscription period, including the right to use software needed to read the material. 

For example, when EPA goes from subscriptions for paper copies of material to 

subscriptions for electronic copies of material, does EPA’s contract guarantee the 

Agency free access to on-line content that was published when the Agency had a 

valid subscription? 

Response. As long as EPA maintains its online subscription, Agency employees 

have full access to back issues of the publication. Should the Agency terminate its 

subscription for any reason, the Agency has access to the material published during 

the time when a subscription was in place. The exact method varies by the contractual requirements of the subscription publisher. In some cases a small fee must be 

paid for such access. 

Question 2. Provide the names of the current librarians and library managers at 

EPA regional, headquarters, and specialized libraries, including contract libraries 

and EPA personnel. Please also include the librarians and library managers who 

worked at EPA regional, headquarters and specialized libraries during the 2006 and 

2007 fiscal years. Please include the names of individuals who still work for EPA 

and individuals who no longer work for the Agency. The total number of years of 

experience at EPA libraries that EPA no longer has with the loss of librarians that 

occurred in fiscal year 2006 and 2007? Staffing levels at each of EPA’s libraries for 

fiscal years 2005, 2006, 2007, and projected staffing levels for 2008. 

Response. The attachment ‘‘EPA Library Staffing’’ provides this information. [The 

attachment is retained in the committee’s file.] This attachment includes the names 

of individual librarians and library managers at EPA regional, headquarters, and 

specialized libraries, including contract libraries and EPA personnel per your request. EPA respectfully asks that you not further disseminate this information beyond the Committee members and their staffs in order to minimize the potential 

for public scrutiny or harassment of these individuals or disruption of Agency services. Based on long-standing executive branch practices, EPA also respectfully requests that you and your staff continue to coordinate all of your requests for information or interviews through the Office of congressional and Intergovernmental Relations. 

Question 3a(1). Numerous library organizations representing a wide range of librarians and library users have voiced concerns that EPA’s closure and management of its libraries is degrading the Agency’s library system. Please confirm the 

following: In 2004, did an EPA document analyze the costs and benefit of the Agency’s library system and did this analysis: Show that every $1 spent on the libraries 

returned $2 to $5.7 in services to EPA staff and non-EPA individuals who used the 

Agency’s libraries? 

Response. The report ‘‘Business Case for Information Services: EPA’s Regional Libraries and Centers’’ (attached) did show that our library services are a tremendous 

resource to our staff and the public and that is why the Agency continues to provide 

(and expand) these core library services. EPA strongly believes that cost savings associated with closure of physical library space does not equate to reduced library 

services. 

Question 3a(2). Conclude that EPA librarians saved EPA personnel and non-EPA 

personnel between 1 and 8 hours for every reference question answered, and approximately 1 hour for every document delivered. 

Response. The report did show that our library services are a tremendous resource to our staff and the public and that is why the Agency continues to provide 

(and expand) these core library services. EPA strongly believes that cost savings associated with closure of physical library space does not equate to reduced library 

services. 

Question 3a(3). Find that in 2003, librarians successfully answered 56,175 reference questions from EPA staff and others and conducted 90,116 database searches 

and that the librarians that conducted these activities (answering reference questions and searching databases) saved more than 323,000 hours of work and more 

than $10 million for EPA and non-EPA users? 

Response. The report did show that our library services are a tremendous resource to our staff and the public and that is why the Agency continues to provide 
40 

(and expand) these core library services. EPA strongly believes that cost savings associated with closure of physical library space does not equate to reduced library 

services. 

Question 3a(4). Recommend that EPA take five steps prior to changing its library 

system, including that the Agency survey information users at each library location 

and characterize the needs of end users, inventory EPA information resources, characterize and assess factors that enable or constrain the sharing of resources and 

services between libraries, develop models of cooperative services, and review and 

revise as appropriate EPA’s existing policy framework for information services? 

Please describe whether EPA conducted these activities, including the date that 

EPA completed these activities, and provide all EPA records, including any memoranda, email, meeting notes, telephone logs or other EPA records demonstrating the 

Agency’s completion of these activities. 

Response. Each of the 26 libraries within the EPA National Library Network was 

given the opportunity to solicit library user input from October 15, 2004 through 

March 15, 2005. The surveys were conducted online and the results provided individually to each location that initiated a survey. The overall response rate to the 

survey was approximately 14 percent. The Agency developed the 2007 Library Modernization Plan with this feedback and from our discussions with stakeholders. Each 

of the libraries used this information, along with many other factors to make the 

ultimate determination as to the status of their individual physical libraries. 

As Administrator Johnson committed to in his testimony before the Committee in 

February 2007, EPA is undertaking a broad assessment of our overall library modernization efforts. EPA is working closely with both internal and external stakeholders to ensure that as we continue to move forward with making more information available to a broader audience we do so understanding we are meeting their 

library service needs. 

Question 3b(1). In 2005, did an internal EPA report on the potential effects of a 

large reduction in funding in fiscal year 2007: State, ‘‘Although the demand for library services remains high, EPA libraries have been receiving less funding every 

year for the past 4 or 5 years.’’ 

Response. Over the past several years, the Agency’s budget, which includes libraries, has experienced reductions. However, these challenges have encouraged the 

Agency to streamline and modernize service delivery in many areas including libraries. The Agency continues to provide (and expand) these core library services. EPA 

strongly believes that cost savings associated with closure of physical library space 

does not equate to reduced library services. 

Question 3b(2). Find that if EPA’s libraries suffered a $1.5 million funding reduction that ‘‘Regional libraries’ capacity to handle the tens of thousands of core service 

requests from EPA users could be greatly diminished’’ and that ‘‘[Oven the large 

number of library service requests that the Regional libraries receive . . . , it is unlikely that all of these requests will be able to be handled by the Library Network’s 

remaining library staff in fiscal year 2007.’’ 

Response. The Agency has never contemplated the elimination of library services 

for. Agency staff or the public. All Agency staff and the public continue to have access to core library services. EPA strongly believes that cost savings associated with 

closure of physical library space does not equate to reduced library services. 

Question 3b(3). Conclude that closing regional libraries was ‘‘not a good option for 

any EPA Regional office . . . [and that] could adversely affect Regional staff persons’ ability to function. Therefore, the workgroup did not consider this option any 

further.’’ 

Response. The workgroup did examine and reject the option to have Regional libraries close their physical space and ‘‘discontinue support of all core library services, thereby eliminating all library resources for their Regional staff.’’ [See attached: ‘‘Optional Approaches to U.S. EPA Regional Library Support.’’] The Agency 

agrees with the rejection of this option and never has contemplated the elimination 

of library services for Agency staff or the public. All Agency staff and the public continue to have access to core library services. 

Question 3b(4). Provide the Agency with a variety of options other than closing 

libraries? Describe whether EPA implemented or assessed any of these activities, including the date that EPA completed any such activity. Provide all EPA records, including any memoranda, email, meeting notes, telephone logs or other EPA records 

demonstrating the Agency’s completion of such activities. 

Response. Yes, the internal workgroup report discussed a number of options and 

made four recommendations to EPA management. The Agency examined these recommendations and has embraced all of them. The 2007 Library Plan (attached) incorporates these recommendations and cites this report as a key input. 
41 

Question 3c(1). In 2006, did EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) draft a ‘‘position paper’’ on EPA’s libraries that: Stated, ‘‘OECA is concerned that the loss of institutional memory as well as the loss of expertise from 

professional libraries in the regions will hamper OECA’s enforcement program.’’ 

Response. During early discussions on the Agency’s plan to streamline and modernize its library services, the enforcement office did identify issues with respect to 

ensuring the timely accessibility of library material, the need to maintain critical 

staff expertise, and the costs and funding arrangements for providing library services. The enforcement office is continuing to work cooperatively with the Office of 

Environmental Information (OEI) to make certain that resources and procedures are 

in place to ensure that material continues to be accessible and that the unique requirements of the enforcement program are addressed. 

Question 3c(2). Found that EPA Region 5’s library has begun to disperse collection 

its collection and that, ‘‘flinformation from the collections regarding the Great Lakes 

Initiative or data surrounding human health studies may have been dispersed and 

OECA and the Agency may not be able to locate this essential information.’’ 

Response. OECA’s draft position paper dated September 15, 2006 did state this. 

Region 5’s library closed to foot traffic in August 2006. The unique EPA documents 

from Region 5 were digitized as of January 2007 and all other holdings were sent 

to the library repositories. 

Question 4. Describe whether EPA has maintained all reports that it is legally required to have publicly accessible, including but not limited to risk management 

plans for chemical facilities and Superfund National Priorities List Dockets in fiscal 

years 2005, 2006, and 2007. Describe the title and type of documents that EPA is 

required to maintain and the methods that EPA has used to ensure such accessibility. If the Agency has failed to maintain such accessibility, describe the length 

of time that access was limited and the reasons for the limitation. 

Response. In light of the September 11 events, EPA has removed Risk Management Plan (RMP) information from its Web site. RMP information is available to 

the public on request. Access to one part of the RMPs, the Off-Site Consequence 

Analysis Information (Chemical Accident Scenarios) is restricted by law. However, 

at Federal Reading Rooms, the public may access Offsite Consequences Analysis 

(OCA) Information, in the form of paper copies. Federal Reading Rooms are operated by the US EPA and the Department of Justice in all 50 States. Information 

on location of reading rooms and procedures for visiting the reading rooms can be 

found on EPA’s Web site at http://yosemite.epa.gov/oswer/ceppoweb.nsf/content/ 

readingroom.htm. 

As to materials associated with listing sites on the Superfund National Priorities 

List (NPL), EPA operates a physical docket in EPA Headquarters and a docket in 

each of the 10 EPA Regions. EPA also operates a public electronic docket that provides access to listing documents. The dockets were in operation during fiscal years 

2005 and 2006, and are currently in operation. The public has the opportunity to 

comment on EPA’s proposed addition of sites to the NPL at http://www.epa.gov/ 

superfund/sitesinpl/newprop.htm. EPA publishes notices in the Federal Register listing which sites are being proposed to the NPL. 

EPA considers all comments received during a 60-day comment period following 

the publication date in the Federal Register. During the comment period, comments 

are placed in the Headquarters docket and are available to the public on an ‘‘as received’’ basis. A complete set of comments will be available for viewing in the Regional docket approximately 1 week after the formal comment period closes. 

The Headquarters Superfund docket contains: 

• HRS scoresheets for each proposed site; 

• a documentation record for each site describing the information used to compute 

the HRS score; 

• information for any site affected by particular statutory requirements or EPA 

listing policies; and 

• a list of documents referenced in the documentation record. 

Each Regional docket contains all of the information in the Headquarters docket 

for sites in that Region, plus reference documents containing the data principally 

relied upon and cited by EPA in evaluating the listing of sites in that Region. The 

public may access EPA Dockets electronically by going to http://www.regulations.gov 

Question 5. Has the EPA’s National Enforcement Investigations Center Environmental Forensics Library experienced an increase in the number of requests for assistance in answering reference questions or searching databases for documents? If 

so, please describe the level of increase compared to the past number of requests. 
42 

Please also provide any records describing complaints concerning the length of 

time or difficulty in finding documents at this library after EPA began to disperse 

material and close its regional and specialized libraries. 

Response. Since the libraries have closed only recently, there is limited data. According to the limited data available, there has been an increase in the database 

searches, extended reference searches and quick reference searches. Data base 

searches have increased from January with 3 searches to April which had 6 

searches. The highest month was in March with 13 searches. Extended reference 

searches rose from 4 in January to 10 in April, with the highest being 18 searches 

in March. Quick reference searches rose from 24 in January to 33 in April, with 

March being the highest at 35 quick reference searches. 

NEIC has received no complaints concerning the length of time or difficulty in 

finding documents. 

Question 6. Describe the purpose of EPA’s On-Line Library Service, including the 

name of the software that runs this service, the date that the software was created, 

and whether any Agency staff, including librarians who are contractors, have formally or informally requested that EPA modernize this service over the last 6 years. 

Provide all EPA records, including any memoranda, email, meeting notes, telephone logs or other EPA records that describe the request and EPA’s response to 

the request. 

Response. EPA’s Online Library System (OLS) is the Agency’s online ‘‘card catalog.’’ The OLS is a self-contained data management system that enables EPA staff 

and the general public to search for documents, books, journals, or reference materials held by any of EPA’s libraries and repositories. Users can search for items by 

author names, keywords, titles, publication year, publisher, and EPA document 

number, using both exact searches and full text searches. The system will indicate 

how many times the search criteria are found within each record. 

The Online Library System was created in the mid 1980’s using BASIS, a database management system that employed a hierarchical architecture. Over the years 

there have been continuous improvements to the system, many at the request of 

network librarians. In 1993 OLS was migrated to BASIS Plus which uses a relational database architecture. In 1994 a circulation system module was developed 

using the BASIS PROC language. In 1998 OLS was migrated to an IBM AIX/UNIX 

server to facilitate Internet access which was accomplished using BASIS Webserver 

as the front end. In 2001 a serials management module was added to the system 

to enable network librarians to more easily manage journal holdings. The current 

version of BASIS software is 8.2.4. 

Since late 2006, the database administrator has been working on a development 

version of OLS using ORACLE software as the database management system and 

ColdFusion as the user interface for Internet access. The OLS national catalog and 

supporting programs have been successfully migrated, and the circulation and serials modules are in process. Once complete, the system will be moved to production 

in the ORACLE environment. 

EPA librarians catalog or input records for materials acquired by their individual 

libraries into the Online Computer Library Center (OCLC) system. More than 

57,000 libraries worldwide use OCLC services to catalog, locate, acquire, lend, and 

preserve library materials. EPA’s OLS database administrator receives EPA’s new 

or revised catalog records from OCLC on a regular basis and promptly updates OLS 

so that the latest information on EPA holdings is available to both EPA staff and 

the public. Using OLS or OCLC, other libraries or the general public through 

their’local library, can easily identify materials in the EPA National Library Network and make requests for interlibrary loan of needed items. 

We are continuing to search for the specific records that you have requested and 

will update our response as our search progresses. 

Question 7. In the 2006 or 2007 fiscal year, has any EPA official stated, either 

verbally or in writing, including any email, memo, note or other record, that EPA 

personnel or contractors should not tell members of the public or other individuals 

that EPA’s libraries were closing or that the Agency was modifying library operations in a way that could reduce or slow down services? 

Please also provide all EPA records, including any memoranda, email, meeting 

notes, telephone logs or other EPA records that describe such statements and any 

concerns or reactions from EPA staff or contractors to any such statement. 

Response. The Agency is not aware of any such instruction being given. EPA has 

striven to be transparent with our plans. On August 15, 2006, EPA issued the 

FY2007 Library Plan: National Framework for the Headquarters and Regional Libraries. Additionally, on September 20, 2007, EPA issued the Federal Register Notice ‘‘Notification of Closure of the EPA Headquarters Library.’’ 
43 

EPA has consistently communicated to its staff and the public that the closure 

of these physical library spaces did not mean that library services would be curtailed; they would simply be received in a different manner through servicing libraries in RTP, NC, Cincinnati, OH or Washington, DC. 

Question 8a. Describe whether EPA personnel ordered material, including journals, from the Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances’ library to be 

discarded or recycled in November 2006. 

Provide all EPA records, including any memoranda, email, meeting notes, telephone logs or other EPA records that pertain to involvement by Agency personnel 

in any of the instances described. 

Response. OPPT followed the EPA FY2007 Library Plan in determining the disposition of library materials. The process in the Framework document to offer library holdings to other libraries and to make determinations about the final disposition of materials was followed. An EPA staff person expressed concern that some 

non-unique documents that were scheduled for recycling could be of use to another 

library if additional time were allowed to make arrangements. These documents 

were previously evaluated and determined to be non-unique. In addition, these same 

non-unique documents had already been offered to other libraries. In order to address the staff person’s concerns, senior managers moved quickly—on the next business day—to delay the final recycling of these materials. The staff person was given 

additional time to find a home for these materials at another EPA library. 

Question 8b. Was this order given despite a request by another library to review 

and retain some of the material? 

Response. No, the other libraries had already been offered these materials and 

had declined them. The EPA staff person took it upon himself to find a home for 

them. 

Question 8c. Was any of the material taken out of bins or other canisters, where 

it had been placed for disposal or recycling, and distributed for review and possible 

retention? 

Response. Yes, these materials had previously been offered to other libraries and 

those libraries declined to take the materials. As they were not needed by other libraries and were not unique EPA documents, they were designated to be recycled. 

Question 8d. Did other libraries retain any of the material taken from the bins 

or canisters? 

Response. Yes, the materials identified by the EPA staff person were ultimately 

accepted by another EPA library. 

Question 8e. Was any internal investigation into the potential disposal or discarding of materials ever threatened or undertaken? 

Response. The EPA staff person made a telephone call to the Office of the Inspector General concerning this issue. After looking into the issue further, the Office of 

the Inspector General (OIG) declined to pursue it (see attached email from EPA’s 

OIG). 

We are continuing to search for the specific records that you have requested and 

will update our response as our search progresses. 

Question 9. Describe all EPA library material that the Agency has discarded or 

recycled at Agency libraries that are now closed, including the date that the material was discarded or recycled, the location at which the material was discarded or 

recycled, the titles and types of documents discarded Or recycled, and the estimated 

value of the material discarded or recycled. If EPA has discarded or recycled material at other Agency libraries due to budget constraints, including a reduction in the 

amount of space available to a library, please also include the same information for 

this material. 

Response. Generally, EPA did not keep a record of all the documents that were 

recycled as part of this process (it is not standard industry practice to do so). However, we have instructed all EPA libraries to stop recycling of library materials until 

we complete responding to all congressional inquiries, and to keep a complete list 

of materials when recycling is resumed. 

A good faith effort was made to evaluate the collections contained in the closed 

libraries based on the dispersion criteria included in the EPA FY2007 Library Plan. 

Unique EPA titles were identified, digitized, and then sent to one of the three EPA 

repositories. Non-unique materials held by the closed EPA libraries, such as journals, were evaluated based on usage patterns and their availability elsewhere. Only 

excess non-unique materials were dispersed or recycled according to the criteria included in the EPA FY2007 Library Plan. However, all libraries have been instructed 

to cease any dispersion and recycling until further notice and begin keeping such 

records when recycling and dispersion is authorized to continue. 
44 

All journals in the EPA HQ collection were moved to the Documents collection. 

Some journal issues were requested by and sent to RTP and Cincinnati. All remaining journal materials, both print and microfilm were recycled (in the case of the 

paper) or discarded (in the case of the film cassettes). 

Although not required, the EPA HQ library did keep dispersion/recycling records, 

and this information is contained in the following four attachments: 

(1) EPA HQ Library Journals Collection showing cataloging changes and disposition. 

(2) EPA HQ Library monograph/document collection showing unique items kept 

and items dispersed/weeded. 

(3) HQ Journals Dispersed to the OARM Cincinnati Library to Replace Missing 

Issues or Extend the Depth of Holdings within that Library. 

(4) Disposition of HQ Library Reference Materials—showing disposition of materials. (EJBR refers to JQ reference collection. Other 4-letter codes identify other libraries within the EPA Library Network that have a copy of the same material in 

their collections. 

Question 10a. Toxic Release Inventory (TRI).—On January 26, 2007, President 

Bush signed Executive Order 13423, that, among other things, revoked Executive 

Order 13148, which the prior Administration created in 2000. Executive Order 

13148 required the head of each Federal Agency to take ‘‘all necessary actions . . . 

to integrate environmental accountability into Agency day-to-day decisionmaking 

and long-term planning processes’’ in order to make ‘‘environmental management 

considerations, a fundamental and integral component of Federal Government policies, operations, planning, and management.’’ The order made each Federal Agency 

responsible for reducing ‘‘its reported Toxic Release Inventory (TM) releases and offsite transfers of toxic chemicals for treatment and disposal by 10 percent annually, 

or by 40 percent overall by December 31, 2006.’’ Please provide the following information concerning Executive Order 13148: 

All annual reports that agencies submitted to EPA under section 307, which described an Agency’s implementation of the order. 

Response. Executive Order (E.O.) 13148, ‘‘Greening the Government Through 

Leadership in Environmental Management,’’ established goals for the integration of 

environmental considerations into Federal Agency planning, programs and policies. 

Section 307 of E.O. 13148 states, ‘‘(E)ach Agency shall submit an annual progress 

report to the Administrator [of the EPA] on implementation of this order.’’ Each 

year, those Federal agencies that met the requirements of the order provided an annual report based on guidance that was prepared in coordination with the Interagency Environmental Leadership Workgroup (Workgroup) convened under section 

306 of E.O. 13148 to develop policies and guidance required by the order. The reports frequently focused on progress toward environmental management systems 

that were required under E.O. 13148. It should be noted that the reports did not 

include TRI data since this information is already reported to EPA under the TRI 

reporting program as called for in section 501 of the order. 

For the past several years, EPA has received reports ranging from 10 to 50 pages 

from 15–20 agencies each year. Therefore the number and volume of annual reports 

is considerable. We are sending a representative sample of the reports submitted 

electronically to EPA during the past year for your review and would be happy to 

provide additional reports if the committee would find that useful. 

While E.O. 13423 revoked E.O. 13148, the requirement. for Federal Agencies to 

continue reporting under the TRI program, is explicit in the E.O. 13423 Implementing Instruction issued by CEQ in late March. Further, the Instruction requires 

that by January 24, 2008, agencies develop written goals and support actions to reduce the release and use of toxic chemicals, hazardous substances, ozone depleting 

substances and other pollutants. 

Question 10b. Descriptions of pilot studies that EPA coordinated at Federal facilities under section 501(e) of the order, which concerned agencies’ collection and dissemination of information on the release and other waste management of chemicals 

associated with the environmental response and restoration at Federal facilities. 

Response. No Federal Agencies showed an interest in participating in pilot studies 

conducted under section 501(e) of E.O. 13148. 

Question 10c. The list of priority toxic chemicals that EPA created under section 

503(b), which agencies used to guide their toxic chemical use reduction programs. 

If EPA modified this list over time, provide the list for each year that EPA maintained such a list. Also provide information on the known or suspected health effects 

of all chemicals that EPA included on a list, highlighting chemicals that are known 

to cause cancer, harm the reproductive system, or damage the nervous system. 
45 

Response. The list of priority toxic chemicals under section 503(b) of E.O. 13148 

consisted of Mercury, Cadmium, Lead, Napthalene and, PCBs at concentrations 

greater than 500 ppm. Information on health effects of the Federal priority chemicals may be found at http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/minimize/chemlist.htm. 

Question 10d. All requests for waivers of reporting requirements under this order 

that Federal Agencies submitted to EPA under section 502(b). Include the agencies’ 

descriptions of the need for a waiver and EPA’s response to the waiver request. 

Response. There were no requests made to EPA for a waiver under section 502(b) 

of E.O. 13148. 

Question 11. Describe the methodology, database, and analysis that EPA used to 

determine the impact on small businesses from the Agency’s December 18, 2006 TRI 

rulemaking. Provide all EPA records, including memoranda, email, and meeting 

notes, telephone logs or other EPA records that describe concerns that EPA staff or 

contractors had over the adequacy of EPA’s methodology, database, or analysis. 

Response. The overwhelming impact of the rule on all reporters, including small 

businesses, is beneficial. The rule is expected to save reporters approximately $6 

million, a significant portion of which will be saved by small businesses. 

However, a small number of facilities that currently file the shorter Form As will 

be required to file Form Rs as a result of the final rule’s requirement that facilities 

now include amounts associated with catastrophic or other non-production related 

events in their Form A eligibility determinations. In these limited situations, the 

rule is expected to adversely affect 19 parent companies that own 32 facilities. Nine 

of these 19 parent companies are small businesses as defined by the Small Business 

Administration. All nine are expected to experience incremental cost impacts of less 

than 1 percent of annual revenues. 

The methodology, data, and analysis EPA used to quantify this impact on small 

businesses is explained in Chapter 7 of the Economic Analysis (EA) done in support 

of the rule. The entire EA has been placed in the docket for this final rule and can 

be accessed at www.regulations.gov under docket TRI–2005–0073; entries 4,988 to 

4,997. For your convenience, a copy of the entire analysis has been attached to this 

response. In addition, we are attaching two additional relevant documents completed by a contractor. 

Based on a limited data set of commercially available information, EPA estimates 

that approximately one quarter of the reports that would be newly eligible to use 

Form A would be filed by small businesses, thereby saving these businesses the difference in time associated with completing the short form instead of the longer reporting form. This is about the same as the percentage of reports from small businesses in the entire TRI reporting universe. The analyses conducted to arrive at this 

estimate and to assess the benefits to small businesses are included with this response. 

A search of records concerning potential small business impacts did not reveal any 

memos, emails, meeting logs, or other evidence of EPA staff or contractor expressions of concern over the methodology, database, or analysis of these issues. 

RESPONSES BY STEPHEN L. JOHNSON TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM

SENATOR WHITEHOUSE

Question 1. TRI.—Under the EPA’s new Toxics Release Inventory rule, many facilities that fall below a certain threshold of releases of certain chemicals are exempt from detailed reporting; and instead are able to use a different reporting form 

that requires only the name of the chemical, but no other data on waste management or releases. This new rule raises the original threshold for the exemption by 

four-fold—from 500 pounds to 2,000 pounds (with a total cap of 5,000 pounds). EPA 

claims that this new rules provides savings between $438 and $748 per form and 

9.1 to 15.5 work hours per form. Has EPA analyzed the impact of the new TRI rule 

on any of the following issues? 

• Which chemicals will now be unreported as a result of the new rule. 

• The quantity of chemicals that will no longer be reported as a result of this new 

rule. 

• The identity and number of communities that will lose reporters. 

• The socio-economic status of the people who live in those communities. 

• The environmental justice impacts of this rule on these communities. 

• The public’s right to know what is happening in their neighborhoods. 

Please provide all documents that were produced as a result of any of these analyses. 
46 

1The entire EA, by chapter, has been placed in the docket for this final rule and can be 

accessed at www.regulations.gov under docket TRI–2005–0073; entries 4,988 to 4,997. 2 Results of the environmental justice assessment on the final rule are available in the docket 

as entry 5,007. 

Response. No facilities have been exempted from TRI reporting in this final rule, 

and no chemicals have been eliminated from the list for which facilities must report. 

Instead, if companies want to save time by using the shorter Form A for reporting, 

they will have to make sure that they eliminate or minimize releases and other disposal, and shift to environmentally preferable ways of managing chemicals. For both 

PBTs and non-PBTs expanded Form A eligibility under the final rule is structured 

in a way that favors recycling and treatment over releases, thereby discouraging 

chemical releases and encouraging preferred waste management practices such as 

recycling. 

While Form A does not provide the same details as Form R about the releases 

and other waste management of a chemical, Form A provides information beyond 

the name of the chemical. In addition to providing facility identification information 

Form A can be used by communities as a ‘‘range report,’’ i.e., an indication that the 

facility manages between 0 and 500 pounds of a persistent, bioaccumulative and 

toxic (PBT) chemical as waste and has no releases or other disposal of the PBT 

chemical. For a non-PBT chemical, a Form A will indicate that the facility manages 

between 0 and 5,000 pounds of the chemical as waste, of which no more than 2,000 

pounds is released. The remainder is treated, recycled, or used for energy recovery. 

The total amount of releases that may no longer be reported on Form R is 5.7 

million pounds, which is 0.14 percent of the total releases reported to TRI annually. 

Table A–3 of the Appendix to the Economic Analysis conducted in support of the 

rule lists the 26 chemicals for which TRI may no longer receive Form R detailed 

release information due to expanded Form A eligibility. For your convenience, a 

copy of the entire EA has been attached to this response.1

EPA also considered the specific communities impacted by this rule including the 

socioeconomic status of the residents and the environmental justice implications. 

EPA used a postal zip code analysis to assess how the rule would affect the distribution of TRI reporting at the community level. We estimated that 47 percent (4,246) 

of all zip codes with Form R reports would have at least one Form R become eligible 

for Form A reporting and 6 percent (557) would have all current Form Rs become 

eligible for Form A reporting. 

EPA also considered potential effects on the level of detail of the information 

available to minority and low-income communities. While there is a higher proportion of minority and low-income communities in close proximity to some TRI facilities than in the population generally, the rule does not appear to have a disproportionate impact on these communities, since facilities in these communities are no 

more likely than elsewhere to become eligible to use Form A as a result of the rule. 

For your convenience, a copy of this assessment has been attached to this response.2

[The copy is retained in the committee’s file.] 

Question 2. PERCHLORATE.—Does perchlorate present a public health concern? 

Response. In order to assess the public health concern of perchlorate, EPA believes additional information is needed to fully characterize perchlorate exposure to 

assess the opportunity for health risk reduction through a national primary drinking water standard. Perchlorate can interfere with normal functioning of the thyroid 

gland by competitively inhibiting the transport of iodide into the thyroid. EPA has 

adopted a reference dose (RfD) for perchlorate based upon the January 2005 recommendations of the National Academies of Science (NAS) entitled ‘‘Health Implications of Perchlorate Ingestion.’’ The Agency is committed to examining the perchlorate science to ensure that our policies are protective of public health. 

Question 3. There are scientific data demonstrating measurable levels of perchlorate in breast and store milk (Kirk, et al., 2005), in numerous common food 

items (El Aribi et al., 2006; FDA, 2004), and in human urine (Blount, et al., 2006). 

Please explain how EPA has incorporated these studies into its assessment of perchlorate, and into its assessment of aggregate exposure levels to the population from 

multiple sources, including food, contaminated water, and breast milk. How has 

EPA considered the aggregate exposure to perchlorate specifically for vulnerable 

populations including infants and young children? 

Response. EPA considers aggregate exposure to a chemical such as perchlorate 

through the development of a Relative Source Contribution (RSC). The RSC is a 

means by which the amount of exposure to a chemical resulting from sources other 

than drinking water is incorporated into the assessment of the potential health impacts of drinking water exposure. Developing an RSC requires an evaluation of the 
47 

exposure to the chemical from sources other than water, such as from foods. EPA’s 

May 1, 2007 Federal Register (FR) notice (72 FR 24016) presents for public comment approaches for using the types of data listed in this question. 

As required by the Safe Drinking Water Act, EPA will consider the effect of perchlorate on subgroups that comprise a meaningful portion of the general population 

(such as infants, children, pregnant women, the elderly and individuals with a history of serious illness) to assess if any are at greater risk of adverse health effects 

as a result of perchlorate in drinking water. EPA will use the available scientific 

data including the recommendations of the National Academies of Science (NAS). 

NAS identified the fetuses of pregnant women who have hypothyroidism or iodide 

deficiency as the subpopulation most sensitive to the effects of perchlorate exposure. 

To protect this subpopulation, the NAS recommended that EPA derive a Reference 

Dose (RfD) by taking the dose at which no observable effect (adverse or non adverse) 

is anticipated in adults and reducing it by a factor of 10. 

Question 4. The current perchlorate assessment posted on the IRIS database 

(www.epa.gov/iris) does not represent the result of a full hazard assessment and was 

not provided for public comment in its draft form. Further, it did not consider aggregate (multiple sources) exposures. Will EPA work with the staff of IRIS to develop 

a rigorous scientific hazard assessment for perchlorate? 

Response. The draft assessment for perchlorate was provided for public review as 

well as expert scientific review by the National Research Council of the National 

Academies of Science (NAS). In reviewing EPA’s draft assessment, the NAS recommended an RfD and included the rationale for their recommendations in the report ‘‘Health Implications of Perchlorate Ingestion (2005)’’ [www.epa.gov/iris]. The 

NAS report was itself subject to the detailed independent peer review process routinely conducted by the National Academies, and overseen by members of the National Academies of Science. EPA adopted the report and recommendations and developed an IRIS Summary based on this NAS report which can be found on the IRIS 

Web site [www.epa.gov/iris]. The IRIS Summary provides a link for users to obtain 

the full NAS report. 

As is the case for other assessments, the perchlorate assessment available on IRIS 

reflects the hazard component of the risk assessment only. IRIS assessments do not 

incorporate any component of exposure. The IRIS assessment was developed pursuant to an in-depth analysis by the NAS and reflects the deliberations of that body. 

EPA believes that the NAS analysis reflects the best available science regarding 

the hazard of perchlorate to all age groups, including sensitive subgroups. 

Question 5. Does EPA plan on conducting a probabilistic risk assessment for perchlorate, with consideration of aggregate exposures and vulnerable populations? 

Response. EPA will collaborate with other agencies such as FDA and CDC to analyze the available data on total exposure to perchlorate including perchlorate in 

foods to enable the Agency to determine if a national primary drinking water regulation for perchlorate presents a meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction. 

EPA will consider the effect of perchlorate on subgroups that comprise a meaningful 

portion of the general population (such as infants, children, pregnant women, the 

elderly and individuals with a history of serious illness) to assess if any are at 

greater risk of adverse health effects as a result of perchlorate in drinking water. 

If EPA makes a determination to regulate perchlorate in drinking water, then the 

Agency will, in accordance with SDWA 1412.b.3, present a risk assessment for perchlorate that will include to the extent practicable: identification of populations at 

risk of perchlorate exposure through public water systems, the expected or central 

estimate of risk for the populations, and the appropriate upper bound and lower 

bound estimate of risk. EPA would also prepare a Health Risk Reduction Cost Analysis (HHRCA) that would include an assessment of the effects of perchlorate on the 

general population and on groups identified as likely to be at greater risk of adverse 

health effects due to exposure to perchlorate in drinking water than the general 

population. 

Question 6. Will EPA list perchlorate on the CCL 3 (Contaminant Candidate 

List)? Will EPA establish a science-based drinking water standard for perchlorate 

that reflects aggregate exposures and considers sensitive populations? If so, what is 

the timeline for progress on finalizing a drinking water standard? 

Response. EPA expects to publish the draft CCL 3 in 2008 for public comment. 

As a currently unregulated contaminant perchlorate is among the contaminants 

that the Agency is considering for CCL 3. However, EPA does not intend to wait 

for the CCL 3 regulatory cycle to complete its regulatory determination for perchlorate. EPA may be able to provide a final regulatory determination for perchlorate as part of the final CCL 2 regulatory determination which is due by July 
48 

2008. Otherwise, EPA will publish its final determination for perchlorate as soon 

thereafter as possible. 

If EPA decides to regulate perchlorate, EPA would develop a proposed drinking 

water standard within 24 months of that determination. The proposed standard 

would be based in part upon consideration of a Health Risk Reduction and Cost 

Analysis (HRRCA). In accordance with SDWA 1412.b.3, EPA would prepare a 

HRRCA that would include an assessment of the effects perchlorate on the general 

population and on groups identified as likely to be at greater risk of adverse health 

effects due to exposure to perchlorate in drinking water than the general population. 

The Agency would promulgate the drinking water standard within 18 months of 

proposal (SDWA provides for an additional 9-month extension if needed). 

Question 7. EPA LIBRARIES.—Please provide the committee with a detailed catalog of documents that were destroyed before an electronic record was made. Are 

those documents now available to the public? (If not, when will they be?) 

Response. No unique EPA documents were destroyed. All unique EPA documents 

were digitized and continue to be available to EPA staff and the public via Interlibrary Loan (ILL) and online via the National Environmental Publications Internet 

Site (NEPIS). Documents were not recycled before ensuring that other copies are 

available either in the EPA library network or beyond through interlibrary loan. 

Some materials that were non-unique EPA documents and available through 

other libraries or bookstores were recycled as they were not intended to be digitized. 

Question 8. How many full time employees are dedicated to digitizing the information from EPA libraries? 

Response. Full-time EPA employees are not dedicated to digitizing the information from EPA libraries. Contractor support is used to digitize EPA library information via a contract with Lockheed Martin Services, Inc. and entered into the National Environmental Publications Internet Site (NEPIS) by Integrated Information 

Systems, Inc. 

Question 9. What is the budget that EPA has earmarked specifically for the task 

of digitizing information from EPA libraries? Response. For you information, EPA spent approximately $78,950 for digitizing materials for closed libraries in fiscal year 2007. EPA has an additional $170,000 

remaining for digitization in fiscal year 2007. 

Question 10. What is the timeline that EPA has developed for digitizing information from EPA libraries? 

Response. As per our public commitment, EPA completed digitization of all unique 

EPA documents in the closed physical libraries of Headquarters and Regions 5, 6, 

and 7. Access to these documents was made available through NEPIS as of January 

31, 2007. 

EPA had previously planned to digitize all remaining unique documents from the 

remaining libraries by the end of 2008. While this remains our goal, EPA has temporarily suspended further digitization. In response to our stakeholders, EPA is currently conducted an independent, third-party review of our procedures. Once the review is both completed and peer-reviewed, we will develop a revised digitization 

plan, including budget requirements and a schedule. This plan will also address the 

approximately 1950 unique EPA documents from the OPPT Chemical Library. 

Question 11. How has EPA prioritized its selection of information to be digitized? 

Please, identify the list of priorities, by indicating what information will be digitized 

first, second, third, and so on, and by indicating the deadline for digitizing that information? With whom did EPA work to develop its priorities and deadlines? Please 

provide documentation of these deliberations and final decisions. 

Response. EPA completed digitization of all unique EPA documents in the closed 

physical libraries of Headquarters and Regions 5, 6, and 7. Access to these documents was made available through NEPIS as of January 31, 2007. EPA plans to 

digitize all remaining documents in our collection which we have the right to 

digitize (i.e. published by EPA and in the public domain). The digitization of these 

remaining EPA documents awaits the completion of the independent expert review 

of our digitization specifications and procedures. Once the review is both completed 

and peer-reviewed, we will develop a revised digitization plan, including budget requirements. 

Question 12. Will all digitized information be searchable by key words or by words 

in the document? Will all digitized information be freely available through the 

World Wide Web? 

Response. Digitized information can be accessed at http://epa.gov/ncepihom/ or by 

contacting an EPA reference librarian for assistance at a repository library in Wash-
49 

ington, DC, Cincinnati, OH or Research Triangle Park, NC. Digitized documents can 

be searched by key word or words in the document. 

Question 13. How will digitized information be accessed? 

Response. Digitized information can be accessed at http://epa.gov/ncepihom/ or by 

contacting an EPA reference librarian for assistance at a repository library in Washington, DC, Cincinnati, OH or Research Triangle Park, NC. 

Question 14. Has EPA analyzed exactly what information has already been lost 

by the closing of these libraries? Please provide the results of any analyses. 

Response. The Agency does not believe any information has been lost through our 

process to transform EPA’s libraries. EPA is striving to be more transparent and 

forthcoming with information by enhancing our online holdings for free and easy 

public and staff access. 

Question 15. How long will all other EPA Libraries remain open? 

Response. EPA has no plans to close or adjust hours of operation for the remaining libraries in the Network. 

RESPONSES BY STEPHEN L. JOHNSON TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM

SENATOR INHOFE

Question 1. What is the process for developing a regulatory standard under SDWA 

as amended? Is there a reason why this process is inadequate with respect to perchlorate? 

Response. In accordance with SDWA Section 1412(b), EPA must determine whether or not to regulate a contaminant after providing notice of a preliminary determination and opportunity for public comment. EPA’s determination to regulate a 

contaminant must be based on the following findings: 

• the contaminant may have an adverse effect on the health of persons 

• the contaminant is known to occur or there is a substantial likelihood that it 

will occur with a frequency and at levels of public health concern, and 

• regulation of the contaminant presents a meaningful opportunity for health, 

risk reduction for persons served by water systems. 

EPA has not made a preliminary regulatory determination for perchlorate because 

the Agency believes additional information is needed to more fully characterize perchlorate exposure and determine whether regulating perchlorate presents a meaningful opportunity for public health protection. 

If EPA were to decide to regulate perchlorate, the process for developing a drinking water standard is defined in Sections 1412 (b) 3–7 of the SDWA. This process 

includes a significant amount of analysis including;. 

• establishing a Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG), 

• determining the feasible level, 

• preparing a Health Risk Reduction Cost Analysis (HRRCA), 

• determining if benefits justify costs, and 

• identifying affordable small system compliance technologies. 

We do not believe there is any reason why the SDWA regulatory determination 

process or the standard setting processes are inadequate with respect to perchlorate. 

Question 2. It is my understanding that the National Academy of Sciences based 

its recommendation upon a level that does not actually produce an adverse health 

effect on human beings. Is that approach more conservative than EPA’s traditional 

approach? 

Response. Yes, the approach used by the NAS is more conservative than EPA’s 

traditional approach. Using a non-adverse effect (NOEL) that is upstream of the adverse effect is a conservative and health-protective approach to perchlorate hazard 

assessment. The IRIS Program’s definition of a reference dose (RfD) is an estimate 

(with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a daily oral exposure 

to the human population (including sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without 

an appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime. It can be derived from 

a point of departure defined as a no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL), a lowobserved-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL), or benchmark dose with uncertainty factors 

generally applied to reflect limitations of the data used (www.epa.gov/iris). Depending on the available data for a specific chemical, the point of departure may be an 

overtly adverse effect or an effect that occurs earlier on a continuum leading to an 

adverse effect. EPA’s most common approach identifies an adverse effect as the 

starting point for the RfD derivation. However, as is stated in the EPA IRIS file 

for perchlorate (available at http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/1007.htm): ‘‘The use of a 

NOEL differs from the traditional approach to deriving an RfD, which bases the 
50 

critical effect on an adverse outcome. Using a nonadverse effect that is upstream 

of the adverse effect is a more conservative and health-protective approach to perchlorate hazard assessment.’’ 

Question 3. The NAS’s recommended level, upon which EPA’s reference dose is 

based, is protective of all sensitive populations and that conclusion has since been 

reiterated by the National Academy members, including the Chair. Is there anything to suggest that the National Academy was wrong? 

Response. EPA continues to support the NAS report and continues to endorse the 

EPA RfD. The NAS’s evaluation was based on the scientific evidence available at 

the time of their report in 2005. A number of studies have since been published that 

have extended our knowledge of the relationship between levels of human exposure 

to perchlorate and hormone levels. In addition, the Agency is currently monitoring 

ongoing analyses of National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 

data by CDC and other research activities from the private sector. These data will 

be evaluated as they are made available to inform future directions, including research on human health effects, if needed. A thorough discussion of new data and 

analyses that are underway is available in EPA’s recently released Preliminary Regulatory Determinations for Priority Contaminants on the second Contaminant Candidate List. This discussion is available at: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/ccl/reg— 

determine2.html. 

Question 4. As I understand it, allowing certain TRI reporters, most of which are 

small businesses, to use the shorter, simpler Form A is akin to allowing certain individuals to file their Federal income taxes using the 1040EZ form. Is it not true 

that this change to Form A does not relieve them of their duty to report data anymore than using the EZ form allows taxpayers to get out of paying taxes? 

Response. The December 2006 final rule expanding eligibility for the shorter Form 

A has not exempted any facilities from reporting to TRI and no chemicals have been 

eliminated from the list for which facilities must report. Instead, if companies want 

to save time by using the shorter Form A for reporting, they will have to make sure 

that they eliminate or minimize releases and other disposal, and shift to environmentally preferable ways of managing chemicals such as through recycling. 

While Form A does not provide the same details as Form R about the releases 

and other waste management of a chemical, Form A nevertheless provides important information. In addition to providing the name of the chemical and facility 

identification information Form A can be used by communities as a ‘‘rage report,’’ 

i.e., an indication that the facility manages between 0 and 500 pounds of a persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) chemical as waste and has no releases or 

other disposal of the PBT chemical. For a non-PBT chemical, use of a Form A indicates the facility manages between 0 and 5,000 pounds of the chemical as waste, 

of which no more than 2,000 pounds is released. 

Question 5. Critics of the TRI rule have maintained that emergency responders 

would be disadvantaged by the EPA reform. Do you agree? 

Response. Emergency responders primarily rely on information from the chemical 

inventory data reporting requirement established in Section 312 of the Emergency 

Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), which provides information 

to State and local emergency planning committees on inventories and locations of 

hazardous chemicals that may be present at a facility at the time of an incident. 

The use of TRI data (collected under Section 313 of EPCRA for different statutory 

purposes) by emergency responders is supplemental to information provided to State 

and Local Emergency Planning Committees under Section 312. TRI provides information on releases and other waste management activities during a prior reporting 

year. 

The December 2006 final rule does not relieve any facility of their obligation to 

report to TRI, but rather, allows those facilities that eliminate or minimize their releases to use the shorter Form A in lieu of the more-detailed Form R. In addition 

to providing the name of the chemical and facility identification information Form 

A can be used by first responders as a ‘‘range report,’’ i.e., an indication that the 

facility managed between 0 and 500 pounds of a persistent, bioaccumulative and 

toxic (PBT) chemical as waste and had no releases or other disposal of the PBT 

chemical during the prior reporting year. For a non-PBT chemical, use of a Form 

A indicates the facility managed between 0 and 5,000 pounds of the chemical as 

waste, of which no more than 2,000 pounds was released. 

Question 6. Testimony provided by the Natural Resources Defense Council stated 

that methyl isocyanate (MIC) reporting would ‘‘disappear’’ from TRI Form R’s. Is 

this statement correct, and is it not true that in 2004, MIC was not even eligible 
51 

for the new Form A because all three potentially eligible facilities treated more than 

500 pounds of MIC? 

Response. For reporting year 2004, the only (three) facilities that filed Form Rs 

for methyl isocyanate treated well in excess of 5,000 pounds. Therefore, none of 

these would have qualified for Form A under the expanded eligibility provided by 

the December 2006 final rule. 

Question 7. Given that EPA determined in 1997 to pursue burden reduction for 

TRI, is it not true that EPA is simply finally delivering on a promise made by the 

Clinton administration? 

Response. Since the beginning of the TRI program 20 years ago, the Agency has 

implemented measures to reduce the TRI reporting burden on the regulated community while still ensuring the provision of valuable information to the public that fulfills the purposes of the TRI program. Through a range of compliance assistance activities, such as a reporting forms and instructions document, industry training 

workshops, guidance documents, and a TRI call hotline, the Agency has shown a 

commitment to enhancing the quality and consistency of reporting and assisting 

those facilities that must comply with the TRI reporting requirements. The final 

rule expanding Form A eligibility provides new incentives to facilities by allowing 

companies to reduce the amount of detail in which they report in return for emitting 

less of the chemical into the environment. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. 

I am a little confused, you say you are happy to be here to celebrate your environmental successes. The hearing is entitled Hearing on Oversight of Recent EPA Decisions. Six, you never mentioned any of them. You said you would answer questions. So I 

don’t—and by the way, some of the things you said I would have 

issue with. But today isn’t the place, we will do that when we have 

you back when we talk about the budget. 

But I am going to get to the issues at hand. The Medical Library 

Association and the Association of Academic Health Professionals, 

which represents thousands of health science information professionals and more than 140 American and Canadian medical schools 

wrote me a letter describing their opposition to EPA’s closure of its 

libraries. They believe the closure of the libraries threatens thousands of scientific studies and hinders emergency preparedness and 

anti-pollution enforcement activities. They also describe the importance of EPA’s librarians in helping Agency staff and the public 

find important information. 

Are you aware that the Medical Library Association and the Association of Academic Health Science Libraries have expressed concern on your program? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. 

Senator BOXER. How do you respond to that? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Our goal is to modernize, to have better access to 

a broader audience. We have a record of results, we are a sciencebased Agency, and it is really important for me and for us to make 

sure that that cutting-edge research is not only available just 

across the street, but that it is really available around the world. 

Senator BOXER. So you are doing it to get more information out? 

That is your purpose? It is to get more information out? 

Mr. JOHNSON. The purpose is to get better access for a broader 

audience. 

Senator BOXER. Did you write to them and tell them that this is 

what you want to do? We will send them your testimony. 

Did an EPA official order staff to throw away journals from the 

Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances Library? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Not that I am aware of, no. 
52 

Senator BOXER. I have a copy of an internal EPA email that directs staff to discard journals from this library. I will give that to 

you. Can you provide me with all the information regarding EPA’s 

decision to dispose of journals and other materials? I have this for 

you. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. So you don’t know anything about this internal 

memo? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Madam Chairman, what I am certainly aware of 

is that, in the case of the OPPTS Chemical Library, there was a 

flood. When the flood happened, it destroyed a number of documents, also caused books to be contaminated with mold. So to protect our employees, we restricted access to those materials. Those 

materials, if they were unique, have been going through a very deliberate process to digitize and make them available to everyone. 

Senator BOXER. So let me ask you this. Did an EPA official order 

staff to throw away journals from the Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances library? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I am not aware of that, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. OK. Here it is, discard remaining journals. We 

will get that to you. Would you answer me in writing after you 

have seen this? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I would be happy to, for the record. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. Did an EPA official order the removal of information from the EPA’s—let me see this one. The Special Library Association, whose 11,000 members include librarians 

in business, academia, and government are concerned. Because 

many of their members have told them that the closure of EPA’s 

libraries will impact their work directly. Did EPA conduct a survey 

of business, academics, government agencies and other library uses 

prior to closing and reducing services at its libraries? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Madam Chairman, it was a plan that actually 

began in 2003, to evaluate our libraries’ effectiveness. As a result, 

we had 26 libraries, and we did close 5. The rest of the libraries 

remain open and they will remain open. We also are maintaining 

our National Environmental Publications Internet site, maintaining our inter-library loan program, maintaining our online computer library center, maintaining EPA’s library network; and, all of 

our research libraries remain open. 

Senator BOXER. Administrator Johnson, is EPA Region 4’s library in Atlanta, GA open to the public and capable of handling 

such things as research and inter-library loan requests? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Our Atlanta office remains open. 

Senator BOXER. Then why does an internal email from EPA state 

that the Agency’s library in Cincinnati, OH will handle EPA Region 4’s core services activities, such as research and inter-library 

loan requests? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I am not aware. I don’t know. I would be happy 

to look into it and respond to the record for you. 

Senator BOXER. Either you are not getting information or these 

emails we have are made up. They are not made up. 

Has the Agency closed EPA’s Region 3 environmental science library at Fort Meade? 

Mr. JOHNSON. No. 
53 

Senator BOXER. Then why does the Agency’s Web site for the library say it is currently unstaffed? Consequently, public access to 

the library facility has been suspended. That is on your Web site. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I will have to look into it. 

Senator BOXER. Are you aware that your own librarians are 

deeply concerned about your dismantling of EPA’s library? One librarian who worked at EPA for 21 years, including at EPA’s National Enforcement Investigation Center for the Agency, wrote to 

me and Senator Lautenberg, stating ‘‘As I left the Agency, there 

was an embargo on information about what was happening to EPA 

libraries, including the closure of several of the regional libraries. 

Contract librarians were forbidden to speak out. There was an atmosphere of intimidation and a lack of transparency.’’ 

Are you aware that your own librarians were deeply concerned? 

Mr. JOHNSON. What I am aware of is that we began a very open 

and transparent process back in 2003 to modernize, to provide better access to a broader audience, and to be good stewards not only 

of the environment but also taxpayers’ dollars. Again, focus is on 

a record of results. As was mentioned earlier, for example, Dallas, 

TX, that library over the last 4 years, averaged four visitors per 

month. Four visitors per month. Again, our focus is to make the research available to a broader audience. 

Senator BOXER. I know, Mr. Johnson, you are reading those 

notes very well. But you are unaware of what is going on in the 

Agency. You obviously don’t know, when you tell me some place is 

open and then I talk to you about an email and Web sites that say 

it is not open, when I talk to you about Atlanta, you don’t know 

what is going on. I want to ask you this. Would you agree to a moratorium on closing these libraries and disposing of documents until 

we have a little time to sort all this out? Would you agree to that 

today? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Madam Chairman, we are not closing any more libraries. So it is easy to agree to a moratorium, because we are not 

closing any more. 

Senator BOXER. So you would agree not to close any more, and 

not to dispose of any more documents? 

Mr. JOHNSON. We have not been disposing of any documents. We 

have been boxing them up, going through—— 

Senator BOXER. Even though I have emails that show that documents should be destroyed, you are saying that is not true? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, it is not true as of today. I don’t know. 

Senator BOXER. Great. I have gone over my time, so thankfully 

for you, I will move to Senator Isakson. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator ISAKSON. I don’t have any emails. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. I will send you a few. 

Senator ISAKSON. In fact, I would appreciate that, if you would. 

I would like to see the copies. I will be the first person to tell you 

that Atlanta must be one of those that has only had four visitors. 

I was unaware we had a library in Atlanta until preparing for this 

hearing today. 

Now, as I understand it, on the libraries, and I was trying to 

read your extensive testimony that was printed, you began a proc-
54 

ess 4 years ago to modernize the libraries. The result of that was 

the closing of public access to 5 out of 26, the other 21 remain 

open. 

Mr. JOHNSON. That is correct. 

Senator ISAKSON. Second, all of the information in the EPA library system, whether it was in a library that is now closed or not, 

is available online? 

Mr. JOHNSON. We are in the process of making all that information available. 

Senator ISAKSON. In the process, that is some of the digitizing? 

Mr. JOHNSON. That is correct. 

Senator ISAKSON. Third, going back to destroyed documents, that 

is a serious allegation and should be dealt with, so I am glad that 

the Chairman is going to give me a copy of that and give you a 

copy as well. I would like to know what the result is. 

But the only thing you are aware of is the destruction of documents that became polluted or otherwise affected by mold and 

water from the flooding of one library, is that correct? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Those that were not unique documents. Our libraries have a lot of documents that are not unique to EPA, magazines, books that are widely available across a number of the library systems. 

Senator ISAKSON. On the remarks that I gave on the ambient air 

quality, and by the way, I would call everybody’s attention on the 

committee to the last page of your prepared document, which is 

this slide here, which is a graphic of the modernization of the process by which you are going to establish those. There have been 

some allegations that the new process reduces the input of science. 

What you have displayed here, it shows that the very first step in 

the process is a workshop involving CASAC and a scientific assessment before you do anything else, is that correct? 

Mr. JOHNSON. That is correct. 

Senator ISAKSON. OK, then on the old system, which it is replacing, it refers to the first step was a criteria document which, in 

asking questions, the best I can determine is kind of everybody just 

piles in every document they can possibly pile and collects them, 

but there is not a workshop or an analysis of those documents in 

that information, is that correct? 

Mr. JOHNSON. That is correct. 

Senator ISAKSON. So it would be fair to say, then, in setting the 

ambient air quality standards now under the new process—the new 

process is in place? 

Mr. JOHNSON. We are transitioning to that new process now. 

Senator ISAKSON. That CASAC will be the first step of input in 

a scientific assessment through a workshop interface session? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, that is correct. 

Senator ISAKSON. Do you believe, there is another chart in here 

that I read while I was listing some of the other questions, I think 

EPA has only met 2 of I think 20 deadlines since 1985, is that correct? There it is. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir, this is the chart. Since 1979, EPA has 

only met the statutory deadline twice. Therein lies one of the problems with the existing process. The Agency is not meeting its statutory requirements. 
55 

Senator ISAKSON. So what happens is similar to what has happened in northwest Georgia with regard to non-attainment, is that 

correct? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, in that case, it is looking at the best available data to make a decision whether Catoosa County was in attainment or not in attainment. 

Senator ISAKSON. Best available data under the current process 

is delinquent at best, is that fair to say? 

Mr. JOHNSON. That is the other problem. That is correct. 

Senator ISAKSON. Is it also not true that on the one hand, some 

people are alleging that there is less science in the process. I think 

what you have said in this chart dictates that not true. 

But it is even worse to have a judge who may or may not have 

any scientific background making an arbitrary decision because the 

Agency has such a cumbersome process that it can’t meet the deadlines that it imposes upon itself, or the law imposes. Is that a fair 

statement? 

Mr. JOHNSON. That is true. 

Senator ISAKSON. I would just say, Madam Chairperson, in my 

private life, for 33 years, I dealt with a lot of things, regulatory situations, from EPA, primarily more with the Clean Water Act than 

the Clean Air Act. But it is, everybody wants to try and do the 

right thing. But the worst environment possible to be in is to have 

arbitrary standards that are outdated based on the body of knowledge that is continuing, and an inability for those reviews to take 

place in a timely fashion. You end up having the wrong thing happen more often than not. 

So I want to commend you for modernizing that process in terms 

of ambient air quality. I am sure there may be other questioners 

that might disagree. But it appears to me that you have taken a 

pile of documents and replaced them with actual scientists in the 

room at a workshop taking the results of that information and trying to apply it to a decisionmaking process, which is a scientific enhancement of the process at its inception stage. That is the only 

other question I have. Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. I just want to make sure I understood you so we 

can correct the record. When I asked you about disposing of documents, you said you never did it. Then you said you did it if they 

were not unique. Is that correct? 

Mr. JOHNSON. To my knowledge, as of today, we are not disposing of any documents. What I understood in the early days of 

the library closure, those documents that were not unique, that 

were widely available, they were disposed of and recycled, if you 

will. 

Senator BOXER. Well, thank you for—recycled meaning in the 

wastepaper basket? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Documents were made available to other libraries, 

these were the not unique ones. 

Senator BOXER. So they weren’t disposed of, they were just given 

away to other people, you never destroyed any documents? 

Mr. JOHNSON. In some cases they may have been disposed of. For 

example—— 

Senator BOXER. Destroyed. 
56 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, again, for example, if there were multiple 

copies of a magazine, and that magazine was available through library loan process, was not a unique EPA document, that there 

were copyright restrictions so that we were unable to digitize them, 

then in the early days of the process, yes, they were disposed of. 

Senator BOXER. OK. I think it is, the reason I picked up on that, 

and I do appreciate that it came out, is because there is something 

about Americans, they don’t like things destroyed, libraries, books 

burned and things like that. The image of it is discomforting. So 

what I want to make sure I understand, and then I am going to 

stop and turn it over to Frank Lautenberg, is this. What you are 

saying is, in the early days of the library closure, which was October? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I don’t recall the date. 

Senator BOXER. I believe it was October when you started this 

whole thing. There were documents disposed of, but they were not 

unique documents. Some of them were given to other libraries? You 

have a list of where they went, I assume, somewhere? Yes? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I don’t know. I would have to ask. 

Senator BOXER. Do you have a list of where you gave these documents, ma’am? 

Female SPEAKER. When they went to other EPA—— 

Senator BOXER. No, the Administrator was saying sometimes 

they were given to other libraries. 

Female SPEAKER. Sometimes they were given to other EPA libraries. They were offered to libraries, local libraries, regional libraries. But I do not know if we had a list, per se, if they went 

to other local libraries. But we can definitely check on that for you. 

Senator BOXER. If you would, I would appreciate it. Because you 

know, we have things here from people who said they had a report, 

disposal of documents to the Inspector General. This story has a lot 

of legs to it, and I won’t belabor it. 

Senator Lautenberg. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thanks, Madam Chairman. Welcome, Mr. 

Johnson. I note that you start off in your statement taking pride 

in the fact that air, land and water are cleaner today than it was 

a generation ago. But I sense that your mission is to make sure 

that if they are improved, you don’t want that to last, that you are 

taking steps that are going to endanger that air quality and the 

TRI and things that help make the environment better. 

I ask you this, Mr. Johnson. Is a science advisory board a responsible organization? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Do you place any value on public opinion 

when they respond to changes that EPA contemplates? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Well, if that is the case, your own science 

advisory board and the Republican-controlled House of Representatives oppose your changes to the TRI rule. If that is the case and 

these are responsible, important views, why do that? 

Mr. JOHNSON. We took into, and my responsibility as Administrator is to take into account all public comments, and certainly 

value all of our science advisory committees, as part of that process. Our goal for the TRI program was, and continues to be, it is 
57 

an important program, to make this program not only a successful 

program, but to make it better. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. But the public opinion is opposed to it, and 

so many comments that, so many commentaries, why do you dismiss it? Ninety-nine point nine seven percent of public comments 

on this rule, more than 122,000 oppose it. You are saying that that 

is of value. But you really don’t pay any attention to it. 

Mr. JOHNSON. That is not the case, sir. We had 5,000 unique 

comments that were submitted to the Agency on TRI. Among the 

comments we received there were overwhelming comments, and in 

fact, documentation, saying that our proposal to report alternately, 

alternate year reporting was not a good idea and too much information would be lost. 

Based upon those comments, I made the decision to abandon the 

alternate year reporting. So we certainly listened to the comments. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Well, but at the same time, you are reducing the requirements in volumes of material by raising those 

amounts that are exempt from having to report. Does that help 

protect the public? I take some pride in the fact that I am the principal author of TRI. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator LAUTENBERG. But as contrasted with our colleague who 

talked about his granddaughter, I have 10 grandchildren. The one 

thing I don’t want to have to do is permit them to be the proverbial 

canaries in the coal mine. I don’t want to wait until they get good 

and sick before I do things to protect them. We are aware of the 

fact that things like asthma, diabetes, et cetera, are on the increase 

substantially. It relates somehow or other to these changes that we 

want to make in environmental law. 

Now, again, conceding that, I know that you have some comments that agree with you, you said 5,000 responsible comments. 

I just said 122,000 opposed it. Only 34 comments that we are 

aware of supported the changes that you contemplate, 29 of which 

were from industry groups. Now, which has more weight, Mr. 

Johnson? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Senator, my interests, (by the way, and I have 

four grandchildren and one more on the way, to total five), is to do 

anything that I can do to encourage businesses to reduce their 

chemical emissions and increase recycling and treatment. By this 

rule, we are in fact doing that. 

I would much rather have a business move from reporting persistent and bio-accumulative and toxic chemicals, whatever their 

numbers are, to zero. By this rule, we are encouraging companies 

to move from whatever they are doing to zero. That is one aspect 

of that. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. How do we encourage them? Do we ask 

them to adhere to a safer available materials? Is there anything 

that you are proposing in law that would make that an enforceable 

condition? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, again, the TRI program is just one of a number of opportunities—— 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Please tell me how you are going to reduce 

it to zero when there is no punitive action taken if people don’t report. The public scorn, perhaps, or media interest. But otherwise, 
58 

and the program is successful. You want to reduce the pressure 

that exists just from the public perspective on these things and 

make a grand statement that says, well, we would rather reduce 

them to zero. Yes, of course we would rather. But there isn’t anything that you are proposing, in my view, that is going to help that 

take place. 

What do you subscribe to that says that they will be working toward that? 

Mr. JOHNSON. My conversation with businesses, specific to TRI, 

leads me to believe that. Of course, we have other programs, like 

our Green Chemistry program, to get them to reduce or eliminate 

emissions. It makes sense both for their bottom line as well as for 

the environment. Of course, that is my interest, to do what we can 

do to provide those incentives. This final rule provides an incentive 

for moving from a long form to a short form. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. So it is a subjective, your subjective analysis that is going to help get these emissions to zero. 

Mr. Johnson, it is frustrating, and I speak for myself, to see what 

has happened at EPA and their lack of interest in keeping the public in touch, whether it is the library discussion, and part of the 

library discussion includes the fact that there is a heck of a lot of 

material that has not been yet digitized, it is not available to be 

Googled or otherwise. The disposal material, there is no concern 

apparently whether it is unique and that maybe we would be 

throwing something away. 

But I will close with this. Seven of ten EPA regional offices oppose your new toxic emissions proposal. Now, given this opportunity, why does the EPA insist on the rule that would allow companies to emit larger amounts? Does the opinion of the regional offices matter in these kinds of things? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, the opinions of our regional offices matter a 

great deal. This is a proposal. Again, we are looking for results. We 

want to achieve a record of results. Here is an opportunity for, we 

believe, significant voluntary emission reductions through incentives. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Well, Madam Chairman, forgive me for 

running over. I have more questions. 

Senator BOXER. You can have an extra minute. Do you want another minute? You can have it. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. I would. I would say that these are burning questions. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator LAUTENBERG. We are disappointed that headquarters 

formulated revisions to the Once-In, Always-In policy without seeking regional input. Reluctant to share the draft policy with regional 

offices. This trend of excluding the regionals from involvement in 

rule and policy development is disturbing. This is a memo from 

seven EPA regional offices to the headquarters in December 2005, 

they reinforced that with an even stronger objection to the fact that 

we continue to have significant concerns about the increases and 

the emissions of hazardous air pollutants that will likely occur 

from revisions to the Once-In, Always-In policy as currently drafted. That is in March 2006. 
59 

So once again, Mr. Johnson, in fairness, it doesn’t look like you 

have much trust in the view of the people in your regional offices. 

Because otherwise we could march ahead without giving them notice or effect. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Senator, I would like to quote from that same 

memo from our regional offices to headquarters, ‘‘We appreciate 

that changes were made to the proposed revisions to address the 

regions’ concerns regarding enforcement and compliance issues in 

the revised draft.’’ That is the third paragraph of that particular 

memo. 

So we did listen. This is one of the great benefits of notice and 

comment rulemaking, is that we have the opportunity—— 

Senator LAUTENBERG. To disagree. 

Mr. JOHNSON [continuing]. To share a wide range of opinions, to 

gather information and then make an informed decision. By the 

way, I have not made any final decision on this. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Well, boy, we are getting awful close, I’ll 

tell you, at putting it out, floating this balloon. These are lead balloons. 

Mr. Johnson, do you meet with your regional offices? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I do, in fact I did so last week—— 

Senator LAUTENBERG. How frequently? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Frequently. I just had our regional administrators 

and deputy regional administrators in last week. I routinely visit 

all of our regions. I have been in all of our regional offices. I am 

heading out to one of our regions this week, at the end of this 

week, on Thursday or Friday. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. We will submit questions in writing. 

Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. Thanks, Mr. Johnson. 

Senator BOXER. Senator Inhofe, please take 10 minutes. 

Senator INHOFE. OK. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Lautenberg, I know how proud you are 

of your 10 grandchildren. I have 12. Gotcha. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator LAUTENBERG. We are working on it. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator INHOFE. Yes, but we are still working, too. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator INHOFE. Administrator Johnson, I want to make sure I 

understand, the purpose of the library modernization effort is to 

make all the EPA materials more readily available and all of this. 

I want to ask you if the following books are still available at the 

EPA libraries. The first one I would like to ask you about is Lorax. 

Is this available? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. 

Senator INHOFE. About how many copies are available? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I understand that there are nine. 

Senator INHOFE. Are any checked out right now? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Not that I am aware of. 

Senator INHOFE. The author? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Dr. Suess. 

Senator INHOFE. Dr. Suess, very good. Next we have WordStar 

made easy. Is this available? 
60 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir. 

Senator INHOFE. I understand that this is a computer software 

book for pre-1983 computers, is that correct? 

Mr. JOHNSON. That is correct, published in 1982. 

Senator INHOFE. Published in 1982. A lot of demand for this 

book? Never mind. 

The next one is Memoirs of a Geisha. Do you have this available? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir. 

Senator INHOFE. OK. How about Bonesetters Daughter? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. 

Senator INHOFE. What collection is this in? 

Mr. JOHNSON. It is in our technical library in Region 8. 

Senator INHOFE. OK, great demand? Here’s one, how about this 

one. This is called Fat Chicks Rule: How to Survive in a 

Thincentric World. Do you have this? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir. 

Senator INHOFE. How about Imperial Hubris: Why the West is 

Losing the War on Terror? Do you have this? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir. 

Senator INHOFE. That is interesting. How about more of the 

items, the video, Fern Gulley, is that in? The Last Rainforest, do 

you have that? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I believe we have it on video tape. 

Senator INHOFE. I believe that is a children’s movie, is that correct? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. 

Senator INHOFE. How about a health issue, do you have a video, 

Windsor Pilates Ab Sculpting? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, we do have Windsor Pilates Ab Sculpting. 

Senator INHOFE. One of the things, in a very serious vein, as I 

said in my opening statement, it is a fact that we have, this is the 

information age, and people are changing their behavior. I don’t 

know about Senator Lautenberg’s grandchildren, but I would put 

my 12 up against his and it would probably be a pretty close contest as to—— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator INHOFE. It would be close in any way, I say to my good 

friend. 

On the next process, Administrator Johnson, I noticed on your 

chart that EPA has been able to meet their NOx decision deadline 

only twice in the years. Now, you received a lot of criticism. I have 

two charts, I would like to put the first one up here. A lot of criticism from my colleagues saying that you based, the extremist 

groups, some of them, claiming that you based all of the process 

changes on recommendations from the API. That’s the American 

Petroleum Institute. In fact, some have claimed that you let the 

API write the proposal. 

My staff has prepared two charts, outlining the recommendations 

you received from API and the recommendations made by CASAC. 

By the way, I would have to say about CASAC, and you were not 

in your position at that time, but during the Carol Browner days, 

and you will remember this, Senator Boxer, the 2.5 issue that we 

were, the PM2.5. Of the 21 scientists on the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, CASAC, 19 of them had one position and she 
61 

took the position that 2 of them had. So it is not as if these are 

always followed. 

However, in this case, I believe they were. So you did receive 

some recommendations from API, and other recommendations by 

CASAC. Let’s take a look at these. From the API recommendations, 

that is the first chart there, it appears that only one, that out of 

seven, you only accepted one in its entirety and one partially, is 

that correct? 

Mr. JOHNSON. That is correct. 

Senator INHOFE. OK, the second one is the chart that would be 

the scientific advisory committee. They made five recommendations. Tell me if this chart is correct in terms of their accepting 

these recommendations. 

Mr. JOHNSON. That is correct. Senator, if I may point out that 

in fact there was a recommendation that was in common, and that 

was the electronic database. 

Senator INHOFE. I should have mentioned that. I knew that that 

was recommended by both sides. 

Mr. JOHNSON. By both sides. So that was the one that we recommended, we adopted fully. 

Senator INHOFE. So you really didn’t accept the recommendations 

of the API? 

Mr. JOHNSON. No. 

Senator INHOFE. The report does not reflect that you did. 

Many have said that the EPA’s MCL process is flawed and that 

the Agency is intentionally delaying its decision on MCL for perchlorate. Is that a fair assessment of what the Agency has done 

with regard to perchlorate? 

Mr. JOHNSON. No, it is not a fair assessment. We are sciencebased Agency, and where the science directs us, that is where we 

go. 

Senator INHOFE. Listing perchlorate on the UCMR2 would have 

indicated that more data is needed. First, is that true of drinking 

water data? Further, would it have been seen as premature for the 

EPA to issue a regulatory determination for perchlorate prior to 

the completion of the UCMR2 monitoring cycle? In fact, wouldn’t 

listing of perchlorate under that UCMR2 have only further delayed 

the MCL determination? 

Mr. JOHNSON. That is correct, sir. If we had listed it, then we 

would have begun monitoring. That monitoring data would not 

have concluded until the year 2010. I did not want to send any signal that we were going to wait until after 2010 to evaluate the 

science and make a decision as to whether a health advisory in 

MCL was appropriate. 

Senator INHOFE. In my opening statement, I talked about the 

fact that reform is needed. There have not been reforms. I just 

want to applaud you, you are getting into these things and I appreciate very much the courage that you are exhibiting by changing. 

Change is a hard thing to do in Government. Everyone says they 

want change until you start changing, then they don’t want 

change. So I thank you for the work that you have been doing. 

Madam Chairman, I am coming back. I want to Armed Services 

and be back in just a few minutes. Will you be all right without 

me here? 
62 

Senator BOXER. Can’t wait for you to get back. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. Senator Klobuchar. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you, Chairman Boxer. I am just 

going to take 5 minutes, because I have to go to the floor. I would 

have loved to ask some questions about ab sculpting, but I will 

save those until later. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. You stated in your testimony, Administrator Johnson, that changes in TRI reporting requirements will 

not affect first responders seeking information on chemical inventories. I believe you said that the final rule has no impact on the 

primary source of information for emergency responders. First responders receive chemical inventory data under section 312 of the 

Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act, not from 

TRI. 

To the extent that the chemicals reported under this section 

overlap with TRI chemicals, won’t companies still have to maintain 

extensive chemical records anyway, if they are reporting them for 

the Community Right to Know Act? 

Mr. JOHNSON. They still have to, as you correctly point out, as 

part of the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know 

Act, to maintain detailed information from an emergency perspective. That is correct. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Then I can’t figure out, why would this additional task of filling out the Form Rs, when they already are collecting this information anyway, be such a burden? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, it is our understanding that it is a burden. 

Certainly, our analysis of the economic impacts indicate that it is 

a burden. Again, what was our focus? Our focus was to make a successful program even better, to provide incentive to get people to 

reduce chemical emissions. That is what we are trying to do. 

What our experience is, in a cleaner business, it is not only good 

for business but it is good for the environment and certainly good 

for the American people. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. But isn’t it, 90 percent of it is electronic reporting? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, we have moved to electronic reporting. But it 

is still a lot of detailed information. Probably one of the reporters 

would be the best one to ask how burdensome they find it. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Again, though, if they are collecting this information anyway, for this other law, it just seems to me that if 

it is 90 percent electronic reporting and they are putting this same 

information in that there is no reason we shouldn’t be using the 

old standards in Form R. So we are able to get that out to the community. I may be submitting some more questions in writing about 

that. 

The other question I had is, if you conduced an analysis of the 

number of small businesses as opposed to businesses owned by 

large parent companies who somehow benefited from this change. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. As part of our analysis, we did look, and it 

is my understanding there are some 5,000 to 6,000 small businesses that are part of the TRI reporting, have TRI reporting requirements. 
63 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. OK. But do you know what percentage of 

the benefits went to large businesses as opposed to small? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I don’t recall off the top of my head. But we have 

that information and I would be happy to provide it for the record. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much, Senator. 

We are going to, to your great relief, move on. I am going to 

make a closing statement here, which is that we have a number 

of questions we want to send to you. So how long do you think you 

would need, Mr. Johnson, to complete the answers? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, if I know the number of questions—— 

Senator BOXER. I would say we would have around 30 questions 

we would like answered in writing. 

Mr. JOHNSON. If you can give us a month, that would be wonderful. 

Senator BOXER. You have a month. That would be good. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Because in essence, when you spoke to us, you 

didn’t really address, you gave this happy picture and you didn’t 

really address the rollbacks. But I need some more answers. 

Let me say in that little repartee with my Ranking Member, I 

found it very entertaining. I am amazed that the Administrator of 

the Environmental Protection Agency would know what books are 

in the library. You are a multi-tasker, that is for sure. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. But let me just say this. While we now know 

that you can get a Dr. Suess book, unfortunately, according to your 

own staff, in one of the libraries, 600 to 700 linear feet worth of 

the chemical library collection was discarded, despite this particular staffer’s attempt to save it. She was told it was too late, 

they were out of time. The journals were to be disposed of. She was 

ordered not to remove any journals from the recycling bins, and to 

dispose of all the journals. She said, 25 or so of those titles would 

be irreplaceable. But her superior said she didn’t care and so this 

particular employee had to go to the Inspector General. 

As I said, this is an area that there are many, many question 

about. The emails have given us a story that you apparently didn’t 

know about or were unaware of. But it is disturbing. 

Then the question of following the science, I couldn’t agree more 

that we should follow the science. But you took the science out of 

the Clean Air Rule and stuck it at the end of the process. Nobody’s 

fooled by this. Here’s the point. These rollbacks were done in the 

dead of night, in December. I watched it. I predicted it. I said, what 

are we going to get tomorrow, what are we going to get tomorrow, 

what are we going to get tomorrow. It is over in terms of your not 

having to come before the committees of Congress to respond to 

them. 

This is just the start. Because we are going to stay on these 

rollbacks and whatever else that you do. Some of us believe that 

these rollbacks are so against the public interest that you are probably going to wind up in court, which is something I know my good 

colleague here feels you are trying to avoid. But some of these are 

going to, you are going to wind up in court about them. 
64 

What I hope is you will take a look, you will take a deep breath 

and look at them and reverse yourself. You reversed a few of them, 

by the way, I noticed after the elections, that you were thinking of 

doing. So I would urge you, especially on the ones that you haven’t 

finalized now, these involve lead and perchlorate, community right 

to know, the libraries, the role of science and the setting of air 

standards. 

I would just urge you, for the good of the people, to revisit these 

issues. If you don’t revisit these issues, we will be revisiting them 

with you as we go on. Because we are not talking about theory 

here, we are talking about people who get sick from dirty, filthy, 

toxic pollution. We are going to protect them in this committee. The 

majority is going to protect them. 

So I thank you, and I hope that we can work together. I thought 

we could, so far we haven’t been able to. But I hope in the future 

we will. 

I want to place in the record letters from the Association of Academic Health Science Libraries, the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, the U.S. National Commission on Libraries 

and the Special Libraries Association, to show that this issue is 

way more broad-based than one would suspect. 

[The referenced material follows.] 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 

Senator BOXER. I thank you and we will look forward to seeing 

you when you come back to talk about the budget. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Next week. Thanks. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

We will ask our next panel to come up, the GAO and the U.S. 

Small Business Administration. 

I want to welcome our second panel. We will hear from John Stephenson, Director, Natural Resources and Environment, U.S. Government Accountability Office; and U.S. Small Business Administration, Thomas Sullivan, Chief Counsel for Advocacy, will follow. 

Mr. Stephenson, do you think you can summarize in about 6 or 

7 minutes? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. I can do that. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN B. STEPHENSON, DIRECTOR, NATURAL 

RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Mr. STEPHENSON. Madam Chairman, members of the committee, 

I am pleased to be here today to discuss our ongoing work for this 

committee on EPA’s Toxic Release Inventory, or TRI. We have 

heard a lot about it already. 

You also asked us to provide an update to the committee on the 

recommendations from our 2005 report on perchlorate, an ingredient in rocket fuel used primarily by the defense industry that is 

being found in drinking water and food, such as lettuce and milk. 

Each year, billions of pounds of chemicals are used in the production of important goods and services that we all enjoy. However, 

some are toxic and may adversely affect human health and/or the 

environment. TRI is the primary data system EPA developed to 

meet the intent of the Emergency Planning and Community Right 

to Know Act, EPCRA, for making information available to the public on about 600 hazardous chemicals used by facilities around the 

Country. 

TRI is also intended to encourage companies to take account of 

and reduce the amounts of toxic substances they use. More importantly, the cornerstone of EPCRA is to empower local communities 

and not EPA to determine what risks are acceptable to them. 

While our full study of TRI will not be completed until June, our 

preliminary observations suggest that EPA did not adhere to its 

own rulemaking guidance in implementing its burden reduction 

rule in December. First, late in the rulemaking process, senior EPA 

management directed consideration of an option to increase the reporting threshold from 500 to 2,000 pounds to allow more companies to use the shorter, less informative Form A to report their use 

of toxic chemicals, an option EPA’s own TRI work group had previously rejected. 

Second, EPA developed this option on an expedited schedule that 

afforded limited time for an impact analysis. Third, EPA may not 

have conducted a proper final Agency review. This is one that 

seeks input from EPA’s internal program and regional offices. 

According to EPA documents, this expedited approach was taken 

in part to meet a commitment to OMB to implement TRI burden 

reduction by December 2006. EPA estimates that TRI reporting 
73 

changes will have minimal impact, affecting reporting on less than 

1 percent of the chemical releases annually. While this is true in 

terms of total pounds of chemicals nationwide, it underestimates 

the significant impact the loss of this specific information will have 

on States and local communities. 

I have a series of charts, Madam Chairman, behind you that 

shows these specific impacts for the States. The first chart shows 

the impact in terms of the 22,200 fewer Form R reports. These reports containing detailed information about toxic releases from 

6,620 facilities would no longer be required. That is one-third fewer 

reports in States such as yours, Connecticut and New Jersey. 

The second chart shows the State by State impact in terms of the 

number of chemicals for which no detailed information will be required, and these range from 3 chemicals in South Dakota to 60 

chemicals in Georgia. 

The third chart shows the impact in terms of the 3,565 facilities 

dispersed across the States that would no longer have to report any 

detailed information about the chemicals they use. One such facility is ATSC Marine Terminal, a bulk petroleum storage facility in 

Los Angeles. It reported releases totaling 5,000 pounds of 13 different chemicals into the air in 2005, including highly toxic benzene, toluene and xylene. However, none of the individual chemical 

releases exceeded the new 2,000 pound threshold, making it eligible for reduced reporting. 

EPA estimates that the total savings from this burden reduction 

rule is $5.9 million. This is less than $900 per facility and is based 

on paper reporting, not electronic reporting. We believe that our 

final analysis, once completed, will show that more savings will 

come from electronic reporting and other burden reduction matters 

than this threshold. 

Now for perchlorate. As depicted in the final chart, our May 2005 

report identified more than 400 sites in 35 States where perchlorate has been found. As you know, EPA has not established a 

drinking water standard for perchlorate, citing the need for more 

research on health effects. Thus perchlorate and such potential contaminants are not now included in the Toxic Release Inventory. 

However, with the National Academies concerned about the 

health effects of perchlorate on children and pregnant women, we 

recommended that EPA develop a mechanism to track perchlorate 

releases and cleanups to keep the public better informed. In December 2006, EPA reiterated its disagreement with that recommendation as not needed and too costly. 

In conclusion, we believe that the spirit of EPCRA dictates more 

and not less disclosure of environmental information to the public, 

and that any changes to reduce the amount of such information 

should be carefully considered, particularly where the savings to 

industry are relatively small and not all that burdensome in the 

first place. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. That concludes my summary. I 

will be happy to answer questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Stephenson follows:] 
74 

1GAO, Perchlorate: A System to Track Sampling and Cleanup Results is Needed, GAO–05– 

462 (Washington, D.C.: May 20, 2005). 

STATEMENT OF JOHN B. STEPHENSON, DIRECTOR, NATURAL RESOURCES AND

ENVIRONMENT, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE

Madam Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am pleased to appear here 

today before the Committee to discuss our ongoing work regarding the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) and to provide you 

with an update on our 2005 report on perchlorate, a primary ingredient in solid 

rocket propellant that recent studies have shown to affect human health.1

Each year, U.S. industry uses billions of pounds of toxic chemicals to produce the 

Nation’s goods and services. However, the release of these chemicals during transport, storage, use, or disposal as waste can potentially harm human health and the 

environment. Congress passed the Emergency Planning and Community Right-toKnow Act of 1986 (EPCRA) to inform citizens about releases of toxic chemicals to 

the environment; to assist governmental agencies, researchers, and other persons in 

the conduct of research and data gathering; and to aid in the development of appropriate regulations, guidelines, and standards. Section 313 of EPCRA generally requires certain facilities that manufacture, process, or otherwise use any of 581 individual chemicals and 30 additional chemical categories to annually report the 

amount of those chemicals that they released to the environment, including whether 

those chemicals were released to the air, soil, or water. EPCRA also requires EPA 

to make this information available to the public, which the Agency does through the 

TRI database. The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (PPA) expanded the TRI by requiring facilities to report certain data about their waste management practices, including amounts of TRI chemicals recycled or treated. 

Facilities comply with TRI reporting requirements by submitting what is referred 

to as Form R for each TRI-listed chemical that they use in excess of certain thresholds. Form R captures information about the facility, such as address, parent company, industry type, and detailed information about the chemicals it released, such 

as quantity of the chemical disposed or released onsite to the air, water, land, and 

injected underground, or transferred for disposal or release off-site. Since 1995, EPA 

has allowed certain facilities to submit information on a brief form—referred to as 

the Form A Certification Statement—in lieu of the detailed Form R report if they 

release or manage no more than 500 pounds of chemicals that are not persistent, 

bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) during the year. Form A provides the same facility 

identification information as Form R along with basic information about the chemical’s identity, but it does not contain any of the detailed information about the quantities of chemicals used, released, or managed as waste found on Form R. 

During the past several years, EPA has engaged in a multi-phase effort to reduce 

the burden on industry by revising TRI regulations and increase Form A eligibility. 

EPA’s Action Development Process (ADP) outlines a series of steps that the Agency 

is to follow when developing actions such as rules, policy statements, and risk assessments. The purpose of the ADP is ensure that scientific, economic, and policy 

issues are adequately addressed at the appropriate stages of action development and 

to ensure cross-agency participation until the final action is completed. On December 22, 2006, EPA issued the TRI Burden Reduction proposed rule, an action that 

increased the Form A threshold for certain facilities to 2,000 pounds of releases for 

a non-PBT chemical. The action also allows, for the first time, certain facilities to 

use Form A for non-dioxin, PBT chemicals, provided they have no releases of the 

PBT chemical. 

My testimony is based on ongoing work that we expect to complete in June 2007 

and, therefore, the information I am presenting is preliminary. My statement today 

addresses two areas related to EPA’s changes in TRI reporting requirements: (1) the 

extent to which EPA followed internal rulemaking guidelines when developing its 

December 2006 TRI burden reduction rule and (2) our preliminary estimates of the 

impact that these changes will have on TRI data available to the public and on costs 

to industry. In addition, as you requested, my statement includes a brief summary 

of our May 2005 report on perchlorate and EPA’s December 2006 response to our 

recommendation that the Agency develop a tracking system for perchlorate releases 

and cleanup efforts across the Federal Government and State agencies. 

SUMMARY

Although we have not yet completed our review, our preliminary observations are 

that EPA did not adhere to all aspects of its rulemaking guidelines when developing 

the new TRI reporting requirements. EPA’s Action Development Process outlines a 

series of steps to help guide the development of new environmental regulations. 
75 

2 Executive Office of the President of the United States, Office of Management and Budget, 

Progress in Regulatory Reform: 2004 Report to Congress on the Costs and Benefits of Federal 

Regulations and Unfunded Mandates on State, Local, and Tribal Entities, 2004. 

Throughout this process, however, the senior EPA management has the authority 

to accelerate the rule development process. Nevertheless, while we continue to pursue a clearer understanding of EPA’s actions, we have identified several significant 

differences between the guidelines and the process EPA followed in this case: (1) 

late in the rulemaking process, senior EPA management directed consideration of 

a burden reduction option that the TRI workgroup had previously dropped from consideration; (2) EPA developed this option on an expedited schedule that appears to 

have provided a limited amount of time for conducting various impact analyses; and 

(3) EPA may not have conducted a Final Agency Review, where EPA’s internal and 

regional offices discuss whether they concur with the final proposal. The TRI 

workgroup charged with identifying options to reduce reporting burdens on industry 

identified three possible options for senior management to consider. The first two 

options allowed facilities to use Form A in lieu of Form R for PBT chemicals, provided the facility has no releases to the environment, and the third created a ‘‘no 

significant change’’ reporting option in lieu of Form R for facilities with releases 

that changed little from the previous year. Information from a June 2005 briefing 

for the Administrator indicated that, while the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) had suggested increasing the Form A eligibility for non-PBT chemicals from 

500 to 5,000 pounds, the TRI workgroup dropped that option from consideration. 

Moreover, EPA’s economic analysis—dated July 2005—did not consider the impact 

of raising the Form A reporting threshold. However, the TRI burden reduction rule 

that EPA published in October 2005 included the proposal to increase Form A eligibility threshold from 500 to 5,000 pounds. Although we could not determine from 

the documents provided by EPA what actions the Agency took between the briefing 

and the issuance of the TRI proposal, the Administrator provided direction after the 

briefing to expedite the process in order to meet a commitment to OMB to provide 

burden reduction by the end of December 2006.2 Subsequently, EPA revised its economic analysis to consider the impact of raising the Form A eligibility threshold. 

However, that analysis was not completed before EPA sent the proposed rule to 

OMB for review and was only completed just prior to the proposal being signed by 

the Administrator and published in the Federal Register for public comment. Furthermore, the extent to which senior EPA management sought or received input 

from internal stakeholders, including the TRI workgroup, after resurrecting the option to increase the Form A reporting threshold from 500 to 5,000 pounds remains 

unclear. Additionally, we have been unable to determine whether EPA conducted a 

Final Agency Review for the Form A reporting threshold proposal, where EPA’s internal and regional offices would have discussed whether they concurred with the 

final proposal. We will continue to pursue the answer to this and other questions 

as we complete our work. Finally, in response to the public comments on the proposal, nearly all of which were negative, EPA considered alternative options and revised the proposal, thereby allowing facilities to report releases of up to 2,000 rather 

than 5,000 pounds on Form A. 

We believe that the TRI reporting changes will likely have a significant impact 

on information available to the public about dozens of toxic chemicals from thousands of facilities in States and communities across the country. EPA estimates that 

the TRI reporting changes will affect reporting on less than 1 percent of the total 

chemical releases reported to the TRI annually. While our analysis supports EPA’s 

estimate of this aggregate impact, it also suggests that changes to TRI reporting requirements will have a significant impact on the amount and nature of toxic release 

data available to some communities. To develop a more specific picture of the impact 

of the TRI reporting changes at a local level, we used 2005 TRI data to estimate, 

by State, the number of detailed Form Rs that could no longer be reported and the 

effect this would have on publicly available data about individual chemicals and facilities. We analyzed, by State, the number of chemicals for which there would no 

longer be quantitative information and the number of facilities that would no longer 

have to provide quantitative information about their chemical releases and waste 

management practices. First, we estimate that the detailed information from more 

than 22,000 Form R reports may no longer be included in the TRI if all eligible facilities use Form A. More specifically, Alaska, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Rhode Island could have 33 percent fewer chemical reports. Second, we estimate that the number of chemicals for which no information 

could be reported under the new rule ranges from 3 chemicals in South Dakota to 

60 chemicals in Georgia. Thirteen States—including Tennessee, Missouri, Maryland, 

Oklahoma, Delaware, Vermont, and Georgia—could have no detailed reports on 
76 

3http://www.epa.gov/triexplorer and http://www.epa.gov/enviro 

4These facilities were not included in the original manufacturing industries, but EPA began 

requiring TRI reports from seven new industries—including electric utilities that burn coal or 

oil—starting in 1998. 

more than 20 percent of reported chemicals. Third, we estimate that a total of 3,565 

facilities would no longer have to report quantitative information about their chemical use to the TRI. In fact, more than 20 percent of facilities in Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island, could have no detailed information about their chemical use. Furthermore, citizens living in 75 counties in the 

United States—including 11 in Texas, 10 in Virginia, and 6 in Georgia—could have 

no numerical TRI information about local toxic pollution. In addition, preliminary 

results from our survey of State TRI coordinators indicates that many States believe 

that EPA’s changes to TRI reporting requirements will have a negative impact on 

various aspects of TRI. Finally, with regard to the impact of the rule change on industry’s reporting burden, EPA estimates that, if all eligible facilities take advantage of the reporting changes, they will save a total of about $5.9 million—about 

4 percent of the estimated annual cost of TRI reporting. This is the equivalent of 

less than $900 per facility. However, because not all eligible facilities will use Form 

A, the actual savings to industry are likely to be less. 

With regard to your request for an update on our May 2005 report on perchlorate, 

it should be noted that perchlorate releases are not reported to the TRI. Ammonium 

perchlorate (perchlorate) is a salt that is easily dissolved and transported in water 

and has been found in groundwater, surface water, drinking water, soil, and food 

products such as milk and lettuce across the country. Health studies have shown 

that perchlorate can affect the thyroid gland and may cause developmental delays. 

We identified more than 400 sites in 35 States where perchlorate had been found 

in concentrations ranging from 4 parts per billion to more that 3.7 million parts per 

billion, and that more than one-half of the sites were in California and Texas. However, Federal and State agencies are not required to routinely report perchlorate 

findings to EPA, and EPA does not centrally track or monitor perchlorate detections 

or the status of cleanup efforts. As a result, a greater number of contaminated sites 

than we reported may exist. Although concern over potential health risks from perchlorate has increased, and at least 9 States have established non-regulatory action 

levels or advisories, EPA has not established a national drinking water standard citing the need for more research on health effects. We concluded in our report that 

EPA needed more reliable information on the extent of sites contaminated with perchlorate and the status of cleanup efforts, and recommended that EPA work with 

the Department of Defense and the States to establish a formal structure for tracking perchlorate information. Both agencies continue to disagree with the recommendation stating that perchlorate information already exists from a variety of 

other sources. However, we continue to believe that the inconsistency and omissions 

in available data that we found during the course of our study underscore the need 

for a more structured and formal tracking system. 

BACKGROUND

In 1984, a catastrophic accident caused the release methyl isocyante—a toxic 

chemical used to make pesticides—at a Union Carbide plant in Bhopal, India, killing thousands of people, injuring many others, and displacing many more from their 

homes and businesses. One month later, it was disclosed that the same chemical 

had leaked at least 28 times from a similar Union Carbide facility in Institute, West 

Virginia. Eight months later, 3,800 pounds of chemicals again leaked from the West 

Virginia facility, sending dozens of injured people to local hospitals. In the wake of 

these events, Congress passed the Emergency Planning and Community Right-toKnow Act of 1986 (EPCRA). Among other things, EPCRA provides access by individuals and communities to information regarding hazardous materials in their communities. Section 313 of EPCRA generally requires certain facilities that manufacture, process, or otherwise use any of 581 individual chemicals and 30 additional 

chemical categories to annually report the amount of those chemicals that they released to the environment, including information about where they released those 

chemicals. EPCRA also requires EPA to make this information available to the public, which the Agency does in a national database known as the Toxics Release Inventory. The public may access TRI data on EPA’s Web site and aggregate it by zip 

code, county, State, industry, and chemical. EPA also publishes an annual report 

that summarizes national, State, and industry data.3

Figure 1 illustrates TRI reporting using a typical, large coal-fired electric powerplant as an example.4 The figure notes the chemicals that the facility may have to 
77 

report to the TRI. The primary input to this facility is coal that contains small 

amounts of a number of toxic chemicals such as arsenic, chromium, and lead. The 

facility pulverizes coal and burns it to generate electricity. As part of its standard 

operations, the facility releases TRI chemicals such as hydrochloric acid and sulfuric 

acid to the air through its stack. The facility may also send ash from the burning 

process to an ash pond or landfill, including TRI chemicals such as arsenic, lead, 

and zinc. In addition, the facility may release chemicals in the water it uses for cooling. The facility will have to complete a TRI report for air, land, and water releases 

of each chemical it uses above a certain threshold. 

Owners of facilities subject to EPCRA comply its reporting requirements by submitting an annual Form R report to EPA, and their respective State, for each TRIlisted chemical that they release in excess of certain thresholds. Form R captures 

information about facility identity, such as address, parent company, industry type, 

latitude, and longitude and detailed information about the toxic chemical, such as 

quantity of the chemical disposed or released onsite to air, water, land, and underground injection or transferred for disposal or release off-site. This information is 

labeled as ‘‘Disposal or Other Releases’’ on the left side of figure 2. 
78 

The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (PPA) expanded TRI by requiring facilities 

to report additional information about their efforts to reduce pollution at its source, 

including the quantities of TRI chemicals they manage in waste, both on- and offsite, including amounts recycled, burned for energy recovery, or treated. EPA began 

capturing this information on Form R in 1991, as illustrated by ‘‘Other Waste Management’’ on the right side of figure 2. 

Beginning in 1995, EPA allowed facilities to use a 2-page Certification Statement 

(Form A) to certify that they are not subject to Form R reporting for a given chemical provided that they (1) did not release more than 500 total pounds and (2) did 

not manufacture, process, or otherwise use more than one-million total pounds of 

the chemical. Form A contains the facility identification information found on Form 

R and basic information about the identity of the chemical being reported. However, 

Form A does not contain any of the Form R details about quantities of chemicals 

released or otherwise managed as waste. 

Beginning with Reporting Year 2001, EPA has provided the Toxics Release Inventory—Made Easy software (TRI–ME) to assist facilities with their TRI reporting. 

TRI-ME leads prospective reporters interactively through a series of questions that 

eliminate a good portion of the analysis required to determine if a facility needs to 

comply with the TRI reporting requirements, including threshold calculations needed to determine Form A eligibility. If TRI–ME determines that a facility is required 

to report, the software provides guidance for each of the data elements on the reporting forms. The software also provides detailed guidance for each step through 

an integrated assistance library. Prior to submission, TRI–ME performs a series of 

validation checks before the facility prints the forms for mailing, transfers the data 

to diskette, or submits the information electronically over the Internet. More than 

90 percent of forms are submitted electronically to EPA. 

Each year, EPA compiles the TRI reports and stores them in a database known 

as the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). In 2004—the latest year for which data are 

publicly available—23,675 facilities filed a total of nearly 90,000 reports, including 
79 

nearly 11,000 Form As. In total, facilities reported releasing 4.24 billion pounds of 

chemicals to the environment and handling 21.8 billion pounds of chemicals through 

other waste management activities. 

EPA recently embarked on a three-phase effort to streamline TRI reporting requirements and reduce the reporting burden on industry. During the first phase, 

EPA removed some data elements from Form A and Form R that could be obtained 

from other EPA information collection databases to simplify reporting. As part of 

the second phase, EPA issued the TRI Burden Reduction Proposed Rule, which 

would have allowed a reporting facility to use Form A for (a) non-PBT chemicals, 

so long as its releases or other disposal were not greater than 5,000 pounds, and 

(b) for PBT chemicals when there are no releases or other disposal and no more 

than 500 pounds of other waste management (e.g., recycling or treatment). The 

phase III changes that EPA was considering proposing would have allowed alternate-year reporting, rather than yearly reporting. The phase II and III changes generated considerable public concern that they will negatively impact Federal and 

State Governments’ and the public’s access to important public health information. 

EPA DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE FOLLOWED INTERNAL GUIDELINES IN ALL RESPECTS

WHEN DEVELOPING TRI RULE

Although we have not yet completed our review, our preliminary observations are 

that EPA did not adhere to its own rulemaking guidelines in all respects when it 

developed the new TRI reporting requirements. EPA’s Action Development Process 

outlines a series of steps to help guide the development of new environmental regulations. Throughout the rule development process, senior EPA management generally has the discretion depart from the guidelines, including by accelerating the 

development of regulations. Nevertheless, we discovered several significant differences between the guidelines and the process EPA followed in this case: (1) late 

in the rulemaking process, senior EPA management directed consideration of a burden reduction option that the TRI workgroup had considered but which had subsequently been dropped from consideration; (2) EPA developed this option on an expedited schedule that appears to have provided a limited amount of time for conducting various impact analyses; and (3) the expedited schedule afforded little, if 

any, time for internal stakeholders to provide input to senior EPA management 

about the impacts of the proposal during Final Agency Review. 

The TRI workgroup charged with identifying options to reduce reporting burdens 

on industry identified three possible options for senior management to consider. The 

first two options allowed facilities to use Form A in lieu of Form R for PBT chemicals, provided the facility has no releases to the environment. Specifically, the 

workgroup considered and analyzed options to facilities to: 

• report PBT chemicals using Form A if they have zero releases and zero total 

other waste management activities; or 

• report PBT chemicals using Form A if they have zero releases and no more than 

500 pounds of other waste management activities. 

The third option was to create a form, in lieu of Form R, for facilities to report 

‘‘no significant change’’ if their releases changed little from the previous year. 

Information from a June 2005 briefing for the Administrator indicated that, while 

the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) had suggested increasing the Form 

A eligibility for non-PBT chemicals from 500 to 5,000 pounds, the TRI workgroup 

dropped that option from consideration. Moreover, EPA’s economic analysis—dated 

July 2005—did not consider the impact of raising the Form A reporting threshold. 

However, the TRI burden reduction rule that EPA published in October 2005 included the proposal to increase Form A reporting eligibility from 500 to 5,000 

pounds. 

Although we could not determine from the documents provided by EPA what actions the Agency took between the briefing and the issuance of the TRI proposal, 

the Administrator provided direction after the briefing to expedite the process in 

order to meet a commitment to OMB to provide burden reduction by the end of December 2006. Subsequently, EPA staff worked to revise the economic analysis to 

consider the impact of raising the Form A reporting threshold. However, that analysis was not completed before EPA sent the proposed rule to OMB for review and 

was only completed just prior to the proposal being signed by the Administrator on 

September 21, 2005 and ultimately published in the Federal Register for public comment on October 4, 2005. 

Furthermore, it appears that EPA management received limited input from internal stakeholders, including the TRI workgroup, after directing that the proposal include the option to increase the Form A reporting threshold from 500 to 5,000 

pounds. EPA conducted a Final Agency Review of the Form A reporting threshold 
80 

proposal, as provided for in the internal rulemaking guidelines. Final Agency Review is the step where EPA’s internal and regional offices would have discussed 

with senior management whether they concurred, concurred with comment, or did 

not concur with the final proposal. However, it appears that the discussion pertained to the ‘‘no significant change’’ option rather than increased threshold option. 

As a result, the EPA Administrator or EPA Assistant Administrator for Environmental Information likely received limited input about views of internal stakeholders about the increased Form A threshold prior to sending the TRI Burden Reduction Proposed Rule to OMB for review. Finally, in response to the public comments to the proposal, nearly all of which were negative, EPA considered alternatives options and revised the proposal to allow facilities to report releases of up 

to 2,000 pounds on Form A. We are continuing to review EPA documentation and 

meet with EPA personnel to understand the process followed in developing the TRI 

burden reduction proposal. We expect to have a more complete picture for our report 

in June. 

IMPACT OF REPORTING CHANGES ON INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC IS LIKELY

TO BE SIGNIFICANT

While our analysis confirms EPA’s estimate that the TRI reporting changes could 

result less than 1 percent of total pounds of chemical releases no longer being included in the TRI database, the impact on information available to some communities is likely to be more significant than these national aggregate totals indicate. 

EPA estimated that these reports amount to 5.7 million pounds of releases not being 

reported to the TRI (only 0.14 percent of all TRI release pounds) and an additional 

10.5 million pounds of waste management activities (0.06 percent of total waste 

management pounds). Examined locally, the impact on data available to some communities is likely to be more significant than these national totals indicate. To understand the potential impact of EPA’s changes to TRI reporting requirements at 

the local level, we used 2005 TRI data to estimate the number of detailed Form R 

reports that would no longer have to be submitted in each State and the impact this 

would have on data about specific chemicals and facilities. We provide estimates of 

these impacts, by State, in Appendix I. In addition, preliminary results from our 

January 2007 survey of State TRI coordinators indicate that they believe EPA’s 

changes to TRI reporting requirements will have, on balance, a negative impact on 

various aspects and users of TRI information. 

We estimate that a total of nearly 22,200 Form R reports could convert to Form 

A if all eligible facilities choose to take advantage of the opportunity to report under 

the new Form A thresholds. The number ranges by State from 25 Form Rs in 

Vermont (27.2 percent of Form Rs in State) to 2,196 Form Rs in Texas (30.6 percent 

of Form Rs in State). As figure 3 shows, Arkansas, Idaho, and Nevada, North Dakota and South Dakota could lose less than 20 percent of the detailed forms, while 

Alaska, California, Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, 

New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and Texas could lose more 

than 30 percent of Form R reports. 
81 

For each facility that chooses to file a Form A instead of Form R, the public would 

no longer have available quantitative information about a facility’s releases and 

waste management practices for a specific chemical manufactured, processed, or otherwise used at the facility. Form R and Form A both capture information about a 

facility’s identity, such as mailing address, parent company, and basic information 

about a chemical’s identity, such its generic name. However, only Form R provides 

detailed information about the chemical, such as quantity disposed or released onsite to air, water, and land or injected underground, or transferred for disposal or 

release off-site. Form R also provides information about the facility’s efforts to reduce pollution at its source, including the quantities managed in waste, both onand off-site, such as amounts recycled, burned for energy recovery, or treated. We 

provide a detailed comparison of the TRI data on Form R and Form A in Appendix 

II. 

One way to capture the impact of the loss of these Form R reports is to examine 

their impact on publicly available data about specific chemicals at the State level. 

The number of chemicals for which no information is likely to be reported under 

the new rule ranges from 3 chemicals in South Dakota to 60 chemicals in Georgia. 

That means that all quantitative information currently reported about those chemicals could no longer appear in the TRI database. Figure 4 shows that 13 States— 

including Tennessee, Missouri, Maryland, Oklahoma, Delaware, Vermont, and Georgia—would no longer have quantitative information for more than 20 percent of all 

reported chemicals in the State. 
82 

5 Appendix I provides the number of affected facilities for each State. 

The impact of the loss of information from these Form R reports can also be understood in terms of how many facilities would no longer have to report any quantitative information about their chemical releases and waste management practices 

to the TRI. EPA estimated that 6,670 facilities will be affected nationwide. Of the 

total number of affected facilities, we estimate that over 50 percent would be eligible 

to convert all their Form Rs to Form A. That is, 3,565 facilities could chose not to 

report any quantitative information about their chemical releases and other waste 

management practices. The number of facilities ranges from 5 in Alaska to 302 in 

California.5 As an example, one of these facilities is ATSC Marine Terminal—a bulk 

petroleum storage facility in Los Angeles County, California. In 2005, it reported releases of 13 different chemicals— including highly toxic benzene, toluene, and xylene—to the air. Although the facility’s releases totaled about 5,000 pounds, it released less than 2,000 pounds of each chemical. As a result of EPA’s new reporting 

rules 3,500 facilities across the United States would no longer have to disclose details about their chemical releases and other waste management practices. As figure 

5 shows, more than 10 percent of facilities in each State except Idaho would no 

longer have to report any quantitative information to the TRI. The most affected 

States are Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island, where 

more than 20 percent of facilities could choose to not disclose the details of their 

chemical releases and other waste management practices. 
83 

6Survey results from those States responding as of February 1, 2006. 

The Environmental Protection and Community Right-to-Know Act requires that 

facilities submit their annual TRI data directly to their respective State, as well as 

to EPA. Last month, we surveyed the TRI program contacts in the 50 States and 

the District of Columbia to gain their perspective on the TRI, including an understanding of how TRI is used by the States. We also asked for their beliefs about 

how EPA’s increase in the Form A eligibility threshold would affect TRI-related aspects in their State, such as information available to the public, efforts to protect 

the environment, emergency planning and preparedness, and costs to facilities for 

TRI reporting. Although our analysis of the survey is not final, preliminary results 

from 49 States and the District of Columbia show that the States generally believe 

that the change will have a negative on various aspects of TRI in their States.6 Very 

few States reported that the change will have a positive impact. The States most 

commonly reported that the TRI changes will have a negative impact on such TRI 

aspects as information available to the public and efforts to protect the environment. 

Specifically, 23 States (including California, Maryland, New York, and Oklahoma) 

responded that the changes will negatively impact information available to the public, 14 (including Louisiana, Ohio, and Wyoming) reported no impact, and only Virginia reported a generally positive impact. Similarly, 22 States responded that the 

change negatively impact efforts to protect the environment, 11 reported no impact, 

and only 5 said it will have a positive impact. States most commonly responded that 

raising the eligibility threshold will have no impact TRI aspects such as emergency 

planning and preparedness efforts and the cost to facilities for TRI reporting. For 

example, 22 States responded that the change will have no impact on the cost to 

facilities for TRI reporting, 12 said it will have a positive impact, and no States said 

it will have a negative impact. The totals do not always sum to 50 because some 

States responded that they were uncertain of the impact on some aspects of TRI. 

Finally, we evaluated EPA’s estimates of the burden reduction impacts that the 

new TRI reporting rules would likely have on industry’s reporting costs, the primary 

rationale for the rule changes. EPA estimates that the TRI reporting changes will 

result in an annual cost savings of about 4 percent—totaling approximately $5.9 

million out of an annual total cost of $147.8 million. (See table 1.) 
84 

This amounts to an average savings of less than $900 annually for each facility. 

EPA also projected that not all eligible facilities will chose to use Form A, based 

on experience from previous years. Furthermore, according to industry groups, much 

of the reporting burden comes from the calculations required to determine and substantiate Form A eligibility, rather than from the amount time required to complete 

the forms. As a result, EPA’s estimate of nearly $6 million likely overestimates the 

total cost savings (i.e., burden reduction) likely to be realized by reporting facilities. 

We are continuing to review EPA documentation and meet with EPA officials to 

understand the process they followed in developing the TRI burden reduction proposal. We expect to have a more complete picture for our report later this year. 

A SYSTEM TO TRACK PERCHLORATE SAMPLING AND CLEANUP RESULTS IS STILL NEEDED

Perchlorate is a salt that is easily dissolved and transported in water and has 

been found in groundwater, surface water, drinking water, soil, and food products 

such as milk and lettuce across the country. Health studies have shown that perchlorate can affect the thyroid gland and may cause developmental delays. However, 

EPA has not established a national drinking water standard, citing the need for 

more research on health effects. As a result, perchlorate, like other unregulated contaminates is not subject to TRI reporting. In May 2005 we issued a report that identified (1) the estimated extent of perchlorate found in the United States; (2) what 

actions the Federal Government, State governments, and responsible parties have 

taken to clean up or eliminate the source of perchlorate; and (3) what studies of the 

potential health risks from perchlorate have been conducted and, where presented, 

the author’s conclusions or findings on the health effects of perchlorate. 

Perchlorate has been found by Federal and State agencies in groundwater, surface 

water, soil, or public drinking water at almost 400 sites in the United States. However, because there is not a standardized approach for reporting perchlorate data 

nationwide, a greater number of sites than we identified may already exist in the 

United States. Perchlorate has been found in 35 States, the District of Columbia, 

and 2 commonwealths of the United States, where the highest concentrations 

ranged from 4 parts per billion to more than 3.7 million parts per billion. (At some 

sites, Federal and State agencies detected perchlorate concentrations as low as 1 

part per billion or less, yet 4 parts per billion is the minimum reporting level of the 

analysis method most often used.) More than one-half of all sites were found in California and Texas, and sites in Arkansas, California, Texas, Nevada, and Utah had 

some of the highest concentration levels. However, most sites did not have high levels of perchlorate. Roughly two-thirds of sites had concentration levels at or below 

18 parts per billion, the upper limit of EPA’s provisional cleanup guidance, and almost 70 percent of sites had perchlorate concentrations less than 24.5 parts per billion, the drinking water concentration calculated on the basis of EPA’s recently established reference dose (see fig. 6). 
85 

At more than one-quarter of the sites, propellant manufacturing, rocket motor 

testing, and explosives disposal were the most likely sources of perchlorate. Public 

drinking water systems accounted for more than one-third of the sites where perchlorate was found. EPA sampled more than 3,700 public drinking water systems 

and found perchlorate in 153 systems across 26 States and 2 commonwealths of the 

United States. Perchlorate concentration levels found at public drinking water systems ranged from 4 to 420 parts per billion. However, only 14 of the 153 public 

drinking water systems had concentration levels above 24.5 parts per billion. EPA 

and State officials told us they had not cleaned up these public drinking water systems, principally because there was no Federal drinking water standard or specific 

Federal requirement to clean up perchlorate. Further, EPA currently does not centrally track or monitor perchlorate detections or the status of cleanup activities. In 

fact, several EPA regional officials told us they did not always know when States 

had found perchlorate, at what levels, or what actions were taken. As a result, it 

is difficult to determine the extent of perchlorate in the United States or the status 

of cleanup actions, if any. 

Although there is no specific Federal requirement to clean up perchlorate or a 

specific perchlorate cleanup standard, EPA and State environmental agencies have 

investigated, sampled, and cleaned up unregulated contaminants, such as perchlorate, under various Federal environmental laws and regulations. EPA and State 

Agency officials have used their authorities under these laws and regulations, as 

well as under State laws and action levels, to sample and clean up and/or require 

the sampling and cleanup of perchlorate by responsible parties. For example, according to EPA and State officials, at least 9 States have established non-regulatory action levels or advisories, ranging from under 1 part per billion to 18 parts per billion, under which responsible parties have been required to sample and clean up 

perchlorate. Further, certain environmental laws and programs require private companies to sample for contaminants, which can include unregulated substances such 
86 

as perchlorate, and report to environmental agencies. According to EPA and State 

officials, private industry and public water suppliers have generally complied with 

regulations requiring sampling for contaminants and Agency requests to sample or 

clean up perchlorate. DOD has sampled and cleaned up when required by specific 

environmental laws and regulations but has been reluctant to sample on or near 

active installations, EPA and State officials said. Where there is no specific legal 

requirement to sample at a particular installation, DOD’s policy on perchlorate requires sampling only where a perchlorate release due to DOD activities is suspected 

and a complete human exposure pathway is likely to exist. Finally, EPA, State 

agencies, and/or responsible parties are cleaning up or planning cleanup at 51 of the 

almost 400 sites where perchlorate was found. The remaining sites are not being 

cleaned up for a variety of reasons. The reason most often cited by EPA and State 

officials was that they were waiting for a Federal requirement to do so. 

We identified and summarized 90 studies of perchlorate health risks published 

since 1998. EPA and DOD sponsored the majority of these studies, which used experimental, field study, and data analysis methodologies. For 26 of the 90 studies, 

the findings indicated that perchlorate had an adverse effect. Eighteen of these 

studies found adverse effects on development resulting from maternal exposure to 

perchlorate. Although the studies we reviewed examined whether and how perchlorate affected the thyroid, most of the studies of adult populations were unable 

to determine whether the thyroid was adversely affected. Adverse effects of perchlorate on the adult thyroid are difficult to evaluate because they may happen over 

longer time periods than can be observed in a research study. However, adverse effects of perchlorate on development can be studied and measured within study time 

frames. We found some studies considered the same perchlorate dose amount but 

found different effects. The precise cause of the differences remains unresolved but 

may be attributed to an individual study’s design type or physical condition of the 

subjects, such as their age. Such unresolved questions are one of the bases for the 

differing conclusions among EPA, DOD, and academic studies on perchlorate dose 

amounts and effects. 

In January 2005, NAS issued its report on the potential health effects of perchlorate. The NAS report evaluated many of the same health risk studies included 

in our review. NAS reported that certain levels of exposure may not adversely affect 

healthy adults but recommended that more studies be conducted on the effects of 

perchlorate exposure in children and pregnant women. NAS also recommended a 

perchlorate reference dose, which is an estimated daily exposure level from all 

sources that is expected not to cause adverse effects in humans, including the most 

sensitive populations. The reference dose of 0.0007 milligrams per kilogram of body 

weight is equivalent to a drinking water concentration of 24.5 parts per billion, if 

all exposure comes from drinking water. 

We concluded that EPA needed more reliable information on the extent of sites 

contaminated with perchlorate and the status of cleanup efforts, and recommended 

that EPA work with the Department of Defense, other Federal Agencies and the 

States to establish a formal structure for better tracking perchlorate information. 

Both agencies continue to disagree with the recommendation stating that perchlorate information already exists from a variety of other sources. However, we 

found that the States and Federal Agencies do not always report perchlorate detections to EPA and as a result EPA and the States do not have the most current and 

complete accounting of perchlorate as an emerging contaminant of concern. We continue to believe that the inconsistency and omissions in the available data that we 

found during the course of our study underscore the need for a more structured and 

formal system, and that such a system would serve to better inform the public and 

others about the locations of perchlorate releases and the status of clean ups. 

PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS

We believe that EPA’s recent changes to the Toxics Release Inventory would reduce the amount of information available to the public about toxic chemicals in their 

communities. Indeed, EPA’s portrayal of the potential impacts of the TRI reporting 

rule changes in terms of the aggregate amount of pollution runs contrary to the legislative intent of EPCRA and the principles of the public’s right-to-know. TRI is designed to provide States and public citizens with information about the releases of 

toxic chemicals by facilities in their local communities. Citizens drink water from 

local sources, spend much of their time on land near their homes and places of business, and breathe the air over their local communities. We believe that the likely 

reduction in publicly availability data about specific chemicals and facilities in local 

communities should be considered in light of the relatively small cost savings to industry afforded by the TRI reporting changes. 
87 

Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to 

respond to any questions that you and Members of the Committee may have. 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 

1GAO, Perchlorate: A System to Track Sampling and Cleanup Results is Needed, GAO–05– 

462 (Washington, D.C.: May 20, 2005). 2DOD’s interim policy stated that the military services shall sample for perchlorate where 

service officials suspect the presence of perchlorate on the basis of prior or current DOD activities, and where a complete human exposure pathway is likely to exist. 

RESPONSES BY JOHN B. STEPHENSON TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM

SENATOR INHOFE

Question 1. In January 2006, the Department of Defense updated its sampling 

policy to be consistent with the National Contingency Plan. Your testimony speaks 

to DOD’s previous policy. You failed to mention that DOD, in January 2006, adopted 

24 ppb as a ‘‘level of concern’’ that the Department uses to determine what kind 

of action is needed. Have you had any follow-up with or spoken to DOD between 

the publication of your 2005 report and your testimony? 

Response. We have had follow-up with DOD between the publication of our report 

and the testimony. In October 2005, GAO received a letter from the Deputy Under 

Secretary for Defense (Installations & Environment) that provided comments on 

GAO’s analytical process, an assessment of DOD policy and actions, and a summary 

of health studies related to perchlorate. 

In our February 6, 2007 statement before the Senate Committee on Environment 

and Public Works, we were asked to provide a brief summary of our May 2005 report on perchlorate and an update to the report’s recommendation—that EPA develop a tracking system for perchlorate releases and cleanup efforts across the Federal Government and State agencies.1 To encourage prompt, responsive actions to 

GAO’s recommendations, we systematically follow up on them and annually report 

to Congress on their status. Because our recommendation was directed solely to 

EPA, we provided an update on EPA’s original disagreement with our recommendation, and we did not discuss DOD’s updated perchlorate sampling policy. 

Although we did not discuss DOD’s policy, we agree that the department established 24 ppb as the level of concern for managing perchlorate in January 2006. 

However, we have not evaluated the implications of that policy, nor have we been 

asked to do so. Our testimony summarized the 2005 report’s finding that DOD has 

sampled and cleaned up when required by specific environmental laws and regulations but has been reluctant to sample on or near active installations unless a perchlorate release due to DOD activities is suspected and a complete human exposure 

pathway is likely to exist. This was, in short, DOD’s September 2003 interim policy 

on perchlorate sampling that was in effect at the time of our report.2

Question 2. In your criticism of the internal process at EPA, you complained that 

EPA senior management had accelerated the TRI rulemaking process. Given that 

EPA determined in 1997 to pursue burden reduction for TRI, is a final decision in 

2006 really so accelerated? 

Response. EPA has pursued a number of burden reduction options for TRI since 

at least 1997, and its December 2006 TRI Burden Reduction Rule is just the latest 

outcome from that overall effort. GAO evaluated the extent to which EPA followed 

internal rulemaking guidelines from the time that EPA initiated the rulemaking 

process in early 2004 until the Agency issued the proposed rule in October 2005. 

Our findings are specific to that rulemaking process. We found that senior EPA 

management accelerated the rulemaking process in June 2005 while also directing 

the TRI workgroup to reconsider a burden reduction option that had previously been 

dropped. We concluded that management’s inclusion of this option relatively late in 

this process, coupled with pressure to meet a December 2006 commitment to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to finalize the rule, led to problems that 

EPA’s rulemaking process was designed to avoid. 

As you point out, EPA has pursued burden reduction for TRI since at least 1997. 

Our testimony provided background information about some of EPA’s other TRI burden reduction efforts. Specifically, we mentioned that EPA created the 2-page Certification Statement (Form A) in 1995 and implemented electronic TRI-Made Easy 

reporting software in 2001. We also stated that the present rulemaking was part 

of an initiative to reduce TRI reporting requirements and burden on industry that 

began with a stakeholder dialog between Fall 2002 and early 2004. Through the dialog, a wide range of stakeholders identified improvements to the TRI reporting process and discussed a number of burden reduction options. After reviewing the options, EPA initiated two phases of burden reduction rulemakings. Phase 1 provided 

several relatively simple, quick-fix solutions for reducing the time, cost, and complexity of reporting requirements. EPA finalized phase 1 in a July 2005 rulemaking, 

the TRI Reporting Forms Modification Rule. Phase 2 provided a broader, more com-
95 

3 EPA excluded dioxin and dioxin-like compounds from eligibility for Form A reporting of PBT 

chemicals. 

plex set of regulatory burden reduction alternatives. For the purposes of our testimony, GAO evaluated EPA’s internal processes for the phase 2 rulemaking. 

As part of our work, GAO found that senior EPA management accelerated the 

rulemaking process between June and October 2005 in order to meet a commitment 

to OMB to provide a final burden reduction rule by the end of December 2006. The 

decision to expedite was made relatively late in the process, after an early June 

2005 options selection briefing for the Administrator. For the briefing, EPA’s TRI 

workgroup laid out 3 burden reduction options from the stakeholder dialog for which 

the workgroup had developed detailed analyses. We also found that senior EPA 

management subsequently directed inclusion of an option that the TRI workgroup 

had considered but dropped before performing detailed analysis of the option’s costs 

and benefits. That option was to increase the limit for the use of Form A for reporting non-PBT chemicals from 500 pounds to 5,000 pounds. The problems that we 

found are a consequence of the acceleration that occurred in June 2005 and the inclusion of this burden reduction option. 

Specifically, we found that EPA did not complete its economic analysis of the nonPBT option before the holding the Final Agency Review meeting later in June 

2005—a step in the process when EPA’s internal and regional offices discuss with 

senior management whether they concur with the rulemaking. That is, internal 

stakeholders reviewed a rule and analysis of the three original burden reduction options rather than an analysis and rule that included the non-PBT option. Consequently, the EPA Administrator and Assistant Administrator for Environmental 

Information received limited input about the impacts of the new burden reduction 

option before approving the proposed rule for publication in the Federal Register for 

public comment. As we discussed in testimony, nearly all the over 100,000 public 

comments were negative and many cited specific impacts that EPA had not thoroughly considered prior to issuing the rule. Specifically, the changes were said to 

adversely affect the ability of data users to perform local trend analyses, monitor 

the performance of individual facilities, and more generally, meet the intended purpose of the data collection to inform the public, government, and other data users 

about releases of toxic chemicals to the environment. 

Question 3. Did you consider in your analysis that the Form A/PBT reports provide quantitative information to the public that no releases are being made to the 

environment? 

Response. We considered in our analysis that Form A provides the public with 

quantitative information that the facility is not releasing the PBT chemical to the 

environment. For our testimony, we evaluated EPA’s TRI Burden Reduction Rule 

that allows facilities currently reporting zero releases on Form R to use Form A for 

PBT chemicals, provided they do not exceed the 1 million pound alternative reporting threshold and have 500 pounds or less of total other waste management quantities (e.g., recycling or treatment).3 Because eligible facilities must have zero release quantities for a PBT chemical, the public will still learn that the facility has 

reported no releases. However, we also considered in our analysis the other quantitative and qualitative information the facilities will no longer have to provide if 

they begin using the Form A. 

As we detailed in appendix II of our statement, Form A does not provide information to the public that is reported on Form R regarding the use(s) of the chemical 

(i.e., was the chemical manufactured, processed, or otherwise used), the maximum 

amount of the chemical on site at any time during the calendar year, and the production ratio. EPA reported in its economic analysis that, with regard to the maximum amount of the chemical on site, information would not be reported that, in 

the past, has been useful in (1) emergency planning and response, (2) environmental 

data analyses as a proxy for throughput, and (3) compliance targeting analysis to 

identify facilities that are not compliance with other EPA regulations. For this information, Form A serves as a range report of 0 to 500 pounds. 

As mentioned in our previous answer, EPA’s rule also increased eligibility for facilities to report non-PBT chemicals on Form A. In our analysis, we used 2005 TRI 

data to estimate the number of detailed Form R reports that would no longer have 

to be submitted in each State under EPA’s new rule. We also determined the possible impact that EPA’s rule could have on quantitative information about specific 

chemicals and facilities. In table 2 of the statement’s appendix I, we provided the 

number of unique chemicals for which no quantitative information would have to 

be reported in each State and the number of facilities that would no longer have 
96 

4 E.H. Pechan and Associates, Inc., Risk-Based Analysis for Form A and Form NS Toxics Release Inventory Reform Proposed Alternatives (Durham, N.C.: October 14, 2004). 

to provide quantitative information about their chemical releases and waste management practices. 

Question 4. Would you agree that the TRI reform provides incentives to small 

businesses to reduce emissions to zero for PBTs? 

Response. EPA stated in its economic analysis that the rule will provide incentives to reduce or eliminate releases (especially for PBT chemicals) and encourage 

source reduction. This will happen if facilities choose to reduce their releases of PBT 

chemicals to zero in order to use the Form A instead of Form R. However, the Agency added that it was not able to estimate quantitatively how much releases would 

be eliminated, or other waste management activities replaced by source reduction, 

due to lack of data. For our part, we did not attempt to evaluate the extent to which 

the TRI rulemaking provides incentives to small businesses to reduce emissions of 

PBT chemicals to zero. 

Question 5a. We know that GAO did interview staff at the SBA Office of Advocacy 

about its observations on the TRI rule. Did you analyze the information value of 

the Form A range reports for non-PBT chemicals? 

Response. In our testimony, GAO did not specifically quantify the information 

value of Form A as a range report. However, for comparison purposes we detailed 

the chemical information that is provided on Form R and Form A in appendix II. 

This analysis shows that Form R and Form A provide substantially different information. None of the quantitative chemical release and waste management information that we list under Form R is provided on Form A. That is, Form R captures 

detailed information about the chemical, such as quantity disposed or released onsite to air, water, and land or injected underground, or transferred for disposal or 

release off-site. Form A does not. In addition, Form R provides details about the facility’s efforts to reduce pollution at its source, including the quantities managed in 

waste, both on- and off-site, such as amounts recycled, burned for energy recovery, 

or treated. Form A does not. 

EPA’s final rule increased the eligibility thresholds such that a facility may use 

Form A if its (1) total releases of a non-PBT chemical to all media (i.e., air, water) 

are not greater than 2,000 pounds and (2) total waste management quantities, including releases, do not exceed 5,000 pounds. Therefore, a non-PBT Form A serves 

as a range report—certifying that the facility released between 0 and 2,000 total 

pounds of the chemical and managed between 0 to 5,000 total pounds of waste (including releases). However, the Form A does not provide information about where 

the facility released the chemical (i.e., air, water) and how it managed the chemical 

in waste (i.e., recycling, energy recovery). 

Question 5b. Did you evaluate the Office of Advocacy’s October 2004 report that 

99 percent of all 3,142 counties would not be significantly affected by a change in 

the non-PBT threshold from 500 to either 2,000 or 5,000 pounds? 

Response. We have been aware of the October 2004 report that Pechan and Associates prepared for the Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy since early 

in our review.4 However, we did not evaluate the study because of the serious methodological concerns that EPA raised during our discussions. The study uses substantially different methodology than EPA used in its economic analysis or GAO used 

in our analyses for the testimony. In short, the study used EPA’s Risk Screening 

Environmental Indicators (RSEI) model to perform a risk-based analysis of the impact of EPA’s changes on information that would be reported to the TRI. The study 

compared the relative impacts of several different non-PBT threshold options, but 

it excluded from consideration many TRI Form R reports that are eligible to convert 

to Form A. Based on EPA’s methodological reservations, we excluded from consideration the results of Pechan’s analyses. Instead, GAO conducted our own independent 

analysis of the costs and benefits of EPA’s changes to the TRI reporting requirements. 

Regardless of these methodological concerns, the Pechan and Associates report 

does not specifically conclude that 99 percent of all 3,142 counties would not be significantly affected by a change in the non-PBT threshold from 500 to either 2,000 

or 5,000 pounds. Rather, it states on page 29: 

Pechan also evaluated the potential county-level impacts for each Form A reform proposal alternative. In order to examine the worst case situation, Tables 

IV-3 through IV-9 present results for the top 20 counties impacted by each reform proposal (the counties in each table are sorted in descending order by reduction in risk score). Since the United States has 3,142 counties, more than 
97 

5 EPA, EPA’s Action Development Process: Guidance for EPA Staff on Developing Quality Actions, June 30, 2004. EPA defines actions to include rules, policy statements, risk assessments, 

guidance documents, models that may be used in future rulemakings, Reports to Congress that 

are statutorily mandated, and strategies that are related to regulations. EPA uses the term ‘‘action’’ in its broadest sense. For the purpose of our answer, we use the terms ‘‘rulemaking’’ and 

‘‘action’’ synonymously. 

99 percent of the counties will show data losses that are less than these tables 

show. It is important to note that all county-level results are presented relative 

to the current 500-pound reporting threshold (i.e., all Form Rs with an ARA of 

500 pounds or less are removed before calculating relative impacts). Not surprisingly, the top 20 counties account for anywhere between 36 percent and 51 

percent of the national change in risk score under each of the Form A reform 

proposals. 

Question 6. Is it not the role for EPA management to make decisions in the rulemaking process, including decisions that were not originated by their staff? 

Response. EPA management’s role is to make decisions throughout the rulemaking process, and the Agency developed its Action Development Process (ADP) 

to ensure that EPA management uses quality information to support its actions and 

to ensure that scientific, economic, and policy issues are adequately addressed at the 

right stages in action development.5 EPA’s process (1) includes steps for planning 

sound scientific and economic analyses to support rulemaking, including peer review 

when necessary, (2) includes steps for developing and selecting regulatory options 

based on relevant scientific, economic, and policy analyses, (3) calls upon affected 

headquarters and regional managers to get involved early in developing an action 

and to stay involved until the final action is completed, (4) ensures active and appropriate cross-Agency participation, and (5) encourages appropriate and meaningful consultation with stakeholders in the process through substantive consultative 

procedures. 

As GAO highlighted in its testimony, EPA management generally has the discretion to depart from these guidelines, including by accelerating the development of 

the proposed TRI Burden Reduction Rule. Nonetheless, those decisions created differences between EPA’s guidelines and the process that the Agency followed—differences that had an impact on the quality of support for the proposed rule that the 

ADP is designed to ensure. Given the questions we were asked to respond to as part 

of our review, we believe it was appropriate to assess and report on the consequences of the decisions we cited. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Mr. Stephenson. 

Mr. Sullivan. 

STATEMENT OF THOMAS M. SULLIVAN, CHIEF COUNSEL FOR 

ADVOCACY, U.S. SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Chairman Boxer, thank you for giving me the opportunity to appear before the committee. My name is Tom Sullivan. I am the Chief Counsel for Advocacy at the U.S. Small Business Administration. 

My office is an independent office within SBA, so the comments 

expressed in this oral statement, questions and answers and in my 

written statement do not necessarily reflect the position of the Administration or the SBA. My written statement was not submitted 

to OMB in draft form for approval prior to this hearing. 

I ask the Chairman if my full written statement can be entered 

into the record. 

Senator BOXER. Surely. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Five years after TRI was created, my office petitioned EPA to develop streamlined reporting for small volume 

chemical users. In 1994, EPA responded to the petition by adopting 

Form A, the short form for TRI reporting. Adopted as a less burdensome alternative to the long Form R, the original Form A allowed companies to report their releases as a range, instead of a 

specific number. 
98 

Unfortunately, the Form A developed in 1994 was never utilized 

to its potential, owing to restrictive eligibility requirements subsequently imposed on the short form. Small businesses have consistently voiced their concerns to Advocacy that the TRI program imposes substantial paperwork burdens with little corresponding environmental benefit, especially for thousands of business that have 

zero discharges or emissions to the environment. These businesses 

must devote scarce time and resources to completing lengthy, complex Form R reports every year, despite the fact that they have 

zero discharges. 

The reason for my office’s involvement is simple: small businesses are disproportionately impacted by regulation. The overall 

regulatory burden in the United States exceeds $1.1 trillion. For 

firms employing fewer than 20 employees, the most recent estimate 

of their regulatory burden is $7,647 per year per employee. 

Looking specifically at compliance with the Federal environmental rules, the difference between small and large firms is dramatic. Small firms spend 41⁄2 times more per employee for environmental compliance than their larger business counterparts. Environmental requirements, including TRI paperwork requirements, 

can comprise up to 72 percent of small manufacturers’ total regulatory cost. 

EPA’s reform to the TRI reporting rules allows more small business to use Form A instead of the longer Form R. This will save 

money. As the Administrator commented, it provides an incentive 

for companies to recycle chemicals instead of disposing. 

I spoke last week with a TRI expert who runs Advanced Environmental Management Group, a consulting firm that works with 

small businesses on environmental management issues. He is 

proud of his work, helping a paper mill recycle small amounts of 

mercury generated when switches and other process control circuits 

undergo maintenance in the mill’s power house. Amerjit ‘‘Sid’’ 

Sidhu explained to me that EPA’s TRI reform will allow a number 

of industrial operations such as tool and die shops and metal 

stamping plants to file a Form A for the first time. It will also provide an incentive for other companies that Sid works with to recycle their TRI chemicals, rather than disposing of them. 

Although this rule does not go as far as some small businesses 

would prefer, the Office of Advocacy supports EPA’s TRI burden reduction rule. The rule demonstrates that EPA is listening to the 

concerns of small business. The TRI reform should be a model for 

other agencies to reform their existing regulations to reduce costs 

while preserving or strengthening regulatory objectives. 

Thank you for allowing me to present these views. I would be 

happy to answer questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sullivan follows:] 

STATEMENT OF THOMAS M. SULLIVAN, CHIEF COUNSEL FOR ADVOCACY, U.S. SMALL

BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

Chairman Boxer and Members of the committee, thank you for giving me the opportunity to appear before you today. My name is Thomas M. Sullivan and I am 

the Chief Counsel for Advocacy at the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA). 

Congress established the Office of Advocacy to represent the views of small entities 

before Congress and the Federal Agencies. The Office of Advocacy (Advocacy) is an 

independent office within the SBA, and therefore the comments expressed in this 

statement do not necessarily reflect the position of the Administration or the SBA. 
99 

1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Final Rule, ‘‘Toxics Release Inventory Burden Reduction,’’ 71 Fed. Reg. 76,932 (December 22, 2006). 2Pub. L. 99–499, Title III, codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 11001–11050. 

3Testimony of Jere W. Glover, Chief Counsel for Advocacy, before the House Committee on 

Small Business, Subcommittee on Government Programs and Subcommittee on Regulatory Reforms and Paperwork Reduction, ‘‘Small Business Involvement in the Regulatory Process and 

Federal Agencies’ Compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act’’ (April 17, 1997). 

This committee is reviewing several recent regulatory actions of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), including a December 2006 rule designed to reduce 

paperwork burdens under the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) program.1 The Office 

of Advocacy strongly supports EPA’s TRI Burden Reduction rule. Advocacy has 

worked with the EPA since 1988 on TRI issues, and we have developed substantial 

expertise with TRI and other right-to-know programs. In our view, the TRI Burden 

Reduction rule will yield needed reductions in small business paperwork burdens 

while preserving the integrity of the TRI program and strengthening protection of 

the environment. 

BACKGROUND

The public right-to-know provisions set forth by the Emergency Planning and 

Community Right to Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA)2 created the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), which requires companies to make a yearly report to EPA of their handling, management, recycling, disposal, and allowable emissions and discharges of 

chemicals. 

Following EPCRA’s passage, American businesses have taken unprecedented action to reduce the amount of toxic chemicals used in their plants. Some companies 

followed the initial publication of TRI data in 1989 by pledging to reduce 80 to 90 

percent of their chemical releases. The American Chemistry Council member companies implemented a ‘‘Responsible Care’’ initiative which has reduced environmental 

releases by 78 percent over the past 19 years. 

SMALL BUSINESSES HAVE BEEN ASKING FOR TRI PAPERWORK BURDEN RELIEF

SINCE 1990

Soon after the initial reporting years, small business discovered that TRI’s requirement to track, estimate, and report chemical use was complex and time-consuming. Beginning in 1990, these small businesses began asking for simpler alternatives. The Office of Advocacy petitioned EPA in 1991 to develop streamlined reporting for small-volume chemical users. In 1994, EPA responded to the petition by 

adopting ‘‘Form A,’’ the short form for TRI reporting. Adopted as a less burdensome 

alternative to the long form ‘‘Form R,’’ the original Form A allowed companies to 

report their releases as a range, instead of a specific number. Form A enabled the 

public to know that a facility handles less than a small threshold quantity of the 

reported chemical. Significant chemical management activities were still required to 

be reported on the longer, more detailed Form R. 

Unfortunately, the Form A developed in 1994 was never utilized to its potential, 

owing to restrictive eligibility requirements subsequently imposed on the short form. 

Small businesses have consistently voiced their concerns to Advocacy that the TRI 

program imposes substantial paperwork burdens with little corresponding environmental benefit, especially for thousands of businesses that have zero discharges or 

emissions to the environment. These businesses must devote scarce time and resources to completing lengthy, complex Form R reports each year, despite the fact 

that they have zero discharges. In 1997, Advocacy’s Chief Counsel Jere Glover testified that: 

The Office of Advocacy has had the same position about small sources and the 

Toxic Release Inventory since 1988. In 1988, we supported exempting certain facilities with less than 50 employees for TRI reporting. In 1991, we supported exempting reports from facilities that emitted less than 5,000 pounds per year of listed 

toxic chemicals, and in 1994, EPA enacted this exemption. Recently, with the proposal of TRI Phase II, this office also supported eliminating from reporting industry 

sectors with small releases. Thus, the Office of Advocacy adheres to a standard that 

maximizes the impact of regulations on a problem while minimiz[ing] the impact on 

small firms that contribute little to the problem.3

In this decade, small businesses have continued to identify TRI paperwork relief 

as a priority. In 2001, 2002, and 2004, for example, TRI burden reduction was 
100 

4See, e.g., Office of Management and Budget, Draft Report to Congress, 67 Fed. Reg. 15014, 

15015 (March 28, 2002). 5See, e.g., 66 Fed. Reg. 4,500, 4538 (January 17, 2001) (EPA estimated that first-time filers 

of TRI annual reports of lead and lead compounds would need an average of 50 hours, and as 

many as 110 hours, to prepare their Form R’s.). 6W. Mark Crain, The Impact of Regulatory Costs on Small Firms (September 2005) available 

at http://www.sba.gov/advo/research/rs264tot.pdf. 7 Id at page 55, Table 18. 

8 Id. 

9 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Final Rule, ‘‘Addition of Facilities of Certain Industry 

Sectors; Revised Interpretation of Otherwise Use; Toxic Release Inventory Reporting, Community Right-to-Know’’ 62 Fed. Reg. 23,834, 23,887 (May 1, 1997) (‘‘EPA believes that [Form R and 

Form A] can be revised to make it simpler and less costly for businesses to meet their recordkeeping and reporting obligations . . . EPA is initiating an intensive stakeholder process—involving citizens groups, industry, small businesses and States—to conduct comprehensive evaluation of the current TRI reporting forms and reporting practices with the explicit goal of identifying opportunities, consistent with community right-to-know and the relevant law, to simplify 

and/or reduce the cost of TRI reporting.’’). 

named as a high-priority candidate for regulatory reform in response to the Office 

of Management and Budget’s public call for reform nominations.4

WHY IS TRI PAPERWORK BURDEN REDUCTION IMPORTANT TO SMALL BUSINESS?

The annual burden of completing TRI paperwork is substantial. EPA has estimated that first-time Form R filers need to spend an average of 50 hours, and as 

many as 110, to properly complete the forms.5 For small businesses, the burden is 

even heavier. 

The 2005 Advocacy-funded study by W. Mark Crain, The Impact of Regulatory 

Costs on Small Firms, found that, in general, small businesses are disproportionately impacted by the total Federal regulatory burden.6 This overall regulatory burden was estimated by Crain to exceed $1.1 trillion in 2004. For firms employing 

fewer than 20 employees, the annual regulatory burden in 2004 was estimated to 

be $7,647 per employee—nearly 1.5 times greater than the $5,282 burden estimated 

for firms with 500 or more employees.7 Looking specifically at compliance with Federal environmental rules, the difference between small and large firms is even more 

dramatic. Small firms generally have to spend 41⁄2 times more per employee for environmental compliance than large businesses do. Environmental requirements, including TRI paperwork requirements, can comprise up to 72 percent of small manufacturers’ total regulatory costs.8

As an illustration of the impact of TRI on small business, I recently spoke with 

manufacturers and environmental engineers who work with small companies in 

Southeast Michigan’s ‘‘Innovation Alley.’’ These companies use aluminum alloys to 

build automatic transmissions and other car parts that must be heavily machined. 

Some of the alloys contain lead, which helps its machinability. Without lead, the alloys would be gummy, preventing a smooth machining process. The process generates scrap metal, which is recycled. Because the scrap metal contains lead, Form 

R reports have been required each year, despite that fact that no lead is ever released to the environment. EPA’s TRI Burden Reduction rule will allow these companies to use Form A. 

EPA HAS LONG RECOGNIZED THAT TRI BURDEN RELIEF IS NECESSARY

EPA’s efforts at TRI burden reduction, started in 1991, have spanned both Republican and Democratic Administrations. In 1994, EPA Administrator Browner approved the adoption of the original Form A. In 1997, when EPA expanded the scope 

of TRI reporting requirements, EPA promised that it would seek additional reductions in the TRI paperwork burden.9 EPA Administrators have spent over 15 years 

working with the public to develop a new TRI paperwork reduction approach. This 

effort has included forming a Federal Advisory Committee, conducting an online dialogue with interested parties, holding stakeholder meetings, and going through the 

formal rulemaking process. The TRI Burden Reduction rule signed in December 

2006 is the result of this process. 

THE PAPERWORK BURDEN REDUCTION RULE DOES NOT WEAKEN THE TRI PROGRAM

Some observers have expressed concerns that the TRI Burden Reduction rule 

would result in less detailed information about chemicals being communicated to 

EPA, the States, and the public. Specifically, concerns have been voiced about the 

future ability to perform trend analyses, monitor the performance of individual facilities, and satisfy the public right-to-know. To respond to these concerns, EPA 
101 

10 (http://www.epa.gov/envirofacts). Using EZ Query in Envirofacts, data users are able to access individual chemical Form As along with the TRI Facility Identification Numbers (TRIFIDs) 

and the names of facilities submitting Form A’s. 11 (http://www.epa.gov/triexplorer). 

placed a 2,000-pound limit on releases of chemicals that can be considered for Form 

A reporting. Under the TRI Burden Reduction rule, each Form A will be a range 

report, telling the public that total releases from a facility is in the range of zero 

to 2,000 pounds. Facilities that have any emissions or discharges of highly toxic materials (defined as Persistent, Bioaccumulative and Toxic (PBT) chemicals) still cannot use Form A. 

The expanded Form A continues to obtain reporting on a substantial majority of 

total releases of every TRI-listed chemical at all facilities required to submit TRI 

reports. Form A provides much of the important information that Form R does. TRI 

data users are currently able to gain access to Form A facility information via 

Envirofacts10 and TRI Explorer11 in the same way that they can access Form R facility information. Form A tells the user whether a facility is a potential source of 

releases and other waste management activities. 

EPA’s TRI Burden Reduction rule continues to require firms to report all of the 

chemicals they have been reporting each year on the Form R. Following the same 

principles that governed the 1994 TRI paperwork reform, more firms will now be 

able to use the short form (Form A) to report a range of use, rather than detailed 

amounts on the longer, more complex Form R. 

Advocacy agrees with EPA that the rule’s approach to expanded Form A eligibility 

for chemical use reporting strikes an appropriate balance by allowing meaningful 

burden relief while at the same time continuing to provide valuable information to 

the public. 

THE TRI BURDEN REDUCTION RULE WILL STRENGTHEN OVERALL ENVIRONMENTAL

COMPLIANCE

Under the TRI Burden Reduction Rule, top environmental performers within industry will benefit by being able to use the short form (Form A). In order to qualify 

to use Form A, firms must minimize their use of all chemicals and sharply curtail 

their use of PBT chemicals. Most importantly, in order to use Form A, firms may 

not emit or discharge any PBT chemicals into the environment. In the same way 

that the initial Form R reports in 1989 provided an incentive for large companies 

to dramatically reduce their subsequent chemical releases, the expanded Form A 

will provide an incentive for business to reduce their overall chemical usage to be 

able to use the short reporting form. 

As an example of this, I spoke last week with a TRI expert who runs Advanced 

Environmental Management Group, a consulting firm that works with small businesses on environmental management issues. He was proud of his work helping a 

paper mill recycle small amounts of mercury generated when switches and other 

process control circuits undergo maintenance in the mill’s powerhouse. Amerjit ‘‘Sid’’ 

Sidhu explained to me that EPA’s TRI reform will allow a number of industrial operations such as tool and die shops and metal stamping plants to file a Form A for 

the first time. It will also provide an incentive for other companies to recycle their 

TRI chemicals rather than disposing of them. 

ADVOCACY SUPPORTS EPA’S TRI BURDEN REDUCTION RULE

While small businesses and the Office of Advocacy asked EPA to deliver a greater 

measure of burden reduction and make Form A available to a larger number of filers, EPA ultimately chose a more modest alternative. Some manufacturers who deal 

with metal alloys that contain extremely small percentages of lead to assist in their 

machinability would have preferred a de minimis exemption. Their argument, which 

I agree with, is that the burdens of data collection and calculations to track miniscule percentages of lead contained within metal alloys is essentially a waste of resources when we know the scrap metal is recycled and there are no releases to the 

environment. When I visited a wheel manufacturer in Tennessee, I was amazed to 

see that the small facility produced 35,000 aluminum road wheels per week. The 

facility was spotless. Nevertheless, because of the aluminum dust in floor 

sweepings—with an estimated total of 1⁄10 of a pound of lead per year—that ends 

up in their garbage, the company is still required to submit Form R reports to EPA 

each year. 

Although it does not go as far as some small businesses would prefer, Advocacy 

supports the TRI Burden Reduction rule. The rule demonstrates that EPA is listening to the concerns of small business. EPA’s TRI reform should be a model for other 
102 

agencies to reform their existing regulations to reduce costs while preserving or 

strengthening the original regulatory objectives. 

Thank you for allowing me to present these views. I would be happy to answer 

any questions. 
103 
104 
105 

1W. Mark Crain, The Impact of Regulatory Costs on Small Firms (September 2005) available 

at http://www.sba.gov/advo/research/rs264tot.pdf. 2 Id. at p. v. 

3 Id at page 55, Table 18. 

4 Id. 

5 Id. 

6The annual reportable amount (ARA) is defined in the final rule as the sum of the quantities 

reported in sections 8.1 to 8.8 of the Form R, which reflect chemical disposal or other releases 

(8.1), energy recovery (8.2 and 8.3), recycling activity (8.4 and 8.5), treatment (8.6 and 8.7), and 

quantities associated with one-time events (8.8). In the pre-2006 version of the ARA, the ARA 

was defined as the sum of sections 8.1–8.7. The addition of 8.8 represented wastes generated 

from one-time events. 

RESPONSES BY THOMAS M. SULLIVAN TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM

SENATOR INHOFE

Question 1. The Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy is charged with 

advocating on behalf of small business. However, EPA’s reforms to the TRI program 

have been described as helping large industrial companies, not small businesses. 

Please explain the disproportionate impact of Federal regulations on small businesses and the relevance to TRI reform and how EPA’s reforms to the Toxics Release Inventory program benefit small business. 

Response. Many thousands of small businesses will benefit from the December 

2006 TRI reform. We estimate that about half of the new relief goes to small businesses. 

The 2005 Advocacy-funded study by W. Mark Crain, The Impact of Regulatory 

Costs on Small Firms, found that small businesses are disproportionately affected 

by the total Federal regulatory burden.1 This overall regulatory burden was estimated by Crain to exceed $1.1 trillion in 2004.2 For firms employing fewer than 20 

employees, the annual regulatory burden was estimated to be $7,647 per employee—nearly 1.5 times greater than the $5,282 burden estimated for firms with 

500 or more employees.3 Looking specifically at compliance with Federal environmental rules, the difference between small and large firms is even more dramatic. 

Small firms generally have to spend 41⁄2 times more per employee for environmental 

compliance than large businesses do.4 Environmental requirements, including TRI 

paperwork requirements, can constitute up to 72 percent of small manufacturers’ 

total regulatory costs.5 Therefore, the Federal Government is properly concerned 

with environmental regulatory costs on small firms, and particularly those that fall 

on the manufacturing sector. 

Small businesses need regulatory relief and this TRI rule is a small but significant step in that direction. 

Question 2. In your testimony, you described how EPA’s December 2006 TRI rule 

will help small business and strengthen environmental protections. Please describe 

why you believe that this new rule improves EPA’s ability to protect the environment. 

Response. In addition to assisting small businesses via reduced recordkeeping/reporting requirements, EPA’s TRI reporting burden reduction rule also provides TRI 

reporters with incentives to protect the environment. In order to qualify for the benefits associated with the short Form A, many facilities will need to reduce their 

emissions into the environment and perform more pollution prevention. 

By limiting persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic chemicals (PBT) Form A eligibility to facilities with zero releases and 500 pounds or less (Annual Reportable 

Amount, or ARA)6 of other waste management (i.e., recycling, energy recovery, and 

treatment for destruction), EPA is encouraging facilities to eliminate releases of 

PBT chemicals and reduce other waste management quantities to 500 pounds or 

less. Facilities that currently dispose of wastes, such as mercury, would be encouraged to recycle the mercury instead to achieve zero emissions into the environment. 

This new provision is especially important to the environment because it drives 

those releases of chemicals of ‘‘special concern’’ (PBTs) to zero. 

For non-PBTs, EPA has designed the Form A eligibility criteria in such a way as 

to create an incentive for facilities to move away from disposal and other releases 

toward treatment and recycling. This incentive is created by raising the recycling, 

treatment, and energy recovery portions of the ARA to a 5,000-pound maximum, 

while capping releases at 2,000 pounds. This approach promotes pollution prevention, recycling, energy recovery, and treatment over releases. In addition, by including all waste management activities in the Form A eligibility criteria, EPA will be 

newly encouraging facilities above the 5,000-pound ARA to reduce their total waste 

management in order to qualify for Form A eligibility. 
106 

7www.sba.gov/advo/laws/comments/epa06—0113.pdf 

8 1994 EPA Response to Comments Document, Establishment of Alternate Threshold, November 1994, EPA Docket No. OPPTS–400087A, at page 52. 9 70 Fed. Reg. 57822, 57843 (October 4, 2005). 

Through expanded Form A eligibility, EPA’s burden reduction rule provides a 

major incentive for firms to bolster their reputations as environmentally responsible 

companies. 

Question 3. Please explain why small businesses with fewer than 10 employees 

are exempt from TRI reporting and why small businesses still need the additional 

burden reductions from EPA’s December 2006 TRI rule. 

Response. Congress originally set the employee and chemical throughput thresholds, based on data from New Jersey’s right-to-know program, in order to capture 

the substantial majority of releases from industrial facilities. The original 10-employee statutory exemption was not established as a small business standard, but 

as a practical method of excluding facilities that were unlikely to pose a significant 

risk to the community. Now that EPA has nearly 20 years of TRI data, we know 

that additional burden reductions can be achieved without posing a significant risk 

to the community. 

Question 4. In your written statement you referred to EPA’s action in 1994 to create Form A, as a simpler form for reporting chemical use under TRI than the more 

complicated Form R. You also referred to ‘‘principles that governed the 1994 TRI 

paperwork reform . . . .’’ Please explain what you meant by ‘‘principles’’ that governed the creation of Form A, and please describe how those same principles apply 

to EPA’s December 2006 TRI rule. 

Response. As we discussed in our January 2006 comments on the proposal,7 EPA 

proposed to expand the Form A non-persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (nonPBT) annual reportable amount (ARA) threshold from 500 pounds to 5,000 pounds. 

EPA’s choice of the proposed 5,000-pound non-PBT ARA threshold was based on 

several considerations that were first identified in the determinations made in the 

1994 final rule establishing the Form A and the 500 pound ARA threshold (59 Fed. 

Reg. 61488, November 30, 1994). As such, EPA was only recalibrating the 1994 ARA 

to a higher threshold, based on a review of more current data (2002, instead of 

1992). Below are the three principles that I referred to in my statement that underlie the proposal and the final rule: 

In 1994, the Form A, and the 500 pound threshold, were justified on the following 

three findings: 

(1) Chemical reporting on a substantial majority of the releases is maintained 

with the Form A; 

(2) Little production-related waste information (approximately 0.1 percent) will be 

excluded from Form Rs; and 

(3) Each Form A would provide the public with a range report that informs the 

public that total releases as well as total production-related waste is below a certain 

threshold.8

EPA used the same three criteria in determining and justifying the new 5,000- 

pound threshold in the December 2006 final rule. EPA asserts a strong factual and 

legal foundation for the new revisions by using the 1994 approach. An examination 

of how the above three findings apply to the new 5,000-pound threshold indicates 

the following. With regard to the first finding, chemical reporting on a substantial 

majority of releases is maintained by requiring the Form A as part of the reporting, 

just as in 1994. With regard to the second finding on the new threshold, Table 3 

of the preamble to EPA’s proposal shows that 99.9 percent of total production-related wastes will still be reported via Form R, even if all the eligible Form R nonPBT reporters switch to use of Form A.9 The 5,000-pound threshold is simply a recalibration of the 500 pound threshold from 1994, based on the large number of new 

chemical reports introduced since 1994 and the continuing reduction in wastes handled by facilities. With regard to the third finding, Form A provides the identical 

range report information that the total production-related waste is below a certain 

threshold. The findings for the 2005 proposal are equally applicable to the 2006 

final rule because the final rule only increased the number of forms subject to the 

Form R requirements relative to the proposed rule. See the Table below for a comparison of the 1994 final rule and the 2006 final rule. 
107 

10 E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc., ‘‘Review and Analysis of the Effect of EPA’s Toxics Release 

Inventory (TRI) Phase II Burden Reduction Proposal on TRI Data Uses,’’ prepared for U.S. 

Small Business Administration, Office of Advocacy, June 2007. See http://www.sba.gov/advo/research/chron.html for research summary and report. The research summary is also appended 

to this document. 11 In the case of the Louisville, Kentucky, area analysis, the effect of the proposal was to remove 2 of 19 chemicals from the chemical screening process, but the screening analysis relied 

on a conservative approach, and these low-risk chemicals accounted for a small portion of the 

overall risk in the area. It is unclear whether these two chemicals warranted attention, and 

therefore the true effect of the proposal on this use could not be determined without more analysis. However, under the final rule, the impact would be less, given the changes between the 

proposal and the final rule. 

Comparison of 1994 Form A Final Rule and 2006 Form A Final Rule 

EPA Criteria-ARA 

2006 Final 

5,000 lbs 

Non-PBT 

2006 Final 

500 lbs 

PBT 

1994 Final 

Rule 500 lbs 

Non-PBT 

Substantial Majority of Releases Captured ........................................................... Yes Yes Yes 

99.9 percent of Waste Data on Form R ................................................................ Yes Yes Yes 

Form A—Range Report between Zero and Threshold Amount ............................. Yes Yes Yes 

Question 5. The SBA Office of Advocacy has contracted with research firms to document the impact EPA’s December 2006 TRI rule will have on small businesses and 

local communities. Please explain how EPA’s rule will impact communities based on 

research procured by your Agency. 

Response. To evaluate claims of EPA rule impacts, Advocacy requested that E.H. 

Pechan & Associates, Inc. (Pechan) review information describing how TRI data are 

currently used, and to evaluate the impact of EPA’s proposed reporting burden relief 

on these current uses.10 Pechan’s review focused on comments submitted to EPA in 

opposition to the proposed reporting revisions. 

Pechan analyzed 17 national, State, and local TRI data use examples, and determined that, with the possible exception of one example, EPA’s proposal will have 

insignificant effects on these data uses.11 Pechan found several instances where the 

commenters either misunderstood or misreported the nature of the proposed TRI revisions, and several cases where they misreported the underlying facts. For example, commenters failed to understand that no changes were proposed for PBTs, such 

as mercury, when the facility has any releases into the environment. Therefore, data 

users who were concerned about PBT releases going unreported were addressing a 

nonexistent issue. Additional examples of types of data uses where no impact is anticipated include uses to support chemical emergency planning and to support characterization of dioxin quantities (dioxins are exempt from EPA’s proposal). In addition, many of the examples involve the use of TRI data to target facilities with the 

highest releases and/or total waste quantities for reductions. These uses are minimally (if at all) affected by EPA’s proposal because the proposal limited Form A eligibility to small quantity waste reporters. As noted below, Form A eligibility 

changes implemented in the final rule and actual Form A utilization rates will only 

serve to strengthen the conclusions in the study. 

Pechan’s study identified various reasons for the large disconnect between public 

dissatisfaction with the TRI reform proposals, and the lack of significant impact 

found in the study. Two common explanations were: (1) ignorance about the specifics of the reporting revisions; and (2) ignorance about how TRI data are actually 

used. With respect to the first conclusion, many commenters appeared to be unaware that Form A does not represent a complete loss of Form R quantitative chemical information (a more apt characterization is that Form A creates an incentive 

for facilities to reduce their chemical use/releases by allowing small quantity handling facilities to use range reporting.) Concerning the second reason, commenters 

often appeared to be unaware that data users understandably focus on large quantity emitters and PBT emitters that are not Form A eligible under EPA’s December 

2006 rule. 

To illustrate assertions made by States and local communities opposing EPA’s 

proposed reporting burden relief rule, Attachment A describes Pechan’s evaluation 

of one claimed TRI data use impact example described by a State of Washington 

official. This example reflects use of the TRI to enroll companies in Washington’s 

pollution prevention (P2) program. A Washington official claimed that EPA’s proposed TRI reporting changes would require 15 percent of the facilities to drop out 

of their P2 program. The Pechan study concluded that there was nothing in EPCRA 

or EPA’s proposed regulation that prevented the State from requiring Form A re-
108 

12 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ‘‘Response to Comments, Toxics Release Inventory 

Phase 2 Burden Reduction Rule,’’ Office of Information Analysis and Access, Office of Environmental Information, December 18, 2006. 13 E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc., ‘‘Additional Analysis of TRI Phase II Proposal, Technical 

Memorandum,’’ prepared for U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Advocacy, January 

12, 2006. http://www.sba.gov/advo/laws/comments/epa06—0113.pdf. 

porters to develop P2 plans. In fact, a different Washington official stated that they 

had chosen to exclude Form A reporters from P2 planning requirements based on 

degree of risk. 

Pechan determined that the State of Washington only requires that facilities’ P2 

plans cover 95 percent of their total hazardous products used and/or hazardous 

wastes generated. Pechan estimated that EPA’s proposed rule would have reduced 

total Form R reported waste quantity for Washington by 0.31 percent and total release quantity by 0.64 percent. The analyses indicated that current and potential 

future Form A reporting involves quantities that are significantly less than the 

State’s 5 percent hazardous waste quantity P2 plan exemption. 

IMPLICATIONS OF TRI REPORTING CHANGES ADOPTED IN FINAL RULE

It should be noted that the above study was performed for EPA’s proposed rule. 

EPA’s final rule differs significantly from the proposed rule in two ways: (1) the nonPBT annual reportable amount (ARA) has been revised to include section 8.8 (onetime event) quantities, and (2) non-PBT Form A eligibility has been narrowed by 

adding a 2,000-pound limit on releases of non-PBT chemicals that are considered 

for Form A. Assuming full use of Form A, EPA notes that the second change preserves almost 60 percent of the total release pounds that would no longer have been 

reported on Form R under the proposed rule.12 This fact, coupled with the addition 

of Section 8.8 quantities in the ARA, will serve to further reduce the nominal impacts described in the Pechan study. 

ZIP CODE ANALYSIS

One of the most oft-cited EPA estimates of impact from the proposed rule is that 

over 650 zip codes would lose all Form R information (i.e., approximately 7 percent 

of all zip codes with Form R data). Advocacy requested that Pechan evaluate the 

significance of EPA’s zip code finding with respect to the local community right-toknow. As described below, Pechan determined that these zip codes account for only 

0.01 percent of nationwide releases, and the median release for the ‘‘all Form A eligible’’ zip codes is 2 pounds, while the median release for all other zip codes is 6,800 

times higher (13,600 pounds). 

Using 2002 TRI data, Pechan identified 663 additional zip codes for which all current Form Rs will become Form A eligible at the 5,000 pound ARA threshold.13 The 

results are displayed in Figure 1 below. Pechan estimates that 554 of these zip 

codes have one or two Form Rs. Therefore, the large number of zip codes that can 

convert entirely to Form A is a function of the fact that a large number of zip codes 

have one or two reports. 

It should be noted that the Figure 1 values reflect EPA’s proposed rule. As noted 

above, EPA’s final rule differs significantly from the proposed rule in such a way 

that will further reduce the impacts identified in Figure 1. 
109 

14Pechan data analysis (March 2007) using RY 2004 TRI data. 15 59 Fed. Reg. 61488, November 30, 1994. 

Pechan conducted an additional analysis of EPA’s proposed rule that utilized reporting year (RY) 2004 TRI data.14 This analysis compared release information for 

zip codes for which all Form Rs become Form A eligible with release information 

for other zip codes. Table 1 illustrates the very different release characteristics of 

the zip codes that would have all Form Rs become Form A eligible under EPA’s proposed rule. Although more than 5 percent of RY 2004 zip codes would have all Form 

Rs become Form A eligible under EPA’s proposed rule, these zip codes cumulatively 

account for 0.01 percent of total releases. The median release for the ‘‘all Form A 

eligible’’ zip codes is 2 pounds, while the median release for all other zip codes is 

6,800 times higher (13,600 pounds). In other words, for 50 percent of the hundreds 

of zip codes with only Form A eligible facilities, Form R required reporting would 

account for 2 pounds or less in annual emissions to the environment. This simply 

reconfirms the point that a Form A is a mark of superior environmental stewardship, and not a cause for concern about missing data. 

Table 1. Comparison Between Zip Codes Where All Form Rs Become Eligible For Form A with Zip 

Codes Where One or More Form Rs Are Not Form A Eligible: Reporting Year 2004 

Item All Form Rs Eligible All/Some Form Rs Not 

Eligible Total (All Form Rs) All Form Rs Eligible as Percent of Total 

Number of Zip Codes ........................... 569 10,122 10,691 5.32 percent 

Total Releases ...................................... 278,067 4,333,771,149 4,334,049,216 0.01 percent 

Mean Releases/Zip Code ...................... 489 428,196 405,430 0.12 percent 

Median Releases/Zip Code ................... 2 13,600 10,922 0.02 percent 

Maximum Releases/Zip Code ............... 5,627 458,177,056 458,177,056 0.00 percent 

Question 6. Is it not true that the original journey towards changes to TRI forms 

was more substantial in scope and that what EPA is doing is finally delivering on 

a promise made by the Clinton administration? 

Response. EPA’s efforts at TRI burden reduction started in 1991 and have 

spanned both Republican and Democratic Administrations. In 1994, EPA Administrator Carol Browner approved the adoption of the original Form A.15 In 1997, when 

EPA expanded the scope of TRI reporting requirements, EPA promised that it would 
110 

16 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Final Rule, ‘‘Addition of Facilities of Certain Industry Sectors; Revised Interpretation of Otherwise Use; Toxic Release Inventory Reporting, Community Right-to-Know’’ 62 Fed. Reg. 23,834, 23,887 (May 1, 1997) (‘‘EPA believes that [Form 

R and Form A] can be revised to make it simpler and less costly for businesses to meet their 

recordkeeping and reporting obligations . . . EPA is initiating an intensive stakeholder process—involving citizens groups, industry, small businesses and State—to conduct comprehensive 

evaluation of the current TRI reporting forms and reporting practices with the explicit goal of 

identifying opportunities, consistent with community right-to-know and the relevant law, to simplify and/or reduce the cost of TRI reporting.’’). 17 E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc., ‘‘Review and Analysis of the Effect of EPA’s Toxics Release 

Inventory (TRI) Phase II Burden Reduction Proposal on TRI Data Uses,’’ prepared for U.S. 

Small Business Administration, Office of Advocacy, June 2007. See http://www.sba.gov/advo/research/chron.html for research summary and report. 18 In the case of the Louisville, Kentucky, area analysis, the effect of the proposal was to remove 2 of 19 chemicals from the chemical screening process, but the screening analysis relied 

on a conservative approach, and these low-risk chemicals accounted for a small portion of the 

overall risk in the area. It is unclear whether these two chemicals warranted attention, and 

therefore the true effect of the proposal on this use could not be determined without more analysis. However, under the final rule, the impact would be less, given the changes between the 

proposal and the final rule. 

seek additional reductions in the TRI paperwork burden.16 EPA administrators have 

spent over 15 years working with the public to develop a new TRI paperwork reduction approach. This effort has included forming a Federal Advisory Committee, conducting an online dialogue with interested parties, holding stakeholder meetings, 

and going through the notice and comment rulemaking process. The TRI Burden Reduction rule signed in December 2006 is the result of this process. 

The Office of Advocacy’s involvement started with our initial comments on the 

TRI rule in August 1987, suggesting an exemption for all facilities with fewer than 

100 employees. This was followed by a formal Advocacy petition in August 1991 to 

exempt all releases of less than 5,000 pounds per year. EPA responded in 1994 with 

the original Form A, based on an annual reporting amount (ARA) of 500 pounds. 

In October 2005, EPA proposed an ARA of 5,000 pounds for non-PBT chemicals, 

with no additional restriction on releases. In balancing the right-to-know and burdens on reporters, EPA crafted its final relief in December 2006, by introducing a 

2,000-pound release restriction on the newly eligible short forms. Thus, in the end, 

EPA responded to critics on both sides of the issue in fashioning the final rule, and 

reduced the scale of the proposed relief. 

Question 7. There has been a lot of criticism that the switch to Form A will impact 

right to know at a local level. Can you comment on what you found and if information availability will be curtailed? 

Response. The answer to this question is the same as the answer to question No. 

5 and is repeated here for ease of reference. 

To evaluate claims of EPA rule impacts, Advocacy requested that E.H. Pechan & 

Associates, Inc. (Pechan) review information describing how TRI data are currently 

used, and to evaluate the impact of EPA’s proposed reporting burden relief on these 

current uses.17 Pechan’s review focused on comments submitted to EPA in opposition to the proposed reporting revisions. 

Pechan analyzed 17 national, State, and local TRI data use examples, and determined that, with the exception of one example, EPA’s proposal will have insignificant effects on these data uses.18 Pechan found several instances where the commenters either misunderstood or misreported the nature of the proposed TRI revisions, and several cases where they misreported the underlying facts. For example, 

commenters failed to understand that no changes were proposed for PBTs, such as 

mercury, when the facility has any releases into the environment. Therefore, data 

users who were concerned about PBT releases going unreported were addressing a 

nonexistent issue. Additional examples of types of data uses where no impact is anticipated include uses to support chemical emergency planning and to support characterization of dioxin quantities (dioxins are exempt from EPA’s proposal). In addition, many of the examples involve the use of TRI data to target facilities with the 

highest releases and/or total waste quantities for reductions. These uses are minimally (if at all) affected by EPA’s proposal because the proposal limited Form A eligibility to small quantity waste reporters. As noted below, Form A eligibility 

changes implemented in the final rule and actual Form A utilization rates will only 

serve to strengthen the conclusions in the study. 

Pechan’s study identified various reasons for the large disconnect between public 

dissatisfaction with the TRI reform proposals, and the lack of significant impact 

found in the study. Two common explanations were: (1) ignorance about the specifics of the reporting revisions; and (2) ignorance about how TRI data are actually 
111 

19 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ‘‘Response to Comments, Toxics Release Inventory 

Phase 2 Burden Reduction Rule,’’ Office of Information Analysis and Access, Office of Environmental Information, December 18, 2006; EPA–HQ–TRI–2005–0073–5008 at 

www.regulations.gov. 20 E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc., ‘‘Additional Analysis of TRI Phase II Proposal, Technical 

Memorandum,’’ prepared for U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Advocacy, January 

12, 2006; http://www.sba.gov/advo/laws/comments/epa06—0113.pdf 

used. With respect to the first conclusion, many commenters appeared to be unaware that Form A does not represent a complete loss of Form R quantitative chemical information (a more apt characterization is that Form A creates an incentive 

for facilities to reduce their chemical use/releases by allowing small quantity handling facilities to use range reporting.) Concerning the second reason, commenters 

often appeared to be unaware that data users understandably focus on large quantity emitters and PBT emitters that are not Form A eligible under EPA’s December 

2006 rule. 

To illustrate assertions made by States/local communities in opposition to EPA’s 

proposed reporting burden relief rule, Attachment A describes Pechan’s evaluation 

of one claimed TRI data use impact example described by a State of Washington 

official. This example reflects use of the TRI to enroll companies in Washington’s 

pollution prevention (P2) program. A Washington official claimed that EPA’s proposed TRI reporting changes would require 15 percent of the facilities to drop out 

of their P2 program. The Pechan study concluded that there was nothing in EPCRA 

or EPA’s proposed regulation that prevented the State from requiring Form A reporters to develop P2 plans. In fact, a different Washington official stated that they 

had chosen to exclude Form A reporters from P2 planning requirements based on 

degree of risk. 

Pechan determined that the State of Washington only requires that facilities’ P2 

plans cover 95 percent of their total hazardous products used and/or hazardous 

wastes generated. Pechan estimated that EPA’s proposed rule would have reduced 

total Form R reported waste quantity for Washington by 0.31 percent and total release quantity by 0.64 percent. The analyses indicated that current and potential 

future Form A reporting involves quantities that are significantly less than the 

State’s 5 percent hazardous waste quantity P2 plan exemption. 

IMPLICATIONS OF TRI REPORTING CHANGES ADOPTED IN FINAL RULE

It should be noted that the above study was performed for EPA’s proposed rule. 

EPA’s final rule differs significantly from the proposed rule in two ways: (1) the nonPBT annual reportable amount (ARA) has been revised to include section 8.8 (onetime event) quantities, and (2) non-PBT Form A eligibility has been narrowed by 

adding a 2,000-pound limit on releases of non-PBT chemicals that are considered 

for Form A. Assuming full use of Form A, EPA notes that the second change preserves almost 60 percent of the total release pounds that would no longer have been 

reported on Form R under the proposed rule.19 This fact, coupled with the addition 

of Section 8.8 quantities in the ARA, will serve to further reduce the nominal impacts described in the Pechan study. 

ZIP CODE ANALYSIS

One of the most oft-cited EPA estimates of impact from the proposed rule is that 

over 650 zip codes would lose all Form R information (i.e., approximately 7 percent 

of all zip codes with Form R data). Advocacy requested that Pechan evaluate the 

significance of EPA’s zip code finding with respect to the local community right-toknow. As described below, Pechan determined that these zip codes account for only 

0.01 percent of nationwide releases, and the median release for the ‘‘all Form A eligible’’ zip codes is 2 pounds, while the median release for all other zip codes is 6,800 

times higher (13,600 pounds). 

Using 2002 TRI data, Pechan identified 663 additional zip codes for which all current Form Rs will become Form A eligible at the 5,000 pound ARA threshold.20 The 

results are displayed in Figure 1 below. Pechan estimates that 554 of these zip 

codes have one or two Form Rs. Therefore, the large number of zip codes that can 

convert entirely to Form A is a function of the fact that a large number of zip codes 

have one or two reports. 

It should be noted that the Figure 1 values reflect EPA’s proposed rule. As noted 

above, EPA’s final rule differs significantly from the proposed rule in such a way 

that will further reduce the impacts identified in Figure 1. 
112 

21Pechan data analysis (March 2007) using RY 2004 TRI data. 

Pechan conducted an additional analysis of EPA’s proposed rule that utilized reporting year (RY) 2004 TRI data.21 This analysis compared release information for 

zip codes for which all Form Rs become Form A eligible with release information 

for other zip codes. Table 1 illustrates the very different release characteristics of 

the zip codes that would have all Form Rs become Form A eligible under EPA’s proposed rule. Although more than 5 percent of RY 2004 zip codes would have all Form 

Rs become Form A eligible under EPA’s proposed rule, these zip codes cumulatively 

account for 0.01 percent of total releases. The median release for the ‘‘all Form A 

eligible’’ zip codes is 2 pounds, while the median release for all other zip codes is 

6,800 times higher (13,600 pounds). In other words, for 50 percent of the hundreds 

of zip codes with only Form A eligible facilities, Form R required reporting would 

account for 2 pounds or less in annual emissions to the environment. This simply 

reconfirms the point that a Form A is a mark of superior environmental stewardship, and not a cause for concern about missing data. 

Table 1. Comparison Between Zip Codes where All Form Rs Become Eligible For Form A with Zip 

Codes where One or More Form Rs Are Not Form A Eligible: Reporting Year 2004 

Item All Form Rs Eligible All/Some Form Rs Not 

Eligible Total (All Form Rs) All Form Rs Eligible as Percent of Total 

Number of Zip Codes ........................... 569 10,122 10,691 5.32 percent 

Total Releases ...................................... 278,067 4,333,771,149 4,334,049,216 0.01 percent 

Mean Releases/Zip Code ...................... 489 428,196 405,430 0.12 percent 

Median Releases/Zip Code ................... 2 13,600 10,922 0.02 percent 

Maximum Releases/Zip Code ............... 5,627 458,177,056 458,177,056 0.00 percent 

Question 8. Is there any clarification that you would like to make to comments 

made during the Question and Answer period? 

Response. We were disappointed that the testimony offered by John Stephenson 

of GAO did not reflect our extensive discussions with them on this subject. In particular, I was surprised that the GAO would state that the new Form A would contain ‘‘no quantitative information’’ when it is very clear that all PBT Form As, by 

definition, mean that there are no releases to air, water and land. Zero releases is 

a key piece of quantitative information. GAO also declined to mention the fact that 
113 

each non-PBT Form A is in itself a range report between zero and the relevant 

threshold quantity, and that the total information preserved on the Form R represented 99.9 percent of the quantitative information currently reported on the 

Form R. Nor did GAO mention that our October 2004 report conclusion indicated 

that 99 percent of all 3,142 counties in the United States would not be significantly 

affected by a change in the non-PBT threshold from 500 to either 2,000 or 5,000 

pounds. 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Mr. Sullivan. 

Mr. Sullivan, do you know that there already are exemptions for 

small business, several exemptions, from the Toxic Release Inventory program? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes. The Chairman refers to under 10 employees 

are exempt from reporting under TRI. That exemption was based 

on an analysis that any types of releases and emissions do not 

amount as significant enough to warrant their inclusion in TRI. 

Senator BOXER. There are other exemptions. Are you aware of 

those? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I am aware only of this more broad small business 

exemption. 

Senator BOXER. Well, let me list you the exemptions. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. If the Chairman would allow, there are threshold 

amounts for use that do exempt all facilities that don’t meet these 

thresholds. Many small businesses are certainly entitled to those 

thresholds, the same way as larger businesses are. 

Senator BOXER. Well, let me read you the exemptions already allowed. Ten or fewer employees. TRI already has a reporting exemption for de minimis amounts of toxic chemicals. TRI already allowed facilities that release 500 pounds, 500 pounds of toxic chemicals, including substances known to cause cancer, they can use the 

Form A. TRI already has several reporting exemptions for different 

uses of chemicals, and it includes a whole bunch. 

The point is here that I know the Administration is a strong supporter of small business, so are those of us in Congress. We are 

also supporters of the States, and you have 23 States who oppose 

your position, including some that might surprise you. 

The bottom line is here, we are talking about the health of the 

people. It seems to me if there are specific issues and we could 

work more closely on that, that won’t harm the people, I am willing 

to look at it. But I don’t think any small business person wants 

their grandkid to get cancer, either. So I think we really need to 

put the health of the people, No. 1, and reduce the burden on small 

business. I am always for that. 

But I think Mr. Stephenson has pointed out that, and I really appreciate your work on this, and I compliment you for your work on 

this. Because you are speaking out for the health of all our families, whether we are small business people, like my husband is, or 

big business people. So I wonder if you could elaborate on your testimony where you say perchlorate tracking or monitoring is important and should be increased. Could you tell us why you feel that 

way? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. While GAO is of course not a science organization, we do have smart people that can look at research. As part 

of our 2005 study on perchlorate, we analyzed over 80 studies on 

perchlorate, 25 of which supported a health-based concern. The National Academy of Sciences came out with its study, and while it 

kind of gave perchlorate a clean bill of health for adults, it recommended more research for pregnant women and children. 

We felt, as a way to better inform the public, the least that could 

be done was for EPA to create a tracking system of some type to 

better track and help inform the public of perchlorate releases. 

Citizens can petition to put chemicals into the TRI, and TRI is an 
144 

existing reporting mechanism that could be used for perchlorate, in 

our view, as well. 

So we thought that including in TRI that kind of information on 

a contaminant as controversial as perchlorate wouldn’t be labor-intensive for EPA and could easily be done. We had great difficulty 

identifying those 400 sites in the chart, and we found a lot of missing information between Department of Defense and EPA. That is 

why we suggested EPA work with DOD in establishing a tracking 

mechanism for perchlorate. Most of these perchlorate sites are defense industry sites. 

So we just felt like there was a lot more that could be done while 

we are trying to decide if there should be a drinking water standard or not. 

Senator BOXER. I have one more question, because I think the 

health of the American people here just takes a back seat to every 

other concern, every other concern. You estimate that 3,565 facilities, including 50 in Oklahoma, 101 in New Jersey and 302 in California, would no longer have to report any quantitative information 

to the Toxic Release Inventory. 

Now, could you explain to us how that would happen? I know it 

is complicated. 

Mr. STEPHENSON. We looked at the difference between the existing 500 pound threshold for reporting releases and the new 2,000 

pound threshold, and we simply looked at companies that fell between those two thresholds. Companies reporting on the short 

form—those under 2,000 pounds of release—would have to list the 

name of the chemicals that they release, but there is no more 

quantitative information on the extent of that release. So we would 

simply suggest that requiring more information provides an incentive for companies to reduce their use of these chemicals, rather 

than providing less information. 

Not only that, but we think that, this isn’t a burden reduction, 

per se, and that there are cost savings that EPA is working on 

through electronic reporting, which the Senator so nicely articulated here, where they already have information available. It is 

sort of like TurboTax, once you file the first year, you answer a 

bunch of questions and your tax form comes out. The second year, 

it is much, much easier. 

So a complete analysis, we don’t think, was done by EPA. More 

importantly, when EPA did an expedited rulemaking, they didn’t 

do an adequate, in our view, assessment of the impact on their own 

Agency on the regional offices, and on the States that use this information. You heard this from several Senators who were former 

Governors say their States relied on TRI information when they 

were Governors. So it doesn’t appear that EPA did this kind of 

analysis in supporting this burden reduction rule. 

Senator BOXER. So what has basically happened here is, there is 

this accumulation of these toxics, so that if you say you go from 

500 to 2,000, you are just going to miss a whole lot of toxic releases. 

Mr. STEPHENSON. Right. 

Senator BOXER. You say it is going to result in 3,000 facilities no 

longer reporting. The problem is, if this was something about how 

does this make the sky blue, it is one thing. But it is, how does 
145 

it impact people’s health and lives, especially pregnant women, 

children and so on. We have so many issues out there. 

I want to thank both of you for your points of view. I clearly feel, 

with the small business community, that we could work together 

and do something a little bit more acceptable than this. I hope the 

EPA will, as I understand it, is this final, at this point? Yes. We 

may have to go and seek some legislation to reverse it. 

Mr. Stephenson, your work I find to be really credible. You didn’t 

really have any special interest involvement here, you just went in 

there and looked at it from an investigative standpoint, and I think 

your work is very helpful to me and to members of this committee. 

Mr. STEPHENSON. We basically used EPA’s own rulemaking guidance and just looked to see if they applied it. 

Senator BOXER. Yes, well, the thing is when you put politics 

ahead of science, that is what happens, you get things like this. It 

is unfortunate, and I thank both of you. 

We will ask our third panel to come forward. 

I want to welcome our final panel. I want to thank you for your 

endurance. I know this has been long. But we had to set the stage 

for your testimony, all of yours. 

So we are going to hear from, in this order, the American Lung 

Association and American Thoracic Society, that is Dr. Balmes 

first. We are going to move to Gina Solomon, Natural Resources 

Defense Council. We welcome you. Then Ms. Burger, of the American Library Association, welcome. Mr. Connery, Holland and Hart. 

Ms. Klinefelter, of the Baltimore Glassware Decorators. We welcome you. 

So we will begin you, Dr. Balmes and we will move right down. 

We are going to give you each 5 minutes, and if we need a little 

bit of extra time later, we will try to grab it. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN R. BALMES, M.D., ON BEHALF OF THE 

AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION AND THE AMERICAN THORACIC SOCIETY 

Dr. BALMES. Madam Chairman and other members of the committee that aren’t here, my name is John Balmes. I am a professor 

of Medicine at the University of California San Francisco and a 

professor of Environmental Health Sciences at U.C. Berkeley. 

I am here to discuss with you my deep concerns about how the 

scientific basis for air quality standards is being eroded by policymakers in this Administration. I am testifying on behalf of the 

American Lung Association and the American Thoracic Society. For 

those of you who do not know, the American Thoracic Society is the 

professional organization for pulmonary physicians and scientists 

in this Country. 

I am testifying as one of many scientists in this Country who 

fear that misinformation is replacing scientific knowledge as a 

basis for policy. I am a pulmonary critical care medicine physician 

who takes care of patients at San Francisco General Hospital, a 

public safety net hospital. I know first-hand how debilitating lung 

diseases like asthma and emphysema can be. Breathing is a fundamental biological process, and a patient with asthma who can’t 

breathe is a person filled with fear. 
146 

Air pollution not only causes people with asthma to have difficulty breathing, it can actually kill older people with heart and 

lung disease. Because air pollution can cause real people to become 

sick, seek medical care in emergency rooms and hospitals like 

mine, and even die, it is vital that we adopt air quality standards 

that are adequately protective of public health, including the 

health of vulnerable populations, like young children, the over 40 

million Americans with asthma, and many older people with heart 

and lung disease. 

In my own work, I have seen ozone cause decreased breathing 

capacity and inflamed airways in healthy young adults. People 

with asthma have even greater reactions to ozone. 

The air pollution health effects research of the last three decades 

has transformed our scientific understanding of how real world levels of pollutants cause asthma attacks, acute heart problems and 

even death. Science comes from the Latin ‘‘to know.’’ Based on 

sound scientific research, conducted in many laboratories and facilities around the world, we know that air pollution is a hazard 

to public health. 

The Clean Air Act is acknowledged to be one of the most successful environmental health statutes enacted by Congress. The Act requires that air quality standards be established to protect public 

health with an adequate margin of safety. It also mandates that a 

scientific advisory committee, the Clean Air Scientific Advisory 

Committee, be established to review research findings to ensure 

that air quality standards are based on scientific knowledge. The 

approach enacted in the Clean Air Act has withstood the test of 

time. The air that many Americans breathe today contains lower 

levels of the regulated pollutants that were common before the Act 

was enacted. Much disease, disability and death has been prevented. 

I am here to express my alarm that the careful review of research findings that EPA has used to set National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards is being altered in ways that will weaken the effectiveness of the Clean Air Act. Scientific data can easily be misinterpreted when taken out of context or made to seem so complex 

a to be virtually meaningless. 

That is why the careful translation of scientific data into information that policymakers can use is so important. The EPA compiles the research data on a pollutant like ozone or particles, for 

which a new air quality standard is being considered in a huge report known as the criteria document. 

The role of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee is to review the research findings compiled in this criteria document and 

to express the certainty of scientific knowledge about what levels 

of the pollutant cause health effects. EPA staff scientists then prepare a staff paper, or did, that summarizes and integrates the 

knowledge contained in the criteria document and reviewed by the 

Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee. 

The primary purpose of the staff paper is to translate scientific 

knowledge into information that can be used by the Administrator 

to set an air quality standard. Staff typically recommend a range 

of values that are based on what is known to be protective of public 

health with an adequate margin of safety. In my view, the changes 
147 

1Whitman v. American Trucking Association, 31 U.S. 457 (2001) 

adopted by the current Administration, under the guise of streamlining the National Ambient Air Quality Standard review process, 

will weaken both the health protection the standards were intended to provide and diminish the scientific basis on which the 

standards were intended to be based. 

We believe that the staff paper is being eliminated because the 

science underlying protection of public health from air pollution is 

in conflict with how policymakers in this Administration want to 

implement the Clean Air Act. There is great peril in ignoring scientific knowledge or censuring scientists. The American people 

need and deserve accurate presentations and truthful discussions 

of what we have learned from the research they have supported 

with their tax dollars, whether it be for health effects of ozone or 

the causes and impacts of climate change. These are important 

issues that require difficult policy choices, and we need to start 

from a clear and unbiased understanding of the science. 

We believe that changes made in the National Ambient Air Quality Standard review process diminish the use of scientific knowledge in this process. We believe restoring the staff paper and following science will help ensure that the public health will be protected from air pollution. Following the science is a central wisdom 

adopted into the Clean Air Act decades ago that has enormously 

benefited America’s health. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Balmes follows:] 

STATEMENT OF JOHN R. BALMES, M.D., ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN LUNG

ASSOCIATION AND AMERICAN THORACIC SOCIETY

Madame Chairman, members of the Committee, I am Dr. John Balmes. I am very 

pleased to be able to discuss with you today the most recent actions by the Environmental Protection Agency regarding the establishment of National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) under the Clean Air Act. I am testifying today on behalf of the American Lung Association and the American Thoracic Society. 

I speak to you today from the perspective of both a physician who treats patients 

with lung ailments and a researcher who studies the effects of air pollution on lung 

health. I understand the profound impact that air pollution can have on the health 

and lives of people. I also understand the importance of the review of scientific 

knowledge required by the Clean Air Act as to what limits to air pollution are necessary in order to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety. 

I am here to express my alarm that the careful process for establishing and reviewing National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) that EPA has developed 

to implement the Clean Air is being altered by this Administration in ways that will 

weaken its effectiveness in the future. This process has proven to be enormously 

successful over the last three decades at achieving the goal of protecting the public 

health by improving our Nation’s air quality. In my view, the changes adopted 

under the guise of ‘‘streamlining’’ the NAAQS review process will weaken both the 

health protection the standards were intended to provide and diminish the scientific 

basis on which the standards were intended to rely. 

THE NAAQS MUST BE BASED ON HEALTH

It is beyond dispute that the ‘‘primary’’ NAAQS standards are to be established 

exclusively to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety. The primary 

standard is to be set and revised without taking cost or achievability into account.1

Further, the standards are to be reviewed and revised, as appropriate, every 5 years 

based on the latest scientific research and information available that are assembled 

in a Criteria Document for each criteria pollutant. 

Why is this approach so important? Because the authors of the Clean Air Act 

knew that as our scientific understanding of air pollution evolved, the levels of pro-
148 

2 In 1969 Dr. John Middleton, Director of the National Air Pollution Control Administration 

testified,’’ We know from the criteria published for sulfur oxides, that at certain levels definite 

adverse effects occur in the lung. We also know that at a little lower level there are more subtle 

effects on the action of the lung. . . . But as science progresses, it is very likely we are going 

to find still other body chemical systems that are being affected, so the no-effect level always 

corresponds, you might say, to the limitations of scientific knowledge in this area. . . .’’ Senate 

Committee on Public Works, Legislative History of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970, 93rd 

Cong., 2d Sess., 1974, p. 1185. 3The Senate Committee on Public Works Report states, ‘‘Margins of safety are essential to 

any health-related environmental standards if a reasonable degree of protection is to be provided against hazards which research has not identified.’’, ibid, p. 410. 4See www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/memo-process-for-reviewing-naaqs.pdf at p. 2. 

tection initially established would be shown to be inadequate.2 The only reliable and 

legitimate basis for tightening them would be where science, not cost or politics, 

found people were being harmed. Because the authors knew that scientific research 

would be uncertain as to what levels of pollutants would threaten public health, especially for sensitive subgroups like children or people with heart and lung disease, 

they required the standard protect the Nation’s populations with an adequate margin of safety. The concept was to err on the side of safety3. The approach enacted in the Clean Air Act has withstood the test of time. The 

Clean Air Act is considered by most people to be one of the most successful public 

health and environmental statutes enacted by Congress. Ambient levels of all criteria pollutants have been significantly reduced in spite of significant population 

and economic growth. Despite predictions, this progress has been achieved without 

unduly burdening the auto industry or any other sector of the economy. Further, 

it is estimated that billions of dollars in health and other costs have been avoided 

as a result of lower levels of ambient air pollution. 

However, as predicted long ago, recent studies show that the health effects of particle pollution may be more far reaching than was previously understood. Particulate air pollution can affect the cardiovascular system as well as the lungs, triggering heart attacks and strokes. Lives are shortened not just by days or weeks, but 

by months or years. Air pollution targets not just the elderly, but also fetuses, infants, children and adolescents. People most at risk are not only those with asthma 

and other lung conditions, but also those with heart conditions and diabetes. Taken 

together, the people at risk represent a large fraction of the Nation’s population. Effects of ozone and particulate pollution are occurring at even lower concentrations 

than were previously believed to be harmful—at levels below the current standards. 

THE REVISED NAAQS REVIEW PROCESS DIMINISHES SCIENTIFIC INPUT

Prior to the recent changes, the NAAQS process involved: development of a work 

plan for the review, establishment of review protocols, preparation of a draft criteria 

document which is subjected to multiple reviews by CASAC and the public, finalization of the Criteria Document, preparation of a risk assessment, also reviewed by 

CASAC, and finally the preparation and finalization of a staff paper which is also 

subject to CASAC and public review. All of this is done before a proposed standard 

is published and ultimately finalized. 

Many regard the preparation and finalization of the Staff Paper, which is done 

by EPA’s scientific staff, as the most crucial step. In this step, EPA’s scientific staff 

synthesizes the scientific information that has been reviewed in the Criteria Document in order to assess whether the existing standard meets the requirement of protecting public health with an adequate margin of safety, and, if not, to identify alternative standards that can. By tradition, if not by law, this step has been done 

by EPA scientific staff who are all civil servants, most with years of experience in 

interpreting the policy relevance of scientific studies of the health effects of air pollution. Traditionally, the Staff Paper is produced without the interference of politically appointed policy staff most of whom do not have extensive scientific backgrounds. 

It is the elimination of the Staff Paper that we fear will lead to the diminishment 

of science in the standard setting process. The staff paper is to be replaced with a 

‘‘Policy Assessment’’ which according to a memorandum by EPA’s Deputy Administrator Peacock, ‘‘reflect the Agency’s views, consistent with EPA’s practice in other 

rulemakings.’’4 However, the EPA does not set standards exclusively based on the 

protection of health using the latest scientific research in any other rulemaking. In 

sum, a unique standard demands a unique process, not EPA’s ‘‘usual’’ practice. We 

believe the elimination of the Staff Paper is being done precisely because the science 

underlying protection of public health from air pollution is in conflict with what policy makers in EPA want to do in the implementation of the Clean Air Act. The 

elimination of the Staff Paper will make it easier for policy staff to fuzz the lines 
149 

5Letter from Kyle B. Isakower to Lydia Wegman and Kevin Teichman, March 27, 2006. 

6See www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/data/staffpaper—20051221.pdf. 

7See www.epa.gov/sab.pdf/casac-ltr-06–03.pdf. 

8 American Lung Association et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Court of Appeals, 

D.C. Circuit, Docket No. 06–1411, December 22, 2006. 9See www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/ozone/data/2007—01—ozone—staff—paper.pdf at p. 6– 

86. 

in public health protection and present the basis for alternative standards and the 

alternatives themselves in a way that favors the outcomes they are seeking rather 

than what the science says is needed. Substituting an Advanced Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking for the Staff Paper will put policy makes at EPA and the White House 

in the driver’ seat by enabling them to review and edit before it is reviewed by 

CASAC and the public. 

It is no surprise that the American Petroleum Institute was the only organization 

to substantially attack the current Staff Paper and recommend its elimination and 

replacement with an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in a letter the to the 

EPA NAAQS process Work Group.5 Just one week later, this recommendation was 

included in the Work Group recommendation and subsequently adopted by Deputy 

Administrator Peacock. 

THE SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE NAAQS FOR FINE PARTICLES AND OZONE

MUST BE TIGHTER

The collision between the where the science is taking the NAAQS standards and 

where EPA’s policy makers want to go could not be clearer when one considers the 

recently reviewed fine particle standard and the pending review of the ozone standard. 

The EPA Administrator’s decision regarding the fine particle NAAQS has been 

highly controversial because the ranges recommended by CASAC proposed tightening the annual NAAQS for PM2.5 from 15 micrograms/cubic meter to a level no 

higher than 14. One alternative included in the Staff Paper included a 12 

microgram annual standard.6 CASAC was so concerned that a failure to tighten the 

annual standard was outside the ‘‘scientifically’’ justifiable range that it took the unprecedented step of writing the Administrator to ask him to reconsider his decision.7

While the Administrator has justified his decision based on the ‘‘uncertainty’’ of the 

scientific studies he considered, the American Lung Association and several States 

are challenging the decision in court.8 In our view, given the need for protection of 

public health with an adequate margin of safety, the failure to tighten the annual 

standard for PM2.5 is not based on the science and is not legal. We believe that the 

PM2.5 Staff Paper’s presentation of a suite of alternatives all of which would tighten 

the fine particles standards was a major embarrassment to EPA policy staff and 

precipitated the review of the standard setting process culminating in the elimination of the Staff Paper. 

The review of the NAAQS for ozone may, again, highlight a conflict between policy makers and the latest science. Recent research clearly shows that adverse effects 

are occurring at exposure levels below the current standard. This conclusion is 

clearly reflected in the closure letter issued by CASAC panel on which I serve. 

There was unanimous consensus that the original conclusion of the second draft 

Staff Paper that continuing the current standard could be considered a scientifically 

justifiable alternative was wrong. CASAC judged that there is scientific certainty 

that health effects of ozone at levels below the current standard occur and substantially impact public health. For example, thousands of people with asthma will have 

asthma attacks when ozone levels are at the current standard. These attacks can 

be prevented with a tighter standard. Therefore, I am pleased to see that the final 

Staff Paper on ozone, which was released last week, adopted most of the suggestions 

of CASAC and recommended that the ozone standard be tightened.9 The dialogue 

between CASAC scientists and EPA scientists during the ozone review led to an improved Staff Paper that is based on scientific knowledge. We know, with certainty, 

that ozone harms public health at the current standard. We do not need to manufacture uncertainty. We await a final decision establishing an ozone NAAQS standard 

to see if, this time, sound science will prevail. 

THE LEAD NAAQS REVIEW RAISES ADDITIONAL PUBLIC HEALTH PROTECTION CONCERNS

As you may know, the review of the lead NAAQS is the first to be conducted 

under the new process established by Deputy Administrator Peacock. Because the 

new process was established after the Staff Paper for lead was already underway, 

the draft Staff Paper has been publicly released, but will not be revised. A Policy 
150 

10See www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pb/data/pb—sp—1stdraft—120406.pdf at pp. 1–1 

through 1–2. 11Letter from the Battery Council International to Lydia Wegman, Office of Planning and 

Standards, July 12, 2006. 12See www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pb/s—pb-cr-cd.html at p. E–16. 13See draft Staff Paper, p. 2–6. 14See draft Staff Paper, p. 2–47. 

Assessment will be issued to replace it. However, a controversial proposal from the 

lead industry has already been inserted into the lead standard review. EPA has announced it is considering the alternative of eliminating lead as a criteria pollutant.10

This action was first proposed by the lead battery industry to EPA during the review of the NAAQS setting process last summer.11

The lead Criteria Document found that lead is dangerous in much lower concentrations than was understood when EPA established the lead NAAQS in 1978. 

Indeed, the CD found that there is no lead level exposure that is considered safe.12

Furthermore, the draft Staff Paper found that in 2002 over 13,000 stationary 

sources were emitting 1,114 tons of lead per year into the air.13 This included 50 

battery production facilities located in 23 States emitting collectively 25 tons per 

year of lead. Finally, and most alarmingly, the draft Staff Paper found there appears to be ‘‘ . . . significant ‘under-monitoring’ near known Pb emissions point 

sources.’’14

While no one disputes that the reduction of lead air pollution is one of the most 

significant accomplishments of the Clean Air Act, we do not see the scientific basis 

for eliminating lead as a criteria pollutant. It would be impossible to assess the impact of lead air pollution on health if lead were eliminated as a criteria pollutant 

with the attendant reduction in the already inadequate ambient air lead monitoring 

and the elimination of the periodic review of the scientific research on the health 

effects of lead air pollution required by the Clean Air Act. 

The battery industry argues that alternative provisions of the Act provide for the 

continued regulation of lead emissions. Such an argument would substitute an outcome preferred by the battery industry for the sound scientific review mandated by 

the Clean Air Act. We hope this is not the first of a succession of such efforts as 

EPA reviews other air quality standards in the future. 

RESTORE THE ROLE OF SCIENCE TO THE NAAQS PROCESS

As I have explained above, we believe that changes made in the NAAQS process 

diminish the role of science in the NAAQS review process. We believe restoring the 

Staff Paper and following science will help ensure that the public health will be protected from air pollution. Following the science is a central wisdom adopted into the 

Clean Air Act decades ago that has enormously benefited America’s health. 
151 
152 
153 
154 

RESPONSE BY JOHN R. BALMES, M.D., TO AN ADDITIONAL QUESTION FROM

SENATORS INHOFE AND BOXER

Question. ‘‘Clearly the NAAQS process is broken—year after year the EPA has 

consistently failed to meet deadlines. For example, the SO2 review that was completed in 1996 was actually due Dec. 31, 1980, almost 151⁄2 years earlier. What 

problems might have been averted—and how much harm to Americans’ health 

avoided—had a more efficient review process been in place?’’ 

Response. I completely agree that the NAAQS review process takes entirely too 

long and must be made more efficient. I also agree that if a more timely review of 

the SO2 standard had lead to a revised SO2 standard with a short-term exposure 

component then a number of exacerbations of asthma might have been avoided. I 

actually testified before the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) in 

1995 during the review of the SO2 standard and argued for inclusion of a short-term 

exposure. Unfortunately, the Agency’s final decision was that ‘‘revisions of the 

NAAQS for sulfur oxides were not appropriate at that time.’’ Thus, no health problems were avoided in the ensuing years. 

The American Lung Association (ALA) is extremely interested in a more efficient 

NAAQS review process. As you are undoubtedly aware, the ALA has sued the EPA 

repeatedly for failing to meet the 5-year interval requirement for review of NAAQS 

for criteria pollutants. The ALA welcomes the current Agency effort to streamline 

the review process. 

What the ALA does not support is the elimination of the so-called Staff Paper 

from the NAAQS review process. This document provided an opportunity for EPA 

staff scientists and scientists on CASAC to engage in a dialogue about what air 

quality standard for the pollutant under review would best protect public health 

based on available scientific knowledge. The Staff Paper has been replaced by ‘‘a 

policy assessment reflecting Agency views’’ that ‘‘will be published in the Federal 

Register as an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR).’’ Such a document 

will not be an integrated summary of the scientific knowledge base that has been 

written by EPA staff scientists and vetted by CASAC scientists. In my view, the 

ANPR will provide an opportunity for politics to trump science in the NAAQS review process, thereby allowing potential harm to the health of Americans. 

It is not readily apparent how replacement of the Staff Paper with an ANPR 

streamlines the NAAQS review process. The greatest delays were due to preparation 

of voluminous Criteria Documents. These have been replaced by Integrated Science 

Assessments (ISAs). If high-quality ISAs can be produced in a more expeditious 

manner by the Agency, then NAAQS reviews should be completed in a more timely 

manner. Elimination of the Staff Paper was not required to speed up the process. 

I hope this answer helps inform your thinking about revisions to the NAAQS review process. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Doctor. 

Dr. Solomon, again, senior scientist at the National Resources 

Defense Council. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF GINA M. SOLOMON, M.D., M.P.H., SENIOR 

SCIENTIST, NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL 

Dr. SOLOMON. Yes, Madam Chairman, Senator, thank you for the 

opportunity to testify today. I am a physician and a senior scientist 

at NRDC. I am also an associate clinical professor of medicine at 

UCSF, University of California at San Francisco. 

In my clinic and in my office, I often talk with people directly affected by pollution in their communities. Last week I spoke with 

a woman named Leslie Warden. She and her husband live in Jefferson County, MO, which is still in non-attainment of EPA’s 1978 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard. Their son has attention 

deficit disorder and has struggled in school. Her niece and her 

nephew were diagnosed with lead poisoning. 

According to the CDC, about 310,000 children age 1 to 5 in the 

United States today are at risk from harmful levels of lead in their 

blood. CDC also found that neurological effects can occur at even 

lower levels. Unfortunately, EPA’s standard for lead was set some 
155 

30 years ago and doesn’t account for the newest science. But instead of revising the air quality standard downward, EPA instead 

suggests eliminating the standard completely. 

When Mrs. Warden heard what EPA is doing, she said, ‘‘Then 

why don’t they just put it back in gasoline or in paint? They think 

it’s OK to use our children as lead monitors. That would be the 

only air monitor we would have left in our community, is our children.’’ She is right, because if EPA eliminates the air standard, 

they will dismantle the National Ambient Lead Air Quality Compliance monitoring system, and then we won’t know which counties 

have lead problems and how high the lead levels are. The first hint 

of a problem will be when children in our communities get lead poisoning, and that is too late. 

Recently EPA announced a new streamlined process, so-called 

streamlined process for reviewing air standards, and that lead 

would be the first up under this process. The timing may not be 

a coincidence. Battery Council International, whose members include virtually all U.S. battery manufacturers and most smelters, 

asked EPA to eliminate the air standard for lead and also asked 

for these process changes in July 2006. The lead industry apparently felt that shortcuts through the science would be to its advantage, and they appear to have gotten their wish. 

Recently, EPA also changed the reporting thresholds under the 

Toxic Release Inventory. The changes will mean that more than 5.7 

million pounds of chemical pollution, plus 10.5 million pounds of 

production waste will now go unreported each year. I spoke about 

this the other day with Linda Bardo. She lives with her family in 

the community of Curtis Bay in Baltimore, MD. In her zip code, 

there are seven facilities recently reporting a total of 12,400 pounds 

of benzene emissions. According to EPA, benzene is the ‘‘most significant air toxic contributing 25 percent of the cancer risk’’ in 

EPA’s newly released National Air Toxics Assessment. Under the 

new TRI rule, six of those seven facilities in her community would 

no longer be required to report any benzene emissions. In fact, benzene emissions would drop by more than a third. 

So these aren’t small businesses. These are petroleum giants. 

These include companies like Hess, BP, Citgo, Sunoco and Motiva. 

So when Mrs. Bardo learned about the TRI reporting change, she 

asked me to tell you, ‘‘These companies may complain because they 

have to fill out some paperwork. But our community has high asthma rates, high cancer rates. For them to say they don’t want to do 

the paperwork, that’s disgusting to me, it makes me sick.’’ 

Under another EPA proposal, the petroleum bulk storage facilities in Mrs. Bardo’s community could also evade more protective 

MACT standards and abandon Federal monitoring, record keeping, 

reporting and even permitting requirements. This proposal could 

increase releases of toxic chemicals into these communities by tens 

of thousands of pounds each year. The elimination of information 

doesn’t stop with air pollutants. In December, EPA issued a rule 

saying there will be no more requirements to test drinking water 

for perchlorate. 

That is in the face of a recent CDC study which showed that 

among women with low iodine intake, very low levels of perchlorate 

exposure, within the range that is measured in the general U.S. 
156 

population, are associated with a 30 percent drop in thyroid hormone levels. That is significant because slight decreases in thyroid 

hormones during pregnancy, even within the so-called normal 

range, are associated with decreased intellectual capacity in childhood. 

Testing so far shows perchlorate is a huge drinking water threat. 

It was found in 402 water systems. These collective serve 41.2 million people. Yet only 3.4 percent of public water systems have even 

been tested. So we have seen only the tip of the iceberg for this 

contaminant. 

Finally, over the past few months, EPA has closed five of its libraries, including the headquarters library which served Mrs. 

Bardo in Baltimore, and the Region 7 library that served Mrs. 

Warden in Missouri. The cost of these closures to local communities, it is hard to calculate, since information when you really 

need it is priceless. 

So in closing, it is clear that concerns for the integrity of the 

science, for protection of public health and for public availability of 

information are shared by the Chairman and the other members of 

this committee. We rightly fear a future of communities breathing 

dirtier air, children exposed to more toxic lead, pregnant women 

unknowingly drinking thyroid disrupting rocket fuel, scientists 

sidelined and information vanishing. 

Yet I am optimistic that this future can be averted, and I sincerely hope that EPA will heed our combined urging to refocus 

their efforts where they should be, which is on protecting public 

health. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Solomon follows:] 

STATEMENT OF GINA M. SOLOMON, M.D., M.P.H., SENIOR SCIENTIST, NATURAL

RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL

INTRODUCTION

Thank you for the opportunity to submit written testimony to this Committee. I 

am Gina Solomon, a physician and Senior Scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and an Associate Clinical Professor of Medicine at the University of California at San Francisco (UCSF). NRDC is a national, nonprofit, public 

interest organization dedicated to protecting human health and the environment. 

We have over 1.2 million members and online activists in all 50 States. I have subspecialty training and expertise in environmental medicine, and have done research, 

education, and advocacy for over a decade to protect children from lead poisoning, 

from contaminants in their food, air and drinking water, and from hazardous pesticides. 

Almost every day I speak with people—both patients and members of the public— 

about their health and about risks to their health from environmental pollution. 

One of the most frequent questions I hear is: ‘‘What can I do to protect myself and 

my family from contaminants in the air, water, food, and in my community?’’ It’s 

often difficult to answer that question. Many hazards that can affect the health of 

children and families are not things that individuals can protect themselves from, 

even with advice from their physician. Contaminants in the air we breathe, or in 

the water used to make the coffee we drink are things that we have little control 

over as individuals. It is the responsibility of government agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to assure that our air and water are safe for 

the most vulnerable among us, including pregnant women and children. 

However, with a little information, people can sometimes take very effective action to protect their community. Physicians can also sometimes take action to warn 

vulnerable patients or monitor the community for health effects such as lead poisoning. The foundation for scientifically-based action is information. If there is information available about air pollution, local sources of toxic chemicals and contami-
157 

1 EPA. Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Lead: Policy Assessment 

of Scientific and Technical Information. OAQPS Staff Paper—First Draft. December 2006. p. 1– 

2. 2 Ibid p. 3–8 et seq. 

3Schaumberg DA, et al. Accumulated lead exposure and risk of age-related cataract in men. 

JAMA. 2004 Dec 8;292(22):2750–4; Stewart WF, et al. Past adult lead exposure is linked to 

neurodegeneration measured by brain MRI. Neurology. 2006 May 23;66(10):1476–84; Nash D, 

Magder LS, Sherwin R, et al. Bone density-related predictors of blood lead level among periand postmenopausal women in the United States: The Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988–1994. Am J Epidemiol. 2004 Nov 1;160(9):901–11. 4 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Blood Lead Levels—United States, 1999–2002. 

54(20);513–516. May 27, 2005. http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5420a5.htm 

[Visited February 1, 2007]. 5The CDC blood lead threshold of concern is 10 micrograms per deciliter (μg/dL). Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention. Preventing lead poisoning in young children: a statement by 

the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services, Public Health Service, August 2005. 6The CDC blood lead level of concern was 30μg/dL in 1978 and the lead NAAQS was set at 

that time to maintain children’s blood lead levels below 30. Today the CDC’s level of concern 

is 10 μg/dL. 

nants in drinking water, people can learn about the problem and take action. If 

there are resources available in communities on the histories of individual facilities 

or on the health effects of various chemicals, people can learn and take action. If 

such data are available to agencies such as EPA, they also have what they need 

to take regulatory or enforcement action if needed. 

Unfortunately, EPA is taking several major steps to eliminate information and decrease health protection from environmental hazards. Six recent draft or final EPA 

rules will each significantly limit critical information available to scientists, health 

care providers, communities, and ironically to EPA itself. As a result, children and 

communities will be left less protected and less able to protect themselves. 

ELIMINATING THE AIR QUALITY STANDARD FOR LEAD WOULD PUT CHILDREN AT RISK

The draft EPA Staff Paper reexamining the outdated National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for lead proposes no revisions of the standard—which was 

set nearly 30 years ago—and instead states that EPA ‘‘will evaluate the status of 

lead as a criteria air pollutant in light of currently available information and assess 

whether revocation of the standard is an appropriate option for the Administrator 

to consider.’’1

The news that EPA is considering revocation of the air quality standard for lead 

was a shock to scientists, children’s health advocates, and communities across the 

country. Lead is one of the best-studied poisons in the world today, and it has been 

clearly shown to impair children’s health in thousands of major scientific studies. 

Lead affects the brain by impairing neurological development, blunting IQ, and 

shortening children’s attention span.2 It also affects the kidneys and the cardiovascular system. More recent studies have linked lead exposure to diseases as diverse as osteoporosis, cataracts, and cognitive decline in the elderly.3 As a clinician 

who has treated lead poisoned children and adults, I can tell you that this toxic substance has devastating effects on people’s lives. 

EPA points out that lead levels in the air have dropped significantly since the 

1970’s when the current lead standard was issued. That is true, and shows the enormous health benefits that can occur with air quality regulations. Yet it is bizarre 

reasoning to suggest that because regulations have greatly reduced the lead threat, 

these regulations should therefore be eliminated. 

In fact, lead remains very much a problem today. An estimated 310,000 children 

aged 1–5 in the United States remain at risk from harmful blood lead levels according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).4 Furthermore, in a 

recent review, CDC concluded that ‘‘no level of lead in a child’s blood can be specified as safe’’, and that health effects have been demonstrated below the current 

blood lead threshold.5 Therefore EPA should be revising the 1978 standard to bring 

it into line with the current science, which would mean a substantial reduction of 

the standard.6

EPA points out that there are currently only two nonattainment areas for the current NAAQS. The paucity of nonattainment areas is hardly a reason to remove the 

standard, especially since the 1978 standard is in serious need for revision. If the 

standard were reduced to one-third of its current level, to 0.5 micrograms per cubic 

meter (μg/m3)—as proposed by EPA staff in 1990—and the averaging time were reduced to the first maximum monthly average—which would help control the intermittent high concentrations that contribute to soil deposition and local contamina-
158 

7 EPA Lead NAAQS Staff Paper. p. 2–37. 

8 EPA Lead NAAQS Staff Paper. p. 2–6. 

9 Ibid. Table 2–3. 

10 EPA Lead NAAQS Staff Paper. p. 2–24. 

tion—there would be 32 nonattainment areas as calculated in EPA’s staff paper.7

This is hardly reassuring, and indicates that the air quality problem with lead is 

still very much with us today. 

According to EPA there are about 13,000 facilities in the U.S. that emit lead to 

the atmosphere.8 Facilities that emit more than one ton of lead per year are mapped 

in Figure 1. EPA also lists 36 different source categories ranging from battery manufacturing facilities to cement kilns each of which pollutes the air with more than 

five tons per year of lead.9 The EPA Staff Paper mapped lead emissions by county 

nationwide and demonstrated that there are still substantial airborne lead concentrations in many parts of the country (Figure 2). Furthermore, EPA’s review of 

the lead NAAQS Compliance Monitoring network revealed that ‘‘only 2 of 26 facilities (both lead smelters) identified as emitting greater than 5 [tons per year] have 

a [lead] NAAQS compliance monitor within 1 mile.’’10
159 

11 EPA Lead NAAQS Staff Paper. p. 4–9. 12 Ibid. 

Jefferson County, Missouri is currently designated as a nonattainment area for 

lead. The State Implementation Plan (SIP) for this county has been determined inadequate to attain the current NAAQS in 2006; therefore a revised SIP is under development for that area.11 If the NAAQS standard for lead were eliminated, there 

would no longer be an incentive for reductions in airborne lead emissions in that 

county, and the estimated 37,562 people (including 2,164 children) who live within 

5 miles of that facility would remain at significant health risk.12

Last week I spoke with a woman named Leslie Warden. She and her husband 

Jack raised their son in Jefferson County, Missouri. They lived for 25 years in the 

town of Herculaneum less than a mile from the Doe Run lead smelter. Their son 

Erik, now struggling to complete junior college, has Attention Deficit Disorder 

(ADD). Her niece and nephew, who lived just one block away, were both diagnosed 

with lead poisoning. For years Mrs. Warden said that she and all her neighbors assumed that everything was OK in their small town, since ‘‘that’s what everyone 

from the government told us’’. In 1999, when they finally learned about the widespread air and soil pollution, and all the children with lead poisoning, they felt 

duped and betrayed. When she heard that EPA is now considering eliminating the 

air quality standard for lead, Mrs. Warden said: ‘‘Then why don’t they just put it 

back in gasoline or in paint? They think it’s OK to use our children as lead monitors; that would be the only air monitor we’d have left in this community is our 

children.’’ She is right. If EPA eliminates the NAAQS for lead, they will also dismantle the national lead air quality Compliance Monitoring network. Then we will 

have no way of knowing which counties have lead problems, and how high the levels 

are in our air. The first hint of a problem will be when children in our communities 

get lead poisoning, and that’s too late. 

CHANGING THE NAAQS REVIEW PROCESS ERODES THE ROLE OF SCIENCE

In addition to the proposal to eliminate the air quality standard for lead, EPA is 

using the review of the lead NAAQS to debut a new process for reviewing criteria 

air pollutant standards. This so-called ‘‘efficient process’’ is actually a rough-shod 

short cut through the science. The new process will significantly reduce public comment, scientific review, and EPA scientific staff input. Instead, the new process is 
160 

13Letter from Senators Boxer, Carper, Clinton, Obama, Lieberman, Lautenberg, and Baucus 

to Stephen L. Johnson. December 21, 2006. 14Letter from Rogene Henderson et al. to Stephen L. Johnson. September 29, 2006. http:// 

www.epa.gov/sab/pdf/casac-ltr-06–003.pdf [visited January 31, 2007]. 15Dioxin is exempt from this provision. 71 FR 76932. 

tailor-made to allow political appointees at EPA to have maximum flexibility and 

discretion in the standard-setting process. 

The NAAQS standard setting process has been a model of an EPA rulemaking 

process that includes careful incorporation of the latest science, and is largely driven 

by scientific review rather than politics. Due largely to insufficient funding and 

Agency focus, the process may not be as quick as many of us would like, but it is 

deliberate, thorough, and focuses on getting the best possible advice from independent scientists on the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) and 

from scientists within the Agency. 

The launch of the new ‘‘expedited’’ EPA process in conjunction with the lead 

NAAQS review is no coincidence. The Battery Council International (BCI), a trade 

association whose members include virtually all of the United States’ lead battery 

manufacturers and most of its secondary smelters, advocated for exactly these 

changes in a letter to EPA in July of 2006 (attached). In particular, the BCI letter 

states that ‘‘[t]here is no good reason to prepare a criteria document, a staff report, 

and a regulatory proposal with preamble.’’ The lead battery industry obviously felt 

that short-cuts through the NAAQS standard-setting process would be to its advantage when their pollutant came up for review, and they got their wish. The lead 

industry wasn’t the only polluter celebrating the recent changes in the NAAQS 

standard-setting process; the American Petroleum Institute was also apparently 

quite involved in recommending this process change.13 As a scientist, I am deeply 

saddened when I see the polluters pulling the strings and science sidelined, since 

I know that the impacts will ultimately be on health at the community level. 

The other subtext in the current proposal is that recently at EPA the politics 

haven’t been squaring with the science. The CASAC has twice recently crossed 

swords with EPA—first over particulate matter, and then over ozone. In both cases, 

the scientists have urged EPA to recognize the overwhelming scientific evidence in 

favor of substantially lower standards for these pollutants. In the case of particulate 

matter, EPA management made the decision to select a standard that is less health 

protective than the EPA staff and the CASAC recommended. When CASAC protested the EPA decision,14 EPA appears to have retaliated by decreasing CASAC’s 

role in the standard setting process. 

REDUCING TOXICS RELEASE INVENTORY REPORTING WILL LEAVE COMMUNITIES

IN THE DARK

As I mentioned previously, one of the consequences of eliminating the NAAQS for 

lead would be the dismantling of the Compliance Monitoring network, thereby leaving communities in the dark about how much lead is in the air they’re breathing. 

In the same vein, EPA recently promulgated a final rule changing reporting requirements for the Nation’s Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). This new rule will allow polluters to release greater amounts of hazardous chemicals while substantially reducing information to communities. 

In December EPA published a final rule modifying the monitoring requirements 

for the TRI with the alleged intent of reducing reporting burdens on regulated facilities. The new rule increases the reporting threshold for non-persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (non-PBT) chemicals by four-fold, from 500 pounds to 2,000 pounds, 

with a total cap of 5,000 pounds. Facilities that fall under the threshold for a particular chemical will now be exempt from detailed reporting and allowed to file only 

a Form A Certification Statement giving the name of the chemical in question but 

no other data on waste management or releases. The rule also allows facilities that 

treat or manage up to 500 pounds of a persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) 

chemical, but have zero releases of the PBT chemical to use the shorter Form A.15

According to EPA, approximately 9,500 non-PBT chemical reports would be eligible for Form A reporting under the final rule, at a modest savings to reporting facilities of $438 and 9.1 work hours per Form. Meanwhile 2,360 PBT chemical reports would be eligible at a savings of $748 and 15.5 work hours per Form. The 

6,670 facilities that could benefit from this rule would save an average of only $885. 

According to NRDC calculations, the changes to the TRI will mean that more than 

5.7 million pounds of chemical pollution, plus 10.5 million pounds of production-related waste will now go unreported each year. Our analysis shows that a total of 

16 chemicals will effectively ‘‘disappear’’ from the TRI as a result of this rule. I was 

interested to discover that one of the chemicals that will vanish from full TRI re-
161 

16 California Department of Pesticide Regulation. Evaluation of Methyl Isothiocyanate as a 

Toxic Air Contaminant. California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA, August 

2002. p. XV. 17http://www.bhopal.net/death-toll.html (visited February 1, 2007].) 18 Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99499, 100 

Stat. 1728, codified at 42 U.S.C. sec.11001–11050 (1994) 19 National Environmental Trust. EPA’s Proposed TRI Rule Changes Benefit Large Companies 

and Provide No Burden Reduction for Small Businesses. Washington, DC. December 2006. 

http://www.net.org/proactive/newsroom/release.vtml?id=29162 [visited February 2, 2007]. 20Personal communication, Linda Bardo, Baltimore, MD. February 1, 2007. 

porting is methyl isothiocyanate. When methyl isothiocyanate is exposed to sunlight 

it breaks down to methyl isocyanate (MIC).16 Those who know their history will recall that the 1984 Union Carbide chemical disaster in Bhopal, India—a disaster that 

killed thousands of people and injured tens of thousands17—was the impetus for the 

passage of the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act that originally created the TRI.18 The chemical responsible for the disaster in Bhopal was 

MIC. It is hard to escape the irony that EPA’s decision to limit the TRI causes the 

chemical that essentially created the TRI to disappear from the national reporting 

system. 

One of the main arguments for the change in TRI reporting was to alleviate burdensome paperwork for small businesses. However, a recent independent analysis 

of the data discovered that the industries that will benefit most from this rule will 

be large corporations that can easily afford to do the paperwork.19

I spoke about this issue the other day with a woman named Linda Bardo, who 

raised her son in the small community of Curtis Bay, in Baltimore, MD. In her zip 

code there are currently seven large facilities reporting a total of 12,400 pounds of 

benzene emissions. Benzene is known to cause leukemia in humans and is an extremely dangerous chemical to breathe. Under EPA’s new rule six of the seven facilities would no longer be required to report any of their benzene emissions. Almost 

one-third (3,500 pounds) of the benzene air emissions to this small community 

would ‘‘disappear’’. These companies aren’t small businesses. They are petroleum giants such as Amerada Hess Corp., BP Products North America, Citgo Petroleum 

Corp., Sunoco, and Motiva. When Ms. Bardo learned about the TRI reporting 

change, her response was: 

I realize that these companies offer many employment opportunities to many 

people. That part is great. But I just do not feel it is too much to ask that they 

be required to complete paperwork relating to these emissions, especially since 

most people in Curtis Bay and Brooklyn live within 1–5 miles of these facilities. 

These companies may complain because they have to fill out some paperwork, 

but our community has extremely high asthma rates; high cancer rates. We 

have to do everything we can to improve the air that we breathe here in Curtis 

Bay. For them to say they don’t want to do the paperwork—that’s disgusting 

to me, it makes me sick! 

TRI is one of the most important tools available to concerned citizens and community groups that advocate for a healthier environment. Since most of the TRI data 

are not easily accessible through other sources (and may in many cases be available 

nowhere else) EPA’s changes to the TRI program infringe the public’s right to know 

about chemical releases in their communities. While 5,000 pounds of waste management or 2,000 pounds of releases may not sound significant on a nationwide basis, 

the cumulative amounts can have health significance for communities located near 

industrial areas where multiple facilities may no longer be required to report releases of numerous TRI chemicals. Linda Bardo in Baltimore, MD pointed out: ‘‘It’s 

not like we have one plant in our town to deal with. This one has a blip here and 

that one has a blip there, but when you put them together it’s terrible. We still will 

have to deal with every type of emission that comes out of every one of those 

plants.’’20

The neighborhoods most affected will be poor and largely minority communities. 

In its analysis of the impacts of the proposed rule EPA estimated that minorities 

make up 31.8 percent of the general U.S. population, 41.8 percent of the population 

within one mile of facilities that filed at least one Form R in 2003, and 43.5 percent 

of the population within one mile of facilities that would have qualified for Form 

A reporting in 2003. EPA also estimated that individuals under the poverty level 

make up 12.9 percent of the U.S. population, 16.5 percent of the population within 

one mile of facilities that filed at least one Form R in 2003, and 17.0 percent of the 

population within one mile of facilities that would have qualified for Form A reporting in 2003 as a result of the proposed rule. It did not present a revised analysis 
162 

21 71 FR 76940. 22OMB Watch. Against the Public’s Will: Summary of Responses to the Environmental Protection Agency’s Plans to Cut Toxic Reporting. Washington, DC. December 2006. 23Letter from D. Radford Shanklin, F.R.S.M. EPA–HQ–TRI–2005–0073–579, Toxic Release 

Inventory Burden Reduction Proposed Rule, Environmental Protection Agency, January 30, 

2006. 24The rulemaking proposal was published in the Federal Register on January 3, 2007, and 

is open for public comment until March 5, 2007. See ‘‘National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: General Provisions,’’ 72 Fed. Reg. 69. 25 It is worth noting that EPA under this Administration proposed a rulemaking also aimed 

at this aspect of EPA’s air toxics regulations, that was designed to incentivize additional reductions in toxic emissions through pollution prevention. See 68 Fed. Reg. 26,249 (May 15, 2003); 

see also 72 Fed. Reg. at 71. That earlier proposal would have allowed sources to qualify for alternative, less rigorous, monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements by reducing toxic 

emissions below levels required by MACT. 72 Fed. Reg. at 71. Crucially, however, the earlier 

proposal would not have allowed sources to increase emissions above levels required by the 

MACT standards. In other words, it would not have allowed toxic backsliding. EPA’s December 

for the final rule.21 It appears that the executives that operate these facilities do 

not live downwind from them. 

Last Thursday I spent some time talking with Mr. Duncan McKee, a gentleman 

who lives in a community in Los Angeles just down the street from a number of 

polluting industries. He has lived in this community for 49 years, and has a daughter who spent a significant part of her childhood there. There are three facilities 

near Mr. McKee’s home, Distinctive Appliances Inc., Hill Brothers Chemical Co., 

and Lansco Die Casting Inc. that would no longer report any emissions under the 

new TRI rules. Currently, these facilities release or dispose of diisocyanates, ammonia, and copper. In addition, there is a large battery manufacturing facility near his 

house. He told me: ‘‘The neighbors know that the facility burns plastic and rubber 

casings; when that’s going on, just one whiff of the air and you get a splitting headache.’’ When he heard about the proposal to change the TRI reporting threshold he 

said: ‘‘To eliminate this limit would open the door for companies to pump out even 

more than they do currently.’’ He pointed out that there are families with children 

living within 500 feet of the battery manufacturing facility in his neighborhood, and 

there are 26 schools within 4 miles. Apparently the fine dust released from this facility is ‘‘stuff that you really can’t get away from—it penetrates your house, kids 

are breathing it in, and kids get it on their hands and in their mouths.’’ Twelve people within two square blocks are currently suffering from cancer. Children in the 

neighborhood have leukemia and Hodgkin’s lymphoma. They don’t know if the cancer is from the local polluters, but people in the community are worried and they 

say that the government does not have strong enough standards or strong enough 

enforcement of the standards that are already on the books. 

Mr. McKee is not the only person who is angry about what EPA is doing. EPA 

received more than 122,000 comments on its proposal to cut back on TRI reporting. 

Of these, 99.97 percent (122,386 comments) opposed the proposal, and only 34 comments (of which 29 were from industry organizations) favored it. Opponents to the 

EPA changes included over 300 public interest organizations, 66 public health professionals and organizations, 46 labor organizations, 48 researchers, 8 religious leaders and organizations, and 21 financial investors.22 Among those submitting public 

comment to EPA was D. Radfor Shanklin, a chemist, research biologist, and physician in Memphis, TN. He wrote to the EPA saying that ‘‘the extent and detail of 

reporting should be INCREASED not decreased. To do otherwise is to become 

complicit with the well documented historic tendency of much of big industry to falsify their science, mislead the public, and turn cold shoulders to the harm to environment and health.’’ (emphasis in original).23

EPA PROPOSES TO WEAKEN HEALTH PROTECTIONS FOR TOXIC AIR POLLUTION

On December 21, 2006, the EPA Administrator signed a rulemaking proposal to 

weaken nearly 100 toxic air pollution standards by allowing industrial plants across 

the country to emit significantly greater amounts of 188 hazardous air pollutants, 

including numerous carcinogens.24

The rulemaking proposal violates Clean Air Act requirements that toxic air polluters achieve the most protective legal standard selected by Congress in the 1990 

Clean Air Act amendments—Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT). The 

proposal even allows polluters in nearly 100 industrial source categories to throw 

off more protective toxic air pollution limits to which they are already subject, and 

abandon Federal monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting—and in some instances, permitting—requirements to which they are already subject.25 By evading toxic air pol-
163 

2006 proposal abandons that more modest 2003 proposal without explaining why the Agency 

is abandoning its prohibition on increasing toxins above levels allowed by the MACT standards. 26 ‘‘Regional Comments on Draft OIAI Policy Revisions’’ (Dec. 13, 2005) (‘‘Dec. 2005 Regional 

Memo’’), at 3. http://www.nrdc.org/media/docs/060403b.pdf. 27 Id., at 4. 28 28 Id., at 3–4. 29 Id.at 1. 30 ‘‘Regional Comments on Revised Draft OIAI Policy Revisions’’ (March 10, 2006), at 2 (attached to this testimony). 31March 2006 Regional Memo at 2. 32http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata1999/natafinalfact.html [visited January 31, 2007]. 

lution limits, industrial facilities would be permitted to substantially increase releases of toxic chemicals into surrounding communities by tens of thousands of 

pounds each year, including highly potent carcinogens, neurotoxicants, endocrine 

disruptors, and reproductive toxicants. EPA also structures the proposal in such a 

way that the Federal Government and citizens lose the ability to enforce violations 

by polluters. The MACT standard process under the Clean Air Act, by contrast, allows the Federal Government, citizens and State officials to enforce all violations. 

When word of this harmful, deregulatory plan first circulated within EPA in late 

2005, officials at seven out of the Agency’s ten regional offices joined in a 9-page 

memo to protest the proposal, saying that, if implemented, it ‘‘would be detrimental 

to the environment and undermine the intent’’ of the Clean Air Act (see attached 

memo).26 The scathing internal memo also said the rule changes would create a 

loophole that allows polluters to ‘‘virtually avoid regulation and greatly complicate 

any enforcement against them’’ and eliminate the ability of EPA and the public to 

effectively monitor and take action against toxic polluters.27 Decrying the higher 

toxic pollution levels allowed by the proposal, the regional officials observed that 

‘‘[t]he cost of the increased HAP emissions would be borne by the communities surrounding the sources.’’28 The regional EPA officials also protested the preparation 

of the proposed rule without their input and the ‘‘reluctan[ce]’’ by headquarters to 

even share the draft policy with them, characterizing the slights as part of a ‘‘trend’’ 

with the current Administration that was ‘‘disturbing.’’29

In a second memo from the EPA regional offices to headquarters, dated March 

10, 2006, the regions were forced to reiterate the vast majority of their prior objections, after headquarters re-circulated a draft rulemaking proposal that ignored 

most of the regional concerns (see attached memo).30 This second memo says: ‘‘Most 

notably, we continue to have significant concerns about the increase in emissions 

of hazardous pollutants that will likely occur from the revisions to the [existing] policy, as currently drafted.’’31 Comparison of the December 2006 published rulemaking 

proposal, and the December 2005 draft that the regional officials condemned, makes 

abundantly clear that their objections were ignored. 

The Clean Air Act amendments of 1990 required EPA to impose standards for 188 

different toxic substances emitted by industrial sources, ranging from benzene and 

asbestos to chlorine and formaldehyde. Adopting a technology-forcing approach, the 

law imposed MACT standards on plants that annually emitted 10 tons or more of 

a single toxic chemical, or 25 tons or more of a combination of toxic chemicals. 

MACT standards are based on the performance of the average of the top 12 percent 

of facilities in an industrial sector. Congress intended EPA to identify the emissions 

levels achieved by the best-performing plants in an industrial sector, and to require 

the remaining plants to achieve the same performance levels. To date, EPA has 

issued nearly 100 MACT standards covering some 174 industrial sectors. Prior to 

issuance of this proposal, EPA projected that the standards collectively would ‘‘reduce annual emissions of air toxics by about 1.7 million tons from 1990 levels when 

fully implemented.’’32 These reductions will not be accomplished if EPA’s proposal 

becomes law. 

MACT standards typically force plants to slash their toxic air emissions by 95 percent or more. For example, an industrial facility that emitted 100 tons of a combination of toxins might be required to slash its toxic emissions to 5 tons per year. 

Under EPA’s proposed rule, however, that facility can turn around and increase its 

toxic emissions from 5 tons per year to just below the 25-ton threshold (say, 24.9 

tons per year) and still escape controls—while increasing its toxic emissions nearly 

five fold. Because the proposal weakens all of EPA’s nearly 100 MACT standards, 

a slow-motion public health disaster could ensue in communities located in industrial areas all across the country. 

It is crucial to understand the protective, technology-forcing structure of the 

MACT program to appreciate just how pernicious EPA’s proposal is. Congress intended all facilities in an industry to replicate emissions reductions actually being 

achieved by the top-performers in that industry when EPA set the standards. Thus, 
164 

33See 72 Fed. Reg. at 72–73. 34See 72 Fed. Reg. at 77. 35 id. at 72/1, 77/2. 36 id. at 77/2. 

take a hypothetical industrial category comprised of 100 facilities, each with 100 

tons of toxic emissions prior to any pollution reduction strategies. The top 12 facilities in this hypothetical category are reducing air toxics levels on average by 95 percent, down to 5 tons per year. This leads EPA to establish a MACT standard requiring 95 percent cuts in toxic pollution. The remaining 88 facilities dutifully comply 

and reduce their air toxics by 95 percent, down to 5 tons per year at each facility. 

The 12 top performers are required to continue achieving 95 percent reductions. 

Thus, the MACT standard reduces total toxic emissions from this hypothetical industrial category by 8,360 tons each year (88 x 95 tons per facility). 

Under EPA’s proposal, however, these 100 facilities would no longer be required 

to maintain their air toxic levels at 5 tons per year. To the contrary, EPA is claiming that Congress in fact intended all 100 of these facilities to be able to increase 

their toxic air pollution from 5 tons per year to 24.9 tons per year. This would represent an increase of 1,990 tons of air toxic emissions each year from this entire 

industrial category. Moreover, these 100 facilities would no longer be subject to the 

monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting and other compliance obligations associated 

with the MACT standard. These facilities would escape Federal control of their toxic 

pollution altogether, and EPA and citizens would lose the ability to enforce violations by these facilities of permit limits adopted at or below 24.9 tons per year. 

EPA’s rulemaking proposal pretends that this toxic-increasing agenda is exactly 

what Congress intended when it adopted the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments. Yet 

EPA identifies no legislative history to support that pretense. Moreover the proposal 

ignores the statutory definition of MACT itself, with its mandate that toxic pollution 

standards reflect the performance of the average of the top 12 percent of facilities 

in an industrial sector. EPA’s rulemaking proposal does not even discuss these statutory provisions in the purported legal authority section of its proposal.33

The December 2005 Regional Memo reminded EPA headquarters officials that 

‘‘[i]n 1995, EPA believed that the [existing] policy follows ’most naturally’ from the 

language and structure of the statute, and that allowing facilities to backslide would 

undermine the maximum achievable emissions reductions mandated by Congress.’’ 

Observing that the draft proposal had reversed that position without any explanation, the Regional Memo urged EPA headquarters to ‘‘more clearly articulate why 

EPA no longer believes that the [existing] policy flows naturally from the statute.’’ 

The December 2006 proposal ignores the regions’ request and fails to explain how 

this change comports with the statute itself and with EPA’s longstanding interpretation of the statute. 

The EPA regional officials also urged headquarters officials to examine closely the 

issue of toxic pollution increases from industrial facilities currently subject to more 

protective MACT pollution limits, ‘‘to determine whether the [proposal’s] likely benefits would be greater than the potential environmental costs.’’ By EPA’s own admission, the Agency failed to conduct any analysis to determine what the environmental, energy and economic impacts of the proposal would be.34 Indeed, it is startling to read EPA’s own laundry list of admissions concerning the proposal’s impacts 

that they did not analyze and supposedly cannot quantify or even estimate: • The Agency disavows any ability to quantify the ‘‘environmental, economic, and 

energy impacts’’ of the proposal ‘‘without knowing which sources will avail themselves’’ of the proposal; 

• EPA admits that it is ‘‘unknown’’ how many sources, if any, would voluntarily 

reduce their emissions in response to the ‘‘incentive’’ provided by the proposal;35

• The Agency admits ‘‘it is not known how many sources may increase their emissions from the major source MACT level’’;36 and 

• EPA admits that it ‘‘cannot identify or quantify the universe of sources that 

would decrease their HAP emissions to below’’ those levels (10 tons of a single HAP, 

25 tons of multiple HAPs) eligible for exemption from MACT under the proposal. 

EPA’s entire discussion of the ‘‘Impacts of the Proposed Amendments’’ takes up 

less than half of a column in a three-column Federal Register page—exactly 151 

words—without a single factual citation, and without a single document in the administrative record analyzing the environmental, public health, energy or economic 

impacts of the proposal. 

In his written response to questions submitted by Committee members after the 

April 5, 2006 confirmation hearings, EPA’s Acting Assistant Administrator for Air 

and Radiation, William Wehrum, promised Senator Murkowski that the Agency 

would determine what the balance was between sources allowed to increase toxic 
165 

37The Dec. 2005 Regional Memo observed in admirably understated disbelief that these twin 

justifications were ‘‘unfounded and overly optimistic,’’ and contrary to the experiences of EPA 

Regional officials. Dec. 2005 Regional Memo, at 4. 38 EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–0094–0055 (Dec. 20, 2006). 39 72 Fed. Reg. at 370. 40 U.S. EPA Perchlorate Environmental Contamination: Toxicological Review and Risk Characterization Based on Emerging Information (External Review Draft). Office of Research and 

Development, Washington, D.C. NCEA–1–0503, 1998. 41PK Dasgupta, et al. Perchlorate in the United States. Analysis of Relative Source Contributions to the Food Chain. Environ Sci Tech. 40(21):6608–6614. 42 U.S. EPA Perchlorate Environmental Contamination: Toxicological Review and Risk Characterization Based on Emerging Information (External Review Draft). Office of Research and 

Development, Washington, D.C. NCEA–1–0503, 1998. 43 Jackson WA, et al. 2005. Perchlorate accumulation in forage and edible vegetation. J Agric 

Food Chem. 53(2):369–73. 

emissions under the proposal, versus sources that EPA believed would have an ‘‘incentive’’ to reduce emissions. As the Agency admissions above reveal, however, EPA 

has broken that promise and failed to answer those questions. Indeed, the silent administrative record for the proposal confirms that EPA has failed even to research 

and analyze those questions, notwithstanding readily available factual information 

indicating (1) which air pollution sources nationwide are subject to MACT standards; and (2) which of those sources have facility-wide toxic air pollution levels 

below 10 tons for a single toxin or 25 tons for a combination of toxins—the universe 

of facilities allowed to pollute more by EPA’s proposal. 

In response to questions submitted by Senator Jeffords following this same hearing, Mr. Wehrum offered the top two factors that EPA believed would ‘‘tend to minimize’’ ‘‘in many cases’’ the pollution increases allowed by the proposal: (1) ‘‘some 

sources want to be a good corporate citizen and would choose not to change current 

emission levels;’’ and (2) ‘‘[o]ther companies would want to avoid the negative publicity associated with increases in toxic air pollutants.’’37 It is noteworthy that the 

White House Office of Management and Budget deleted these two rationales when 

reviewing EPA’s draft rulemaking, no doubt out of recognition that the rationales 

are unsubstantiated and absurd.38 But it is highly telling that both Mr. Wehrum 

and EPA’s original draft advanced these speculative, insupportable justifications so 

prominently, revealing that EPA’s hollow assurances are rooted in faith more than 

facts or analysis or concern for the public’s health. 

PERCHLORATE: NOT TESTING WILL NOT MAKE THE PROBLEM GO AWAY

EPA’s elimination of public information on important health threats does not stop 

with air pollutants. A major drinking water contaminant has also recently fallen 

into what could be called the ‘‘wishful thinking approach to environmental protection’’, where not looking for pollution is confused with actually controlling pollution. 

Controlling pollution is EPA’s job, and in order to control it, they need to look for 

it. 

In December 2006, EPA issued a final rule saying that there will be no further 

requirements to test drinking water for the endocrine disrupting chemical perchlorate. In 1999, EPA had issued an Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule 

(UCMR) covering the period 2001–2005, and requiring that all public water systems 

serving a population greater than 10,000 people sample for perchlorate by December 

31, 2002. The rule also required testing of 800 representative small public water 

systems serving 10,000 or fewer people. Results of the testing were required to be 

published in the 2003 Consumer Confidence Reports (CCR) provided by water systems to their customers. Despite detections of this chemical in 402 water systems 

serving approximately 41.2 million people nationwide, and after initially proposing 

to extend the requirement, EPA has now decided not to require any further testing, 

saying: ‘‘based on public comment and further consideration, EPA has removed the 

requirement for monitoring perchlorate.’’39

Perchlorates are used in rocket propellants, explosives, road flares, air bags, and 

other applications.40 Perchlorates have also been introduced onto soil in fertilizer 

products imported from Chile.41 As a consequence of widespread use and water solubility, huge amounts of perchlorate have leached into surface and groundwater used 

as drinking water sources. 

Perchlorate is highly mobile in water and can persist for decades under typical 

ground and surface water conditions.42 Research has also shown that perchlorate 

can concentrate in crops such as wheat, lettuce, alfalfa, and cucumbers, thereby resulting in much greater exposures than might be predicted by water or fertilizer 

concentrations.43 Newer data have shown perchlorate contamination to be wide-
166 

44 El Aribi, H, et al. Analysis of perchlorate in foods and beverages by ion chromatography 

coupled with tandem mass spectrometry (IC–ESI–MS/MS). Analytica Chimica Acta. 567(1): 39– 

47; Food and Drug Administration. 2004. Exploratory Data on Perchlorate in Food. Available 

at http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/?dms/clo4data.html 45Kirk AB, et al. Perchlorate and iodide in dairy and breast milk. Environ Sci Technol. 

39(7):2011–2017, 2005; Blount BC, et al. 2006. Perchlorate exposure of the US population, 2001– 

2002. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol. Oct 18, 2006 [Epub ahead of print]. 46 Haddow JE, et al. Maternal thyroid deficiency during pregnancy and subsequent neuropsychological development of the child. New Eng J Med 341:549–555, 1999; Pop VJ, et al. Low 

maternal free thyroxine concentrations during early pregnancy are associated with impaired 

psychomotor development in early infancy. Clin Endocrinol. 50:149–155, 1999. 47 Blount BC, et al. 2006. Urinary perchlorate and thyroid hormone levels in adolescent and 

adult men and women living in the United States. Environ Health Perspect, Online 5 October, 

2006. 48World Health Organization (WHO). 1994. Indicators for assessing iodine deficiency disorders and their control through salt iodization. WHO/NUT/94.7. Geneva: WHO/International 

Council for the Control of Iodine Deficiency Disorders. 49 Cooper, D. Sub–clinical thyroid disease: consensus or conundrum. Clinical Endocrinology 

60:410–412, 2004; Haddow JE, et al. Maternal thyroid deficiency during pregnancy and subsequent neuropsychological development of the child. New Eng J Med 341:549–555, 1999; Pop VJ, 

et al. Low maternal free thyroxine concentrations during early pregnancy are associated with 

impaired psychomotor development in infancy. Clinical Endocrinology 50 (149) 1999; Surks M, 

et al. Subclinical Thyroid Disease. J Am Med Assoc: 228–238, 2004. 

spread in store-bought fruit, vegetables, cow’s milk, beer and wine.44 Perchlorate 

has been found in human breast milk, and was found in every one of 2,820 urine 

samples tested by the CDC.45

Perchlorate is a powerful inhibitor of the normal uptake of iodine into the thyroid 

gland, as well as normal transport of iodine across the placenta and into the lactating mammary gland. Inhibition of iodine uptake can cause decreased production 

of thyroid hormones. In the developing fetus and infant, adequate levels of thyroid 

hormones are necessary for normal brain development. Subtle alterations of thyroid 

hormones during pregnancy—even within the normal range—have been associated 

with decreased intellectual and learning capacity in childhood.46

A recent analysis by CDC scientists of a nationally representative sample of over 

2,200 U.S. residents has documented that exposure to perchlorate poses potential 

health risks to women of child-bearing age and especially to their babies.47 This 

study revealed that among women with low iodine intake (as defined by the World 

Health Organization),48 very low levels of perchlorate exposure—well within the 

range found in the general U.S. population today—are associated with up to a 30 

percent decrease in thyroid hormone levels; the CDC estimates that 36 percent of 

U.S. women have iodine intakes in this low range. 

The unique physiology of pregnancy and interactions between the mother and 

fetus makes both especially susceptible to the harmful effects of perchlorate. Recent 

studies have shown that the cognitive development of the fetus is impaired in mothers with even mild disruptions in thyroid hormone levels, prompting many in the 

medical community to recommend thyroid hormone replacement therapy for pregnant women who are found to have even sub-clinical hypothyroidism.49

Perchlorate has emerged as an important threat to drinking water sources over 

vast areas of the United States. An NRDC analysis of available 2005 EPA data 

showed that public water systems in 27 States, the District of Columbia and two 

U.S. territories have detected perchlorate in treated water or in their water sources, 

with concentrations ranging from 0.2 to 1,300 parts per billion (ppb). Of 5,369 systems tested, 402 (7.5 percent) detected perchlorate in their water. California has the 

largest number of systems with perchlorate detections, 159, serving a total population of approximately 31.4 million. Texas and Massachusetts follow with 103 and 

57 systems, respectively (Figure 3). These are also the States with the most perchlorate monitoring conducted to date. 
167 

50 U.S. EPA (2006) FACTOIDS: Drinking Water and Ground Water Statistics for 2005. http:// 

www.epa.gov/safewater/data/pdfs/statistics—data—factoids—2005.pdf [visited February 2, 2007]. 51 Id. Calculation based on System size table, p. 2. 

Nationwide, 402 water systems have reported finding perchlorate contamination 

(Figure 4). These systems serve 41.2 million people, or approximately 15 percent of 

the population served around the country. This is likely to be a low estimate, since 

less than five percent of community water systems have analyzed their water for 

perchlorate. Another reason this may be a low estimate is that most of the systems 

tested their water only a few times. Under EPA rules, public water systems serving 

more than 10,000 people had to sample once per quarter during a 1-year period if 

they used surface water sources. Groundwater systems had to test only twice in a 

1-year period. Less than one percent of smaller systems were required to test at all. 

Most States outside of California do not require any testing for perchlorate. Such 

limited testing is likely to miss pollution that may put vulnerable populations at 

risk. 

EPA’s decision to stop testing at a national level for perchlorate means that there 

will be no current data on tap water contamination with this hazardous chemical. 

To date, monitoring for perchlorate has been conducted in only 5,369 out of the approximately 158,000 public water systems in the United States—only 3.4 percent of 

all water systems.50 Small public water systems serve a total of about 69 million 

people in the United States, and only 600 such systems (0.4 percent) were required 

to be tested under the UCMR so far.51 We have seen only the tip of the iceberg for 

this contaminant. Testing needs to continue in order to ensure water quality and 

to inform consumers—especially pregnant women and families with babies. In addition, the new data will be needed in order to inform a drinking water standard that 

will adequately protect public health. 
168 

52 Congressional Research Service. Restructuring EPA’s Libraries: Background and Issues for 

Congress. RS22533. January 3, 2007. 53 Joal A. Mintz and Rebecca Bratspies. Closing Agency Libraries Deals Serious Blow. South 

Florida Sun-Sentinel. December 11, 2006. 54 Robert McClure. EPA gets an earful on library closures. Seattle Post-Intelligencer. January 

22, 2007. 55Letter from Dwight A. Welch et al. Presidents of 16 Local Unions to Conrad Burns and 

Byron Dorgan, United States Senate. June 29, 2006. 56 EPA Office of Environmental Information. Business Case for Information Services: EPA’s 

Regional Libraries and Centers. EPA 260–R–04–001. January 2004. 

CLOSING EPA LIBRARIES SLASHES SCIENCE AND LOSES MONEY

For decades, EPA’s network of 26 scientific libraries has served as a gold mine 

of resources for scientists, community members, and EPA’s own staff. Expert librarians made themselves available to locate information, and the library collections 

themselves contained unique materials, not available elsewhere. I have used EPA 

libraries in Region 1 and Region 9 on many occasions and consider them indispensable. As a result I was distressed to learn that over the past 4 months EPA has 

closed five libraries and reduced access at four others, including my local EPA library.52

According to press reports, the EPA libraries fielded about 134,000 information 

requests in fiscal year 2005.53 Of these, the now-closed EPA regional libraries in 

Chicago, Kansas City, and Dallas handled more than 32,000 requests for information.54 Representatives of 10,000 EPA scientists, engineers, environmental protection specialists and support staff protested the closure of the technical libraries in 

a letter to the chair and Ranking Member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, 

Interior and Related Agencies Subcommittee in June of 2006.55

The library closures have been done under the guise of budgetary restraint, but 

that argument holds absolutely no merit. The library closures represent a budget 

cut of about $2 million. However, an EPA cost-benefit assessment in 2004 concluded 

that the libraries provide ‘‘substantial value’’ to the Agency and the public, and represent a benefit-to-cost ratio of somewhere between 2:1 and 5.7:1.56

Unfortunately, much of the information from the closed EPA libraries has apparently vanished or become very difficult to find. These libraries contained scientific 

journals, EPA documents, and documents from other entities including reports from 

EPA contractors. Documentation exists that scientific journals were thrown into 
169 

57 Email from Vicki Simons to Brion Cook, Todd Holderman, Randall Brinkhuis, John Dady. 

Update on library move. November 17, 2006. http://www.peer.org/docs/epa/06—20—11—EPA— 

order—recycle—OPPTS—library—materials.pdf [Visited on February 1, 2007]. 58Tim Reiterman. Closure of 6 Federal libraries angers scientists: Cost-cutting moves at the 

EPA and elsewhere deny researchers and the public access to vital data, critics say. Los Angeles 

Times, December 8, 2006. 59Letter from Dwight A. Welch et al. Presidents of 16 Local Unions to Conrad Burns and 

Byron Dorgan, United States Senate. June 29, 2006. 60 Jeff Ruch. Anonymous reports from EPA librarians. Public Employees for Environmental 

Responsibility. http://www.peer.org/news/news—id.php?row—id=815 [viewed February 2, 2006]. 

dumpsters and recycling bins when the libraries were closed.57 Linda Travers, acting Assistant Administrator for the EPA Office of Environmental Information was 

quoted in December 2006 assuring that all EPA-generated documents from the 

closed libraries would be online by January and the rest of the Agency’s 51,000 reports would be digitized within two years.’’58 That’s an ambitious task and I am curious to learn whether the January deadline has been met. 

As of June 2006, the National Environmental Publications Internet Site (NEPIS) 

contained about 13,000 documents, and EPA librarians estimated that there were 

about 80,000 more documents that needed to be retained but had not yet been 

digitized.59 More recent communications from EPA librarians are not encouraging. 

Librarians indicate that the NEPIS—now integrated into the National Service Center for Environmental Publications (NSCEP) system—is not working effectively for 

information retrieval.60 Apparently documents are not appearing even if the search 

is done by EPA publication number. Furthermore, digitizing between 50,000 and 

80,000 reports is a monumental task and there does not appear to be any budget 

for carrying this out. Rather than saving the Agency money, these closures will cost 

the Agency in staff productivity, and in money and time for digitization. The cost 

to local communities is hard to calculate, since information—when you really need 

it—is priceless. 

CONCLUSION

It is abundantly clear that the concerns I have raised for the integrity of the 

science, for the protection of public health, and for the public availability of information are shared by the Chairwoman and the other members of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Each of the issues addressed in today’s 

hearing has been raised already in letters and press releases issued by Senators on 

the Committee. We all are suffering from the pain of foresight. When we look into 

the future with these EPA rollbacks in place, we see communities breathing dirtier 

air, children exposed to more toxic lead, pregnant women unknowingly drinking thyroid-disrupting rocket fuel, scientists sidelined, and information vanishing. It’s not 

a pretty future. Yet I am optimistic that many of these bad outcomes can be averted. EPA has not finalized several of these proposals, and some of the actions can 

be reversed. I am hopeful that after today’s hearing EPA will heed our combined 

urging to re-focus their efforts where they should be—on protecting public health. 
170 
171 
172 
173 
174 
175 
176 
177 
178 
179 
180 
181 
182 
183 
184 
185 
186 
187 
188 
189 
190 
191 

1 Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), Perchlorate in Arizona: Occurrence 

Study of 2004, Revised (December 2004); California Department of Health Services, California 

Drinking Water Data (April 2005); Massachusetts DEP, Perchlorate monitoring results [data 

provided by Drinking Water Program] (March 2005); U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE), 

Washington Aqueduct Perchlorate Data (2004); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. 

EPA) Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Data (January 2005); U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), Perchlorate: A System to Track Sampling and Cleanup Results Is Needed, 

(2005); Jackson, W.A. et al., Distribution and Potential Sources of Perchlorate in the High 

Plains Region of Texas: Final Report, 2004, Texas Tech University Water Resources Center, prepared for Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, http://www.waterresources.ttu.edu/research.htm; Water Quality Reports (or Consumer Confidence Reports) and news articles for the 

City of Edmond, OK; City of Georgetown, TX; Las Vegas Valley Water District; New Mexico 

American Water Company; and Shreveport [Louisiana] Department of Operational Services. 2 U.S. EPA (2006) FACTOIDS: Drinking Water and Ground Water Statistics for 2005. http:// 

www.epa.gov/safewater/data/pdfs/statistics—data—factoids—2005.pdf [visited February 2, 2007]. 3 Id. Calculation based on System size table, p. 2. 

4 Jackson WA, P Joseph, P Laxman, K Tan, PN Smith, L Yu, and TA Anderson. 2005. Perchlorate accumulation in forage and edible vegetation. J Agric Food Chem. 53(2):369–73. 5 El Aribi, H, YJC Le Blanc, S Antonsen, and T Sakuma. 2006. Analysis of perchlorate in foods 

and beverages by ion chromatography coupled with tandem mass spectrometry (IC–ESI–MS/ 

MS). Analytica Chimica Acta. 567(1): 39–47; Food and Drug Administration. 2004. Exploratory 

Data on Perchlorate in Food. Available at http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/∼dms/clo4data.html. 

RESPONSES BY GINA M. SOLOMON, M.D., M.P.H., TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM

SENATOR INHOFE

Question 1. If one assumes that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

report referenced in your testimony is correct, then perchlorate has been found at 

very small levels in virtually all of us. However, according to the UCMR1 data, it 

is only in 4 percent of the Nation’s drinking water systems. Is it not premature to 

cast the blame and all of the burden on the Nation’s drinking water systems when 

based on CDC and EPA data, most of the perchlorate exposure is coming from other 

sources? 

Response. Perchlorate has been reported in 402 out of the 5,369 public water systems tested (7.5 percent).1 These systems serve 41.2 million people, or approximately 15 percent of the population served around the country. This is likely to be 

a low estimate, since less than 5 percent of community water systems have analyzed 

their water for perchlorate. To date, monitoring for perchlorate has been conducted 

in only 5,369 out of the approximately 158,000 public water systems in the United 

States—only 3.4 percent of all water systems.2 Small public water systems serve a 

total of about 69 million people in the United States, and only 600 such systems 

(0.4 percent) were required to be tested under the UCMR so far.3 Therefore the data 

from UCMR1 likely significantly underestimates the full extent of the perchlorate 

problem in drinking water. Under the December 2006 EPA UCMR, water systems 

will no longer be required to test for perchlorate at all, therefore the data gaps on 

perchlorate contamination in drinking water will not be filled, and will instead increase with time. 

It is true that perchlorate exposure is also coming from sources other than drinking water. Perchlorate-tainted water also affects the safety of our food supply. Perchlorate can concentrate in irrigated crops such as wheat, lettuce, alfalfa, and cucumbers, thereby resulting in much greater exposures than might be predicted just 

by water concentrations.4 Newer data have shown perchlorate contamination to be 

widespread in store-bought fruit, vegetables, cow’s milk, beer and wine.5 Unfortunately, the EPA’s new perchlorate reference dose (RfD) has been interpreted by the 

Agency as translating to a Drinking Water Equivalent Level (DWEL) of 24.5 ppb. 

This DWEL fails to account for several important issues, including the fact that infants are the most susceptible population (the DWEL used an adult male body 

weight), and the fact that people are exposed to perchlorate through both water and 

food. EPA should begin work on an enforceable drinking water standard that will 

protect vulnerable populations with an adequate margin of safety and will also account for aggregate exposures to perchlorate from multiple environmental sources. 

Question 2. The American Thyroid Association has provided excellent leadership 

in treatment, education and research on thyroid gland and its related disorders. The 

ATA pointed to the several concerns with the CDC study. It is my understanding 

that the CDC, consistent with good scientific practices, will reexamine the study to 

verify its results. Do you agree that CDC should reexamine its study with particular 

attention to the concerns raised by the ATA? 

Response. The CDC has already reexamined the study in partnership with outside 

scientists from State agencies. It is my understanding that the results of the reanalysis have confirmed the original findings of the CDC study and have undergone 
192 

6 NRDC. White House and Pentagon Bias National Academy Perchlorate Report. January 10, 

2005. http://www.nrdc.org/media/pressreleases/050110.asp. 

the additional scrutiny of peer review. I expect that the results of the reexamination 

will be published in the near future. 

Question 3. The NAS held 3 separate public hearings. The NRDC availed itself 

of the opportunity to testify at the very first hearing of the NAS committee hearings 

and your colleague, Ms. Sass, provided a formal presentation. Are you asking Congress or EPA to substitute NRDC’s scientific judgment for that of the National 

Academy? 

Response. The NRDC has fairly extensive evidence that the integrity and independence of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) perchlorate panel may have 

been compromised. Documents obtained by NRDC from a series of Freedom of Information Act requests and lawsuits against the White House, Department of Defense 

and the Environmental Protection Agency indicate that the NAS panel was subjected to significant pressure to downplay the hazards of perchlorate.6 For example, 

senior White House and DOD political officials participated in reviewing the scientific charge sent to the NAS on perchlorate. In addition, the Pentagon actively 

worked to manipulate the membership of the NAS perchlorate panel. The panel ultimately contained at least four members (one of whom eventually resigned when the 

NAS report was partly completed) with evidence of financial conflicts of interest. 

The final NAS report on perchlorate was released more than 21⁄2 years ago. The 

wealth of scientific data on the health effects of perchlorate, and on human exposures to perchlorate, has grown significantly since the NAS report was finalized. 

Several very important peer-reviewed scientific studies and analyses, including the 

above-mentioned studies by the CDC, have been completed. These studies have 

raised significant questions about the validity of the NAS findings. It is consistent 

with good scientific practice to update and reevaluate scientific findings in light of 

new evidence. At this time, it is appropriate for the EPA to revisit the reference 

dose for perchlorate, and to set an enforceable drinking water standard that will 

adequately protect vulnerable populations such as pregnant women and infants. 

Question 4a. In your testimony, you mentioned that methyl isocyanate (MIC) reporting would ‘‘disappear’’ from TRI Form R’s. Does NRDC want communities to 

rely on TRI reporting for accideptal releases of highly toxic chemicals like MIC? 

Response. Both accidental releases as well non-accidental releases should be 

counted towards a facility’s TRI reporting threshold for all TRI chemicals. Furthermore, the former 500-pound Form R reporting threshold for non-persistent bioaccumulative and toxic chemicals (non-PBTs) should have been maintained. PBTs 

should be reported on Form R; Form A reporting for PBT chemicals should not be 

allowed. This was the essence of my testimony at the February 6 hearing. Accidental releases should continue to be immediately reported to local authorities as 

required under existing law. Specifically in response to the itemized questions 

above: 

Response. TRI reporting does not (and should not) replace immediate notification 

of accidental releases to the local authorities; both are required by law. 

Question 4b. Would it not be more useful to rely on the reporting under existing 

environmental statutes that requrie immediate reporting to the local authorities of 

releases of greater than 10 pounds? 

Response. TRI reporting does not relieve facilities from legal requirements to immediately notify local authorities of accidental releases. Facilities should no more 

be exempted from such requirements than from requirements to notify communities 

using Form R. 

Question 4c. Why should communities have to wait an additional year, under existing TRI reporting, to learn about a release of MIC? 

Response. Communities would not have to wait a year to learn about an accidental release of MIC. As mentioned above, TRI reporting requirements do not relieve facilities from emergency or accidental release notification requirements. 

Information on chemicals such as MIC is important to first responders even when 

there is no spill of those chemicals. For example, emergency personnel responding 

to a fire at an industrial plant want to know what chemicals are at that plant. One 

way they can (and do) find out quickly is to look at TRI data. If MIC was not spilled 

in a particular incident, then under the current changes to the TRI, no alternative 

source of information would be available to the first responders. Even if MIC were 

spilled, the plant might not yet know it. Therefore the EPA changes to the TRI 

could put first responders at risk. 
193 

7See Sierra Club v. EPA, Civ. Action No. 01–1537 (D.C. Dist. Ct.) (Aug. 2, 2006) (noting that 

‘‘it is inappropriate for an Agency to divert to purely discretionary rulemaking resources that 

conceivably could go towards fulfilling obligations clearly mandated by Congress,’’ and that 

EPA’s air office ‘‘currently devotes substantial resources to discretionary rulemakings, many of 

which make existing regulations more congenial to industry, and several of which since have 

been found unlawful.’’) 8 International Sustainable Systems Research Center. Clearing the Air: How Clean Air is Possible and Affordable by 2013. February 2007. http://www.kirschfoundation.com/care/documents/ 

Clearing%20the%20Air—Full%20Report.pdf. 

Question 5. Clearly the NAAQS process is broken—year after year the EPA has 

consistently failed to meet deadlines. For example, the SO2 review that was completed in 1996 was actually due December 31, 1980, almost 151⁄2 years earlier. What 

problems might have been averted—and how much harm to Americans’ health 

avoided—had a more efficient review process been in place? 

Response. From a scientific perspective, the NAAQS standard setting process has 

been a model EPA rulemaking process that is driven by careful review and incorporation of the science. Due largely to insufficient funding and Agency focus, the process may not be as quick as many of us would like, but it is deliberate, thorough, 

and focuses on getting the best possible advice from independent scientists on the 

Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) and from scientists within the 

Agency. In considering various alternatives for creating a more efficient review process, it is important not to neglect the integrity and centrality of independent scientific review. A central point of my testimony was that the changes EPA has made 

to the NAAQS review process, although ostensibly done in the name of efficiency, 

will in fact largely work to decrease the role of independent scientific review in setting air quality standards. It remains to be seen whether the changes that EPA has 

made will in fact help the Agency to meet its statutory deadlines. Those changes 

threaten to allow greater hazards and risks to Americans’ health by relegating independent scientific review to a lesser role and elevating political influence that will 

weigh industry costs and political pressures more heavily. 

Regarding previous missed statutory deadlines, there is no evidence of which I am 

aware that such deadlines were violated as a result of steps in the NAAQS review 

process that EPA acted to ‘‘streamline’’ through their recent overhauls of that process. Rather, in my opinion, EPA’s previous violations of statutory deadlines resulted 

primarily from failures to devote sufficient resources and priority to meeting these 

legal obligations. The EPA under this Administration has recently been rebuked by 

a Federal court for devoting its limited resources to non-mandatory, deregulatory activities—some of which were subsequently struck down in court—rather than focusing resources appropriately on meeting statutory deadlines.7

Question 6. According to the January 30 San Francisco Chronicle, the executive 

director of the San Joaquin VAlley Air Pollution Control District, said that the 

eight-county area could lose more than $2 billion in Federal highway funds because 

the area cannot comply with EPA’s deadline for the current ozone standard. In your 

opinion, does it make sense to keep lowering the ambient air quality standards 

when we can’t even comply with the existing standards? 

Response. As a scientist and a health professional, my focus is on applying the 

best available science to appropriately protect human health. I have talked with my 

colleagues in medicine who are working in clinics and emergency rooms in the San 

Joaquin Valley. They are facing a massive epidemic of asthma and respiratory disease, and struggling to keep their patients alive. I have also spoken with parents 

of asthmatic children living in the San Joaquin Valley. These parents tell heartwrenching stories of watching their children suffer on ‘‘bad air days’’. At the same 

time, the science has clearly shown that the current EPA ozone standard is not sufficient to protect these children. The evidence is clear that the standard must be 

lowered in order to protect human health. Lowering the standard will require counties in the San Joaquin Valley to redouble their efforts to improve air quality. More 

importantly, other counties that currently do not realize that they have unhealthy 

air will need to take action to improve their air quality as well. 

The San Joaquin Valley has the dubious distinction of having among the worst 

ozone problems in the Nation. Attaining Federal air quality standards in that region 

is a challenge due to topographic issues and the large number of sources within the 

region. Unfortunately, the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 

(SJVAPCD) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) have not committed to 

do everything feasible to attain the Federal 8-hour ozone standard by 2013.8 For example, the SJVAPCD has failed to commit to adopting numerous controls for emissions from stationary and areas sources, many of which have been adopted in other 

regions in the Nation. In addition, given that much of the pollution is generated 
194 

9 Hall J.V., V. Brajer, and F. W. Lurmann, Institute for Economic and Environmental Studies 

at California State University Fullerton, ‘‘The Health and Related Economic Benefits of Attaining Healthful Air in the San Joaquin Valley,’’ March 2006. http://business.fullerton.edu/Centers/ 

iees/reports/SJVFinalReport.pdf. The study concluded that the benefits of achieving the standards included ‘‘460 fewer premature deaths among those age 30 and older’’, ‘‘325 fewer new 

cases of chronic bronchitis’’, ‘‘188,400 fewer days of reduced activities in adults’’, ‘‘260 fewer hospital admissions’’, ‘‘23,300 fewer asthma attacks’’, ‘‘188,000 fewer days of school absences’’, 

‘‘3,230 fewer cases of acute bronchitis in children’’, ‘‘3,000 fewer work loss days’’, and ‘‘[m]ore 

than 17,000 fewer days of respiratory symptoms in children.’’ 10 42 U.S.C. § 7409(b)(1). 11 American Lung Assoc. v. EPA, 134 F.3d 388, 389 (D.C. Cir. 1999). 

from sources under CARB’s jurisdiction, California must commit to stronger regulations, such as increasing the stringency of its upcoming regulations of heavy duty 

trucks and off-road equipment. A recent study by researchers at California State 

University Fullerton demonstrated that ‘‘valley-wide the economic benefits of attaining the PM2.5 and ozone standards average nearly $1,000 per person per year, or 

a total of more than $3 billion.’’9

Congress clearly stated in the Clean Air Act that the primary NAAQS for a Section 108 pollutant must be set at a level at which, ‘‘allowing an adequate margin 

of safety, [is] requisite to protect the public health.’’10 As long as a criteria pollutant 

still ‘‘adversely affects the health of’’ of even a single sensitive sub-population, such 

as children or asthmatic adults, ‘‘EPA must strengthen’’ the NAAQS to eliminate 

those adverse effects.11 Congress did not allow EPA to avoid lowering ambient air 

quality standards simply because individual counties are unable to comply with current standards. On this issue, I am hardly in a position to substitute my personal 

opinion for that of Congress. 

I hope that this additional information is useful to the Committee as it continues 

its deliberations on these important public health issues. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Doctor, so much. 

Now Leslie Burger, president of the American Library Association. 

STATEMENT OF LESLIE BURGER, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION; DIRECTOR, PRINCETON PUBLIC LIBRARY 

Ms. BURGER. Thank you, Chairman Boxer and Senator Whitehouse, thank you for inviting me today to speak on behalf of the 

American Library Association. 

I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the closure of libraries in the EPA network during this oversight hearing. My name is 

Leslie Burger, I am director of the Princeton, NJ public library and 

president of the American Library Association. I am also testifying 

today on behalf of the Association of Research Libraries and the 

American Association of Law Libraries. 

I want to talk about two things today. First, the importance of 

access to vital information about the environment for EPA employees and the American public. Second, how the recent closures of 

five EPA libraries and reduced access in others is restricting access 

to important information about the environment. Given the library 

community’s mission to promote and foster the public’s access to information, it should come as no surprise that we find these closures 

troublesome. 

Is EPA’s digital library plan based on the end user’s needs? Apparently not. Our sources tell us that there has been no outreach 

to the EPA library user community, that thousands of scientists, 

researchers and attorneys that use these resources on a daily basis, 

nor to members of the public who have benefited greatly from access to these unique collections. Originally presented as a cost saving measure in anticipation of a 30 percent cut in the EPA library 
195 

budget in the 2007 budget, EPA began closing libraries and restricting access to many other of its libraries before the budget was 

passed. 

Regional libraries in Chicago, Dallas and Kansas City and the 

Pesticide and Headquarters libraries in Washington, DC. have 

been closed. The Region 4 library in Atlanta is open with only one 

staff member left, and we just learned today that a center at Fort 

Meade has also been closed, a fact that EPA had previously not disclosed. The New York regional library was scheduled for closing to 

the public and reduction in hours for EPA staff on January 2d, but 

in light of congressional and public pressure, EPA only recently decided to temporarily halt further closures. 

We have two primary concerns about this. In the course of shutting down libraries, valuable, unique environmental information 

may be lost or discarded. Because there are fewer libraries and professional library staff associated with them, scientists and the public will have restricted access to this information. We are deeply 

concerned that this will restrict the public’s right to know about information relating to the environment. In an age of global warming 

and heightened public awareness and concern about the environment, it seems ironic that the Administration would choose this 

time to limit access to years of research about the environment. 

Let me talk about the loss of valuable environmental information. In a plan that can best be described as convoluted and complicated, selected materials from EPA closed libraries is being 

boxed and sent to other locations, where it is slowly being inventoried, re-catalogued and then sent back to several EPA locations 

for storage. Other materials being sent to the National Environmental Publications Internet site in Cincinnati, where it is slowly 

being digitized. 

There continues to be a lot we don’t know. What materials are 

being shipped around the Country? Are duplicate materials available in other EPA libraries? Which items have been or will be 

digitized? Is there a record of what has been discarded or destroyed? We are concerned that years of research and studies about 

the environment may be lost forever. Without detailed information 

about the digitization project plan, we can’t determine if they are 

digitizing the most appropriate materials, if there is appropriate 

meta data to ensure that people can actually find this material, 

and if the technology that will be used to host the digital content 

and finding software meets today’s standards. 

In an age of digital media, it has become easier and easier for 

information to simply get lost in the shuffle. There is no way of 

knowing if that is the case here. EPA claims to have been following 

ALA guidelines in its reorganization of the libraries. As far as we 

can tell, that meant visiting our Web site. While they did meet 

with our staff on at least two occasions in 2006 to discuss this 

issue, they failed to act upon any of the advice that came as a result of those meetings. 

To their credit, they did send six staff members to our midwinter 

meeting in Seattle just a few weeks ago to answer questions, but 

there still remains a lack of clarity as to what their plans are for 

the network. 
196 

We are also deeply concerned about the impact of these library 

closings on the public’s right to know. The EPA libraries have been 

functioning as a virtual single national library on the environment, 

a cost effective library structure that provides for wide public access to information. Now with several of these libraries closed and 

others with restricted access, key links have been removed from 

the chain, weakening the entire system. 

Where will people look for information about their drinking 

water or determine what pesticides are in their grass or how much 

pollution is in the air of their hometown? These issues are the most 

important for our national health and safety. 

ALA understands that providing access to digital content is important in today’s world. In our digital world, the role of librarians 

becomes even more important, and we know from other colleagues 

that the move to digital collections requires the expertise of librarians. Recent searches of the EPA library Web site indicate that it 

falls short in making this information easily accessible to library 

users. 

In closing, the American Library Association and its partners 

asks that this committee request EPA to immediately halt all library closures and cease dispersing and dumping library material, 

meet with EPA library stakeholders to determine their current and 

future needs, determine a plan that incorporates best practices for 

meeting user needs both now and into the future, stabilize and inventory the collections that have been put in storage, call upon library digitization experts to assist in developing a process to ensure that EPA is using best practices. 

We appreciate your responsiveness and look forward to determining how we can save these collections, stabilize EPA library 

services for users, maximize access for staff, scientists and the public at large to important environmental information. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Burger follows:] 

STATEMENT OF LESLIE BURGER, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION AND

DIRECTOR, PRINCETON PUBLIC LIBRARY

Chairman Boxer, Senator Inhofe, and Members of the Committee, thank you for 

inviting me today to speak on behalf of the American Library Association (ALA). I 

sincerely appreciate the opportunity to comment on the closure of libraries in the 

EPA network during this oversight hearing. 

My name is Leslie Burger, and I am director of the Princeton (N.J.) Public Library. I am also the President of the American Library Association, the oldest and 

largest library association in the world with some 66,000 members, primarily school, 

public, academic, and some special librarians, but also trustees, publishers, and 

friends of libraries. The Association provides leadership for the development, promotion, and improvement of library and information services and the profession of 

librarianship to enhance learning and ensure access to information for all. 

I am also testifying on behalf of the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) and 

the American Association of Law Libraries (AALL). ARL is a North American association representing 123 research libraries at comprehensive, research-extensive institutions that share similar research missions, aspirations, and achievements. 

AALL is a nonprofit educational organization with over 5,000 members nationwide. 

I would like to talk today about two things: 

• First, the vital importance of access to scientific, environmental, legal, and 

other government information for EPA employees and the American public; 

• Second, how the recent closures of several regional libraries, the Prevention, 

Pesticides & Toxic Substances (OPPTS) and headquarters libraries in Washington, 

DC, as well as reduced access in other EPA library locations, is restricting access 

to important information about the environment in at least 31 States. 
197 

Given the library community’s mission to promote and foster the public’s access 

to information, it should come as no surprise that ALA—along with ARL and 

AALL—finds these closures troublesome. 

The closing of these libraries initially took place under the guise of a proposed $2 million budget cut—suggested by the EPA and included in President Bush’s 

budget proposal for Fiscal Year (FY) 2007. Though recently, the EPA has backed 

away from the financial contention, instead casting the closures as a plan to digitize 

library collections (or convert library collections to digital formats) to reach a ‘‘broader audience’’ in providing access to these materials, as EPA spokespeople mentioned 

in a teleconference last December, but many scientists, EPA staff, and librarians 

continue to dispute this contention. 

Is EPA’s library plan based on the end users’ needs? Apparently not. Our sources 

tell us that there has been no outreach to the EPA Library User community—the 

thousands of scientists, researchers, and attorneys that use these resources on a 

daily basis as well as members of the public who have benefited greatly from access 

to these unique collections. There has been a lot of talk about getting information 

to a ‘‘broader audience,’’ but how do the steps being taken by EPA speak to that 

effort? ALA doesn’t see what’s being done as connected to users’ needs in any way. 

Despite the fact that Congress hasn’t passed a FY 2007 budget, EPA has already 

begun closing libraries and restricting public access to the many of the libraries that 

are still open. Thus far, we have seen the closure of three regional libraries—in Chicago, Dallas, and Kansas City—OPPTS and headquarters libraries in Washington, 

DC. Also, we have just learned that in the Region 4 library in Atlanta, the interlibrary loan technician is the only staff member left, a fact EPA previously had not 

disclosed. The regional library in New York City was scheduled to be closed to the 

public with reduced hours for EPA staff on January 2, but, in light of Congressional 

and public pressure, EPA only recently decided to halt further closures of its libraries for the time being. 

Thus, we have two primary concerns about these closures: 

1. In the course of shutting down these libraries, valuable, unique environmental 

information will be lost or discarded, and; 

2. Because there are fewer libraries and professional library staff, scientists and 

the public will have limited access to this information. We have a deep concern with 

limitations these closings would place on the public’s access to EPA library holdings 

and the public’s ‘‘right to know.’’ In an age of global warming and heightened public 

awareness about the environment, it seems ironic that the Administration would 

choose this time to limit access to years of research about the environment. 

Let me first address the loss of valuable environmental information. Libraries and 

other cultural heritage institutions (archives, museums, and historical societies) 

have been digitizing collections for nearly 20 years. The digital resources provide access 365 days a year, 24 hours a day, regardless of where the person lives or works. 

Geographic and political boundaries disappear. These digital resources are subject 

to international and national standards, created by librarians, archivists, museum 

professionals, and representatives from the photographic and audio industry, public 

broadcasting, and computer industry. 

Before we begin the costly digitization process, we always consider the needs of 

the current and future user communities. Digital content must be created in a fashion assuring that it will be usable 25 and 50 years from now. We need to capture 

cataloging information, or what we call metadata, about the digital resource so that 

we can find the digital object now and in the future, and so that if we have to recreate it we know how we created it the first time. Therefore, we need to know what 

camera we used to take the picture or which scanner we used. We also need to know 

copyright information and the rights associated with the object. All that information 

goes into the metadata, along with the title and keywords. 

In a plan that is best described as ‘‘convoluted and complicated,’’ materials from 

closed EPA libraries are being boxed and sent to other locations where they are 

slowly being re-cataloged and then sent back to the Headquarters Library in D.C. 

(now closed), where there is no room to house these resources. Other resources have 

been sent to Research Triangle Park or the National Environmental Publications 

Internet Site (NEPIS) in Cincinnati where they are slowly being digitized. 

Further, the library community is troubled by the ‘‘dispersing’’ of materials from 

the closed regional libraries and the OPPTS library here in Washington, D.C. What 

this ‘‘dispersement’’ entails isn’t exactly clear at this point and what concerns us is 

how this information will be handled, and therefore what type of long-term damage 

has been done to the effectiveness of EPA and the ability of the American public 

to find important environmental and government information. 

Unfortunately, there continues to be a lot that we don’t know: exactly what materials are being shipped around the country, whether there are duplicate materials 
198 

in other EPA libraries, whether these items have been or will be digitized, and 

whether a record is being kept of what is being dispersed and what is being discarded. We remain concerned that years of research and studies about the environment may be lost forever. 

Will digital documents be listed in the Online Computer Library Center (OCLC), 

a national database of the library holdings of more than 41,555 libraries in 112 

countries, making them available to other research institutions? Is there metadata 

or cataloguing being created to ensure that digital documents can be easily located 

on the web? What will happen to the OCLC holdings of the closed libraries? How 

are ‘‘help desks’’ and other ‘‘library’’ functions being organized so that trained professionals are available to help the users of the EPA library and information services? 

While we thank EPA for sending six staff members to our January conference in 

Seattle to address question on the status of the EPA library network, none of the 

concerns I have mentioned were adequately addressed. 

The EPA representatives that attended the ALA conference in Seattle talked 

about creating a premier digital library for the 21st century and making content 

from the EPA libraries available to the general public as well as to EPA scientists. 

To do that, the EPA will need a web-enabled Digital Asset Management system, 

which can not only display the full range of digital resources that are being converted but also the digital resources of the future: audio, video, simulations, etc. 

Digital Asset Management systems, or DAMs, provide the public with tools to locate 

and display digital resources, but these systems can also allow the EPA to provide 

access to authorized users. For example, if there is a publication that contractually 

can only be viewed by the EPA scientists, the EPA could digitize it, put it in the 

database, make the metadata searchable, but only allow it to be viewed by those 

authorized to view it. The DAM controls all of that through its authentication system. 

Preservation of the digital assets is also very important. There are already many 

stories of digitized collections that have been saved on CDs, and when organizations 

have tried to access them the content is not viewable. CDs and DVDs are fine transport media, but no longer are they considered the best practice for preservation. 

Networked storage, both onsite and off site, is the current best practice. Best practice also calls for keeping two to three physical copies, along with the digital copy. 

This recent experience with EPA underscores the need for the Executive Branch 

to develop and implement effective and consistent approaches for how government 

agencies undertake digitization of and access to government records and publications. The process needs to be coherent and user-focused. The Government is the 

largest producer of information, and the information it produces is vital to public 

health and safety. As a consequence, it is critically important that instead of a growing patchwork of Agency programs emerging—which may fail to satisfy user information needs—that we put in place, effective and efficient public access programs 

to reap the benefits of the digital environment. 

Without more detailed information about the EPA’s digitization project, we cannot 

assess whether they are digitizing the most appropriate materials, whether there 

is appropriate metadata or cataloging to make sure that people can access the 

digitized materials, and that the technology that will be used to host the digital content and the finding software meets today’s standards. In the age of digital media 

it has become easier and easier for information to simply get lost in the shuffle, and 

there is no way of knowing if that’s the case here. 

The details mean a lot. Certainly, not all parts of each EPA library collection can 

be digitized; they probably have some materials that are copyrighted, for example. 

But there is so much specialized and unique material—including reports already 

paid for by taxpayers—and we do not know if these are part of the digitization 

projects. Further, we do not know about how their maps or other specialized formats 

have faired, formats that are very difficult and time-consuming to digitize. 

In their haste to close down libraries and meet a fiscal deadline without a clear 

plan, EPA has created arbitrarily established deadlines. We continue to hear allegations from former and current EPA staff, that do not wish to be identified, that hundreds of valuable journals and books may have been destroyed. These staff members 

are concerned that materials that are unique to EPA (and in some cases exist nowhere else in the world) are no longer available. 

EPA also claims to have been following ALA guidelines in its reorganization of 

holdings. In fact, as far as we can tell, that meant visiting the ALA Web site and 

using our very general guidelines about ‘‘weeding’’ library collections. Weeding is the 

process of periodically removing materials from a library’s collection. Materials that 

are ‘‘deselected’’ are out of date, in poor condition or if there are multiple copies 
199 

available. The weeding standards were never intended for application in a digital 

environment. 

While EPA did in fact meet with ALA staff in April and December of 2006 to discuss this issue, it failed to act upon the advice that came as a result of these meetings. As previously mentioned, to its credit, EPA also sent six staff members to 

ALA’s Midwinter meeting in Seattle a few weeks ago to answer questions from ALA 

members. Even still, there remains a lack of clarity as to what EPA’s plans are for 

its library network. But of course, we would be pleased to provide advice on the 

digitization plans for the EPA network of libraries. 

We have a deep concern with limitations these closings would place on the public’s 

access to EPA library holdings and the public’s ‘‘right to know.’’ 

As one recently retired EPA librarian described it, the EPA libraries have been 

functioning like a virtual National Library on the Environment. (Indeed, the EPA 

was at one time a leader in providing public access to critical information in their 

collections.) The ‘‘virtual’’ national EPA library system functioned as a type of single 

national system. Because of its networking (both technical and human) and interlibrary loan and mutual reference services, users in any EPA library had access to 

the collections at all other sites. This type of structure is generally very cost-effective and provides wide public access for staff and for the public. 

Now that some of these regional libraries and the pesticide library are closed, key 

links have been removed from the chain, thus weakening the whole system, not just 

for those users closest to the closed facilities. Where will people look for information 

about their drinking water? Or which pesticides are safe for their grass? Or how 

much pollution is in the air of their hometown? These issues are of the utmost importance; our national health and safety depend on them! 

ALA understands that we are living in the 21st century, an age when users can 

access much of what they need from their own desk. In the digital environment the 

librarian’s role is changing. We also understand how complicated and costly the 

move to digitization can be. But the bottom line is that libraries still need skilled 

professionals to (a) assist users, (b) organize Internet access, and (c) determine the 

best way to make the information available to those users. When searching the EPA 

site, one retrieves thousands of hits for a topic such as ‘‘water.’’ When qualifying 

the search by a date range the results include items outside that date range. The 

user will wonder about the veracity of the data and will need the assistance of the 

librarian. 

Additionally, the librarians are needed to design the interfaces; with the web you 

can design interfaces for the scientists, interfaces for teachers and students, and 

interfaces for the general public. Librarians are also needed to manage the digital 

objects, understand how new media must be managed; for example, when audio collections need to be converted what are the user needs, what standards are to be 

used, and how should they be preserved. The same goes for video and emerging formats. 

Further, there are still traditional library users out there. Not everyone does their 

searching via web-based search engines. Many would still rather put their trust in 

the hands of a knowledgeable library professional, someone who knows the materials inside and out. It has been argued that the time of librarians is vanishing with 

the rise of the Internet, but this is a case in point where that is just not so. The 

EPA’s environmental holdings are vast and dense, and a simple search engine just 

isn’t enough. With the loss of the brick-and-mortar facilities comes the loss of the 

most important asset in the library: the librarian. After all, what good is information if you can’t find it? 

The future, it seems, calls for a hybrid, where not every single item or service is 

online, nor is everything confined to a physical structure. The backbone of it all is 

a profession of skilled, knowledgeable, and, most importantly, helpful information 

specialists: librarians. 

In closing: 

ALA asks that this Committee request EPA: (a) Halt all library closures; (b) Discuss a plan with stakeholders on how best to meet user needs and plan for the future; (c) Base any actions upon these users’ needs; (d) Stop dispersing and dumping 

of any of their library materials immediately; (e) Stabilize and inventory the collections that have been put in storage; (f) Develop and implement a government-wide 

process to assist agencies designing effective digitization programs; and (g) Reestablish library professionals—inherently governmental library professionals. 

Further, we would ask for library specialists to assist in any investigations, such 

as that conducted by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) study, or other 

inquiries, as to what is happening to these materials. Those EPA staff who are willing to talk (or retired and not at risk) tell us that these materials are being at best 

dispersed and, at worst, discarded. Also, and just as importantly, without trained 
200 

librarians, users are having a very difficult time accessing what does remain of the 

EPA library system. 

We appreciate your responsiveness and look forward to determining how we can 

save these collections, stabilize the library services for users and understand how 

best to maximize access for staff, scientists, and the public at large to important environmental information. 

Thank you again for this opportunity to speak on behalf of the American Library 

Association, and I am happy to take any questions from the Committee. 

RESPONSES BY LESLIE BURGER TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BOXER

Question 1. You testified on behalf of the American Library Association, the Association of Research Libraries and the American Association of Law Libraries. A 

number of other statements from library associations were also submitted into the 

hearing record, including from the U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, Special Libraries Association, Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, and the Medical Library Association and Association of Academic Health Sciences Libraries. Are there other groups or associations that you 

know of who have objected to the Agency’s closure and reduction of service at its 

libraries? Please provide evidence that such groups object to EPA’s actions. 

Response. We are aware of the following additional groups that have raised concerns or objections to the dismantling of the EPA Library Network and have attached their respective resolutions, letters, or statements concerning EPA: the 

American Society of Environmental History (an organization of 1,500 environmental 

scholars and educators); the EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance; Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (representing 16 local 

unions including approximately 10,000 EPA scientists, engineers, environmental 

protection specialists and support staff); the Society of Environmental Journalists; 

and the Union of Concerned Scientists (an alliance of more than 200,000 citizens 

and scientists). 

Question 2. Please describe the steps that your organization recommends to take 

prior to closing down a library or digitizing a library’s holding. 

Response. Before undertaking these actions, an organization should develop a 

thoughtful and comprehensive plan to ensure information is not lost and stakeholder access is retained. If the goal is to digitize, that should occur within a framework that ensures continuity of access and service which generally means that 

digitization take place prior to removing physical access to materials. Most libraries 

use digitization as a means to increase and enhance access, not to replace physical 

access. If physical access to a collection will be closed or removed, stakeholder input 

must be sought to determine if and how their needs can be met in the digital environment, as well as the most appropriate method of online reference to facilitate access in the new environment. 

The ALA promotes library best practices and standards that have been developed, 

employed, and improved by its membership since the organization’s founding in 

1876. While there is not one standard for digitizing collections, there are several 

that have been accepted by the library community to promote access to information 

among all types of libraries, information-related organizations, and government 

agencies. The standards used by libraries to create these digital resources are international and national standards, created by librarians, archivists, museum professionals, and representatives from the photographic and audio industry, public broadcasting, and computer industry. 

Preliminary stages of a digitization plan involve consideration of current and future stakeholder needs. Digital content must be created in a fashion such that it 

will be usable 25 and 50 years from now. This involves capturing catalog information, or what libraries call metadata, about the digital resource so that the digital 

object can be found now and in the future, and information on how it was originally 

created is available if the object must be recreated. Therefore, the type of camera 

or scanner that was used to create the image must be captured. Copyright information and who has the right to use the object, as well as title, author, keywords, subject classifications, and other identifying factors are included in the metadata. 

Scanning materials is only one aspect of digitizing collections; there must also be 

an appropriate system to manage the digital assets such as a web-enabled digital 

asset management system or DAM, that provides the public with a way to locate 

the digital resources, display the resource, and can also allow control over what 

users access. For example, if there is a publication that contractually can only be 

viewed by the EPA scientists, the EPA could digitize it, store it in the database, 

make the metadata searchable, but allow it to be viewed only by those authorized. 
201 

In the digital environment, the importance of a quality system for access and management of these digital resources is critical. 

Another significant consideration in a digitization project is preservation of the 

digital asset. There are already many cases of digitized collections that have been 

saved on CDs, and when organizations have tried to view them the content was not 

viewable. CDs and DVDs are fine transport media, but no longer are they considered the best practice for preservation. Networked storage, both on-site copies and 

off-site copies, is the current best practice. Best practice also calls for keeping two 

to three physical copies, along with the digital copy. 

RESPONSES BY LESLIE BURGER TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR INHOFE

Question 1a. EPA has reported and your testimony has confirmed that EPA has 

met with representatives of the American Library Association on three separate occasions to discuss its library modernization plans. In April 2006, EPA reported that 

ALA requested a meeting to initially discuss EPA’s proposed plans. EPA requested 

a subsequent meeting with ALA in December 2006 in order to be responsive to 

ALA’s initial concerns. Six EPA staff members from the Office of Environmental Information and the EPA Research Triangle Park Center in North Carolina made 

presentations and answered questions from at least six separate committee meetings over three days at the ALA conference held in Seattle, Washington in January 

2007. Please explain how this ongoing dialog with EPA officials and accessibility to 

officials conducting the modernization process has been insufficient. 

Response. That a ‘‘dialog’’ occurred between the EPA and the ALA is a 

mischaracterization, implying a two-way conversation or exchange. The meetings 

referenced above mostly involved the EPA updating the library community on what 

they plan to do and/or had already begun to do after an outcry from our community 

and EPA stakeholders. While we were given an opportunity to voice our concerns, 

there has been no indication that the EPA considered them or planned to address 

them. The questions and concerns we have had from the beginning still remain even 

after all of the meetings referenced above. 

Our concern from the beginning remains that the EPA began closing libraries 

without a thoughtful, comprehensive plan, resulting in the loss of access to critical 

environmental information by the EPA staff and the public. They dismantled a valuable and unique Federal network of libraries built over decades by taxpayers in an 

inefficient and ineffective way that may result in permanent loss of information and 

taxpayer resources. Originally, the EPA claimed the closings were due to budget 

cuts. However, once it was brought to their attention that in most cases digitization 

is very complex and expensive process (which reflects their gross lack of planning 

and direction), the EPA changed their story and instead stated they were ‘‘modernizing’’ to reach a broader audience. Yet, they were unable to produce any budget or 

source from where the money would come for this ‘‘modernization’’ or an adequate 

plan. Decisions were made with what appeared to be little consultation with stakeholders or understanding of how the libraries contribute to the EPA’s overall mission. 

Question 1b. What specific concerns remain after these series of meetings? 

Response. Specific concerns, from what little plans we have seen, are that even 

the most basic items such as the number of documents to be digitized, timeframes, 

or the amount and source of funding in order to carry this modernization plan out 

remain missing. How are ‘‘help desks’’ and other ‘‘library’’ functions being organized 

so that trained professionals are available to help the end users of the EPA library 

and information services? Is there a record that reflects all of the materials being 

shipped across the country to be digitized, dispersed, and discarded? We remain concerned that years of research and studies about the environment may be lost forever. The EPA must have a plan that specifically addresses all of the requirements/ 

standards that libraries, museums, and other Federal Agencies address prior to 

digitizing (even small-scale projects) and removing physical access. These requirements (including metadata, digital asset management, and preservation) are addressed in the response to Senator Boxer’s second question and Senator Inhofe’s second question. 

To the best of our knowledge, the EPA has never reached out to the enormous 

amount of Federal resources that could have provided guidance on library processes/ 

standards concerning digitization including the Government Printing Office, the 

U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, and the Federal 

Library Information Network (FEDLINK). 
202 

Question 2. Please provide copies of guidelines that ALA has produced to assist 

its member libraries including guidelines for weeding collections, modernizing library services, and digitizing information for enhanced public accessibility. 

Response. The ALA promotes library best practices and standards that have been 

developed, employed, and improved by its membership since the organization’s 

founding in 1876. 

Concerning weeding collections, the ALA has various articles and bibliographies 

on this topic produced by members at libraries throughout the country. In the EPA’s 

current situation, the use of ‘‘weeding’’ to describe the massive library transition is 

misleading at the very least. Weeding is the process of periodically removing materials from a library’s collection that are out of date, in poor condition, or in multiple 

copies. In December 2006, the EPA stated they were adhering to the ALA’s guidelines for weeding. No such item exists, but rather the EPA appears to have accessed 

(from our Web site) the ALA’s ‘‘Fact Sheet Number 15: Weeding Library Collections: 

A Selected Annotated Bibliography for Library Collection Evaluation.’’ As the title 

states, this fact sheet is a bibliography of documents concerning the practice of 

weeding. [After several requests, the EPA finally removed from their Web site the 

incorrect reference to ‘‘the EPA adhering to ALA’s guidelines and criteria for reviewing a library collection.’’] 

Regarding modernization, which generally refers to digitization to enhance access 

to materials, not replace access, there is not one standard for digitizing collections, 

but several that have been accepted by the library community to promote access to 

information among all types of libraries, information-related organizations, and government agencies. The standards used by libraries to create these digital resources 

are international and national standards, created by librarians, archivists, museum 

professionals, and representatives from the photographic and audio industry, public 

broadcasting, and computer industry. 

Preliminary stages of a digitization plan involve consideration of current and future stakeholder needs. Digital content must be created in a fashion such that it 

will be usable 25 and 50 years from now. This involves capturing catalog information, or what libraries call metadata, about the digital resource so that the digital 

object can be found now and in the future, and information on how it was originally 

created is available if the object must be recreated. Therefore, the type of camera 

or scanner that was used to create the image must be captured. Copyright information and who has the right to use the object, as well as title, author, keywords, subject classifications, and other identifying factors are included in the metadata. 

Scanning materials is only one aspect of digitizing collections; there must also be 

an appropriate system to manage the digital assets such as a web-enabled digital 

asset management system or DAM, that provides the public with a way to locate 

the digital resources, display the resource, and can also allow control over what 

users access. For example, if there is a publication that contractually can only be 

viewed by the EPA scientists, the EPA could digitize it, store it in the database, 

make the metadata searchable, but allow it to be viewed only by those authorized. 

In the digital environment, the importance of a quality system for access and management of these digital resources is critical. 

Another significant consideration in a digitization project is preservation of the 

digital asset. There are already many cases of digitized collections that have been 

saved on CDs and when organizations have tried to view them, the content was not 

viewable. CDs and DVDs are fine transport media, but no longer are they considered the best practice for preservation. Networked storage, both on-site copies and 

off-site copies is the current best practice. Best practice also calls for keeping two 

to three physical copies, along with the digital copy. 

Question 3. In 1999, when Secretary of Commerce William Daley proposed closing 

the National Technical Information Service (NTIS) library, he stated that sound 

management dictates we recognized the technologically advanced environment we 

live in. Did the ALA oppose this closure and suggest that the Clinton administration 

did not have a commitment to access of information for taking this action? 

Response. In 1999, Congress held hearings on the proposed closing during which 

a witness testified on behalf of the American Library Association, along with the 

American Association of Law Libraries, the Association of Research Libraries, the 

Medical Library Association, and the Special Libraries Association, in opposition to 

the closing. As the issue evolved, the ALA did not make any accusations, but instead recommended, similar to the EPA libraries closings, that there should be a 

thoughtful and systematic approach to the closing and a determination of how NTIS 

will retain its important functions and permanent public access. Eventually, the 

ALA recommended that if NTIS was going to be transferred to another Agency that 

the GPO would provide the best possible home. 
203 

Question 4. In 1998, when EPA Administrator Carol Browner closed EPA’s Public 

Information Center in Washington, D.C. and consolidated those functions into the 

EPA Headquarters Library, did the ALA oppose that Clinton administration action? 

Response. It has historically been ALA’s position that when there is a proposal 

to close, transfer, or down-size a Federal library, information service, or component, 

that a proper assessment be conducted to ensure the proposed change is a responsible use of taxpayers resources and that a systematic approach and an appropriate 

plan be in place that will ensure stakeholders needs are met and the mission of the 

institution will not be endangered. 

Question 5a. The ‘‘Washington Post’’ featured an article on January 2, 2007 entitled, ‘‘Hello, Grisham—So Long, Hemingway?’’ It described the modernization process the Fairfax County Public Library has recently taken. The article stated, ‘‘In 

Fairfax, thousands of titles have been pulled from the shelves and become eligible 

for book sales.’’ The article also featured a quote from you saying, ‘‘I think the days 

of libraries saying, ‘We must have that, because it’s good for people,’ are beyond us.’’ 

How do you reconcile your quote defending the weeding of thousands of books at 

the Fairfax Public Library and your criticism of EPA’s for wedding its collection and 

dispersing its material among its library system, universities, and other environmental libraries throughout the country? 

Response. What my quote is referring to in the above-referenced article is that 

with newer technologies, careful evaluation and planning, and stakeholder input, libraries are better able to track and understand what users want and can be more 

strategic and efficient in meeting these needs through a combination of physical and 

digital access. The EPA’s actions have not reflected stakeholder input, careful evaluation and planning, or investment in proper technologies. 

Significant differences exist between the Fairfax County Public Library System 

and the EPA Library Network that make them difficult to compare. First, the Fairfax County Public Library System is not a Federal system. If items are removed 

from one library within the system, copies are most likely available at one of the 

nearby 21 branch locations, and services such as reference and inter-library loan are 

well established. Also, because it is one region, librarians in the various branches 

will not have collections that vary greatly and require extensive knowledge of that 

particular collection. The EPA library system operated like a National Library on 

the Environment and each regional library had its particular collection strengths, 

as well as information professionals that were familiar with their respective regional 

collections and their constituents and information needs. Now that several of the 

regionals and the pesticide library are closed, key links have been removed from the 

chain, thus weakening the whole system. 

Second, in a public library, stakeholder needs involve popular materials—the EPA 

Library Network includes specialized and complex current and historical resources 

that are not subject to popularity necessarily and continuous access to them affects 

public safety and our natural resources. Waiting a week or so for a Eugene O’Neill 

play that has been removed from the shelves will have less consequences than not 

being able to access historical reports on soil toxin levels in a rural Kansas county. 

Also, Fairfax County conducted a significant stakeholder study to track and understand what their stakeholders were using prior to removal of materials, some of 

which have been put in storage, not discarded. Third, the Fairfax County Public 

System has one of the most sophisticated tracking systems in the country. As ALA 

has pointed out, the EPA access system (NEPIS) is very outdated. With fewer information professionals and libraries, the quality technology systems are critical. Finally, the Fairfax County Public Library system had a well-planned process for 

digitizing, in which library best practices and standards were followed ensuring continuity of access, and proper digital preservation and access methods. For all of 

these critical areas, EPA did not have a proper plan in place prior to closing libraries. 

Question 5b. In a letter to the editor appearing in the Washington Post January 

10, 2007, in a response to the article appearing January 2, the director of the Fairfax County Public Library wrote, ‘‘we use industry standards, computer date, and 

the expertise of experienced librarians to offer a comprehensive collection.’’ What 

specific deficiencies exist in EPA’s system that hinder users’ access to its collection? 

Response. From the limited information we have received from the EPA regarding 

their plans, we have identified some deficiencies that will hinder users’ access: 

EPA’s National Environmental Publications Internet Site (NEPIS) system is outdated and inadequate. As previously mentioned, removing physical access and creating a digital library requires investment in proper technology and systems as well 

as qualified information professionals. When searching the EPA site, one retrieves 

thousands of hits for a topic such as ‘water.’ When qualifying the search by a date 
204 

range, the results include items outside that date range. The user will wonder about 

the veracity of the data and will need the assistance of the librarian. NEPIS will 

not provide a usable front end for a virtual library, nor is it a good digital repository. ALA has tried to dissuade EPA from building on the antiquated NEPIS system. We have recommended EPA move to a true digital asset management system 

that provides proper access to, as well as, preservation of, these objects. Also, the 

EPA database is broken into 5-year chunks that have to be searched separately— 

if EPA intends to develop a usable virtual library, they will need to address these 

outdated search methods. 

The ALA has repeatedly brought to the EPA’s attention the need for digitization 

standards, which remain missing. There is no indication of what standards are used 

for the capture of the digital image, except that it will be a TIFF and XML. If you 

are scanning text and photographs, different scanning requirements are necessary 

for each format. 

The EPA plans to scan materials for Optical Character Recognition (OCR), which 

presents many challenges for text searching because of low accuracy rates. 

The EPA has not appropriately addressed the application of metadata, which the 

ALA has also brought to the EPA’s attention on numerous occasions. The current 

plan lists only capturing the title, publication date, and content creation date. There 

is no mention of capturing authors or whether the item is part of a series. According 

to the plan, EPA is not capturing technical metadata, information on the creation 

of the digital object, including at what resolution it was captured, what machine it 

was created on, or software that is used. Administrative metadata, such as copyright management or use information, is not being captured as well. Technical 

metadata will be necessary for the preservation of the digital object. All of this is 

needed for access now and into the future as technology evolves. 

Finally, there is little discussion of preservation in the plan that will affect future 

users’ needs as well as current, in case of a disaster for example. What happens 

with the CD/DVD versions of the documents—either the original TIFFs or the OCR 

version? Both require a strategy for preservation after they have been loaded into 

the online system NEPIS. 

Question 6. As director of the Princeton Public Library, I understand that you recently renovated that library. Were any books, copies of books, or other publications 

removed, recycled, or destroyed? If so, will you provide the Committee with a list 

of those removed or destroyed publications? 

Response. Yes, we did remove, recycle and discard material when we moved our 

library, but only after careful analysis pertaining to how our collection was being 

used and what our community was asking us for as well as what type of collection 

we wanted to have in place for our new library. 

Using our online library system, we were able to determine for each title in our 

collection how often it had been checked out since it had been added to the library 

and the last time it had been checked out. We took that list and qualified librarians 

then went to the shelves to look at each title and make a determination about 

whether the book needed to be retained because it contained useful information, replaced if it was in poor condition, or discarded because the information was outdated. Once a determination on each book was made, we took appropriate action to 

either add a new title with updated information, replace the title, or discard it. In 

some cases, where we had multiple copies of a title, we sent the duplicate to an organization that recycled the books to libraries in developing nations. We discarded 

approximately 25,000 titles during our two moves. Each of our actions was deliberate and thorough. It is worth noting that the Princeton Public Library collection 

is more akin to that of the Fairfax County Library System, in that our collection 

is general in nature and not a research or historical archive like the EPA network 

of libraries. 

Question 7a. Please provide a description of the weeding process used at the 

Princeton Public Library. How often does the Princeton Public Library weed its collection? 

Response. We continuously weed our collection. Each of our librarians is assigned 

a subject area in the Dewey Decimal Classification which they are responsible for 

keeping up to date. We ‘‘weed’’ about 4,000 items per year and add about 9,000 

items per year. 

Question 7b. Are publications removed, recycled, or destroyed during the weeding 

process? 

Response. The people who use public libraries are seeking continuously refreshed 

collections that reflect popular culture and preserve the ‘‘best’’ of literature and nonfiction over a period of time. As a small community library, we do not have the 

space or the mission to warehouse collections. 
205 

Question 7c. How does Princeton Public Library’s weeding process conform with 

ALA guidelines? Are ALA guidelines strictly followed or does the Princeton Public 

Library have procedures specifically tailed for its library? 

Response. We use the ALA weeding bibliographies as well as our own local guidelines to make decisions on weeding. 

Question 7d. What steps has the Princeton Public Library taken to make more 

information available on-line concerning its collection or services? 

Response. We are not engaged in a mass digitization project because we have few 

unique resources. Our Web site, www.princetonlibrary.org, promotes and leads people to our collections, both print and online subscriptions, based on their interest 

areas. 

Question 8a. Libraries all over the country are reducing their physical services. 

For example, the New York Public Library used to be open 7 days a week and now 

it is closed on Sundays and Mondays. The Library of Congress has reduced its 

hours. Over 100 physical libraries are set to close in Great Britain this year because 

people are able to do their research on the Internet. As you testified, libraries have 

been digitizing information for the past 20 years. However, in a December opinion 

editorial for the New York Times and in your testimony you stated that by closing 

brick and mortar facilities the most important issue is the possible loss of librarians. 

Would it be accurate to characterize your criticism is not a loss of information but 

the possible loss or reassignment of a librarians’ jobs? 

Response. In the EPA Library Network, as in many libraries, the librarians are 

a key component to the stakeholders accessing information. In the way the EPA network was established, each regional library provided specialized information, and 

the librarians, who are familiar with the labyrinth of resources, can navigate the 

systems to identify and access items in an efficient and accurate manner. Stakeholders, including scientists, businesses, lawyers, and the general public need specific information quickly and have stated that the librarians are integral to their 

work at the EPA. Librarians are familiar with regional library constituents and 

their information needs and help provide solutions, provide alternative resources, 

and identify others who have similar situations. In addition, the librarians are familiar with the EPA Agency—its organization, operations, major initiatives, and 

how staff produces and seeks information. 

It is an unfortunate misperception that because information is available online 

that everyone can locate and interpret it. Librarians as information professionals 

have actually become more valuable as humans are creating more information, seeking more information, and storing more information in massive and complex systems that require knowledge of specific taxonomies, subject classifications, human 

information-seeking behavior, and evolving technologies. 

While libraries are reducing physical services, they are also increasing digital 

services including online reference services managed by libraries. These modernizing and digitization projects are planned, developed, and conducted by librarians 

who manage the digital objects and understand how new media must be managed. 

For example, how and when current collections in audio or video need to be converted. In an era in which we are producing larger and larger amounts of data each 

year and enhancing library collections by digitization, information professionals are 

needed more than ever. 

Therefore, it would be accurate to characterize my criticism as having to do with 

the great loss of expertise, knowledge, and proper management of resources at the 

regional libraries and how removing librarians and closing libraries has weakened 

the overall EPA library network, reduced access to resources by EPA staff, scientists, and the general public, and will negatively impact the EPA’s ability to fulfill 

of their mission to protect human health and the environment. 

Question 8b. Are you aware of any Federal employees who lost their jobs as a result of EPA’s library modernization process? 

Response. Since the EPA has contracted out library services since the mid 1980s, 

there have been very few Federal staff hired to work specifically on library services; 

therefore, we are not aware of any Federal employees who lost their jobs as a result 

of the EPA’s library modernization process. This makes one wonder had the staff 

been Federal employees rather than contractors would the library closures have 

been handled differently? Qualified librarians would have helped to ensure the library modernization process accomplish its goals. EPA has classified jobs so that 

staff is not required to have a professional/graduate degree in library or information 

science which is a requirement for librarians in school, public, academic, and corporate libraries. 
206 

Question 9. Please provide examples of any information held in EPA libraries that 

you know does not continue to be available to the public online, through interlibrary 

loan, or otherwise upon the request of EPA employees or the public. 

Response. To the best of our knowledge, materials that were held in the four 

closed EPA Libraries (Chicago, Kansas City, Dallas, and the Chemical Library in 

Washington, DC) have not all been transferred and made available through an EPA 

repository collection. These materials include commercially published documents 

that were collected for specific purposed by those libraries over the last 37 years. 

Materials may have had specifically local interest (e.g. Environmental Impact Statements for particular sites) or may have been used to support specific policy decisions 

in that Region or Program. While these materials are not ‘‘Unique EPA documents,’’ 

and while most of the materials may generally be available through Interlibrary 

Loan from other institutions, their removal from access by the public and EPA staff 

is still significant. The purchase and maintenance of these collections represents a 

significant investment by the Agency over the last four decades, and the wholesale 

removal of these collections reflects a general disregard for the value of libraries and 

collections to the work of the Agency. 

The EPA Headquarters Library collection of both unique and non-unique documents remains available as a repository collection. However, we believe, that there 

are significant materials that while stored in that collection, are not listed in the 

Online Library System and are therefore impossible for the public or EPA staff to 

access or request. Specifically, the entire EPA History Office collection was transferred to the Headquarters Library in 2006, but no effort to catalog or list those materials was undertaken and finding aids were removed from the History Office Web 

site. Likewise, significant international collections from the closed INFOTERRA collection remain available in the EPA Headquarters Library, but are not cataloged or 

listed for either the public or EPA staff to identify or request. 

Library materials held in the closed EPA OPPTS Chemical Library that were not 

sent to other EPA libraries nor lost through the recycling dumpsters are boxed up 

and are not readily available to the public or to EPA staff. 

Anything that is boxed up anywhere in the Library Network is subject to the moratorium and again, to the best of our knowledge, is not being shown in OLS as being 

in a different location. In other words, those items are not being re-cataloged to 

show their new locations. How accessible are these materials stored in boxes off-site 

without an accurate record locator map? 

Items held by the libraries that are not cataloged (and thus not shown in OLS 

or OCLC) are not really accessible to the public unless library staff physically check 

the shelves to see if it can be found. The public has no way of knowing about the 

uncataloged materials unless they call and specifically ask about a title (and usually 

they need complete citations with EPA publication numbers). 
207 
208 
209 
210 
211 
212 
213 
214 
215 
216 
217 
218 
219 
220 
221 
222 
223 
224 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Ms. Burger. 

Mr. Connery, as I understand it, you are a lawyer in private 

practice, Holland and Hart in Denver, is that correct? 

Mr. CONNERY. I am actually retired. 

Senator BOXER. A retired attorney. 

Mr. CONNERY. Retired from Holland and Hart, and I am not here 

representing anybody other than myself. 

Senator BOXER. You are here representing yourself as a citizen 

of the United States of America. 

Mr. CONNERY. Yes. 

Senator BOXER. Your experience in this is that you were a lawyer 

that handled—— 

Mr. CONNERY. I actually started my career by drafting the first 

law in the Country that instituted ambient standards in Colorado, 

put them into effect and required companies and everybody else, 

governments, to reduce their emissions to meet those standards. 

Senator BOXER. At that time you were in government? 

Mr. CONNERY. At that time, I was in private practice. Governor 

Love, a Republican, had appointed my law firm as counsel to a legislative study committee that included Republicans and Democrats. 

Senator BOXER. Very good. Thank you for giving us a little bit 

of that background. Please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT T. CONNERY, HOLLAND AND HART, 

DENVER, CO 

Mr. CONNERY. Let me just tell you that I am indeed deeply dedicated to the integrity of that process, and those standards. I think 

that they are the fulcrum, the central tenet, the reason for the success of the Clean Air Act. 

As you can tell from my written testimony, my viewpoint is a little bit different than everyone else’s here. I have set forth in that 

testimony an example of why I think the NAAQS review process 

is not working well, at least in the instances that I have had direct 

personal experience with it. I will spell one of those out. I don’t 

think it is serving the purpose it was intended to serve and has to 

serve. It has to serve as something that the public can trust, it has 

to reflect real health effects. 

In the case of the coarse particulate matter standard, the one I 

have been involved in, I do live in Denver, Colorado, I do live in 

the arid west. Senator Craig mentioned coarse particulate matter 

is a little bit different animal, it is dust, it is fugitive dust. That 

subject has been around for a long, long time. Fugitive dust has 

been excluded, starting with the Administrations of Presidents 

Nixon, Carter, Clinton, Ford, the first Bush, all of those have excluded rural fugitive dust. If you look at my testimony, I have 

quoted several of the scientists and the reasoning behind that. 

The first has been Ferris. Ben Ferris, and there is a board here 

that you can’t see that basically, he was with the Harvard School 

of Public Health and in charge of the largest and best study that 

has ever been done on coarse and fine particulate matter, 190,000 

data points, there is no other study that actually measured coarse 

particulate matter, and determined whether or not there were 

health effects at ambient levels. I should mention that we are not 

talking about control of this dust, we are talking about the inability 
225 

to control it to the same level as fine particulate matter that the 

standard was based on. 

He said that fugitive dust at levels measured in the ambient air 

in western and other parts of the United States over the years has 

never been documented to have adverse effects on human health. 

Most people know that who live around it. It is a darned nuisance, 

but it is not a health problem. 

When it got in front of CASAC, what did CASAC say about it? 

Well, I have quoted the past four chairmen under all these different Administrations. One of them said in this case, the science 

does not exist. The chairman under President Clinton, Phil Hopke, 

basically said that the Administration would have to decide based 

on considerations other than science. Mort Lippman said the same 

thing, that they were going to have to decide this not based on 

science, but based on practical considerations. 

I respect those views, and what happened in this case was that 

EPA, this Clean Air Science Advisory Committee, first recommended that there not be a coarse PM standard. That was the 

result of 7 years of hearings, criteria documents, staff papers. They 

came out and said we shouldn’t have a coarse PM standard, we 

should move to a fine standard. 

Well, in less than 2 weeks, that draft letter was reversed. They 

said regardless, and I have quoted their second letter, basically 

said regardless of that first conclusion, if we don’t have a standard, 

we won’t get data and we won’t have more studies. CASAC 

changed around and recommended a standard that would not apply 

in rural areas. EPA proposed that and the staff proposed that. 

In any case, the process, if you will, didn’t work. CASAC went 

underground. CASAC stopped keeping transcripts, even though the 

staff paper and the science it said it relied on said that there was 

no justification for a standard in rural areas or for this kind of 

dust, crustal material. They nevertheless adopted one. 

All I can tell you is the process for some reason is not working. 

I have several suggestions for you in the testimony. Essentially 

what EPA and the people who advocate this standard have said is 

that even though there is weak, limited and uncertain evidence, 

maybe not against the weight of the evidence, but that that evidence that may apply in some urban areas, there is no evidence 

that it doesn’t apply in rural areas. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Connery follows:] 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT T. CONNERY, HOLLAND AND HART, DENVER, CO 

My qualifications for being invited to talk with you today about reform of the 

process for adoption of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (‘‘NAAQS’’) 

under the Clean Air Act have to do with my involvement in the birth of the concept 

and use of ambient air quality standards for air pollution control purposes in the 

Colorado Air Pollution Control Act of 1966, 1966 Colo. Sess. Laws at pp. 210, 212– 

213. My law firm was counsel to the Colorado General Assembly’s Legislative Study 

Committee that formulated that law. Senator Edmund S. Muskie held hearings on 

Colorado’s ambient standards approach in the late 1960s in Denver, and Congress 

adopted it in the Clean Air Act of 1970. 

I also served as Chair of the Air Quality Committee of the American Bar Association’s Section on Environment, Energy and Resources for several years. I have authored the Air Quality Chapter of one of the few peer-reviewed legal treatises on 

the subject, have taught at United States Forest Service environmental impact 
226 

courses, and most recently taught Advanced Environmental Policy at the University 

of Colorado Law School at Boulder. 

I have also participated in the NAAQS process at the Federal level for more than 

35 years, representing individual companies and national trade associations, such 

as the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and the National Mining Association, 

and have represented a host of private companies, public entities, including the 

Denver Regional Council of Governments, and environmental groups on air quality 

and other environmental compliance, planning and enforcement issues. I am now 

retired, and emphasize that I am not here on behalf of any client or interest. 

History and Purpose of the Ambient Standards.—The genesis of the ambient 

standards was the need to delineate areas in which air pollution was a problem, and 

areas where it was not. There was a severe air pollution problem in Denver and 

a few other locales within the State, but not in most of the rural areas of the State. 

The inability to distinguish the areas where action was needed from those where 

it was not led to division between urban and rural areas, and repeated defeat of 

air pollution legislation year after year. 

The ambient air quality standards were developed to set threshold levels to protect public health and welfare. The generally urban areas where they were exceeded 

were monitored and designated. In areas where the standards were exceeded, controls to meet them went into effect. They established a boundary between significant 

adverse effects to health and welfare, and insignificant effects. 

Need for Reform of the NAAQS Process.— The NAAQS are the cornerstone of the 

Clean Air Act, and the reason for the success it has had to date. For more than 

25 years, the NAAQS Review Process functioned well, but in recent years it has, 

in the case of NAAQS I am most familiar with—that for Coarse Particulate Matter—lost its direction and wandered in a wilderness of scientific ‘‘uncertainty,’’ 

‘‘weakness,’’ ‘‘limitation’’ and inability to make judgments and to delineate the 

science in the useful terms the Clean Air Act requires, namely what is necessary 

to protect public health, with an adequate margin of safety, and welfare, neither 

more nor less. 

I submit to you that the NAAQS Review Process is, in my experience, broken— 

seriously broken. It is no longer serving the purpose for which it was intended. As 

I think almost any reasonable observer would agree, the EPA and its science advisers have clearly run amok in this process. The example of EPA’s review of the 

coarse PM NAAQS speaks, I think, for itself, and points the way to what needs to 

be done. 

AN EXAMPLE OF NAAQS REVIEW: REVIEW OF THE NAAQS FOR COARSE PM

The review of the NAAQS for coarse PM began shortly after the Court of Appeals 

for the District of Columbia vacated the coarse PM standard EPA had adopted in 

1997. The 24-hour coarse PM standard vacated by the Court was 150 μg/m3 of 

PM10, a measure the Court found fundamentally flawed because it did not treat separately fine (combustion-derived) PM and coarse (mechanically-divided earthen and 

other materials) PM, but lumped them together in a fashion that contained indeterminate amounts of these two separate, independently varying components of PM. 

On October 17, 2006, after several years and several drafts of thousands of pages 

of Criteria Documents and Staff Papers, and tens of meetings and a rulemaking, 

EPA has rushed back to the future and adopted the 1987 PM10 standard of 150 μg/ 

m3, virtually the same as the 1997 coarse PM10 standard the Court of Appeals vacated and remanded, but this time not as a fine and coarse standard but solely as 

a coarse standard. It did so based on a new rationale not considered or discussed 

in any of the thousands of pages of the draft Air Quality Criteria Documents, and 

years of hearings before CASAC on them, nor on the several drafts of the Staff 

paper, and years of hearings before CASAC on them, nor even in the proposed rule. 

It simply said it wasn’t changing anything, but had merely gone back to the 1987 

PM10 standard. 

What was the ‘‘science’’ on the 1987 PM10 standard? Did it relate to coarse PM, 

or as it is often called, ‘‘fugitive dust?’’ Here’s what the most eminent and qualified 

health scientist to address that subject had to say, in a letter he wrote on his own 

to the then Administrator of EPA: 

‘‘[F]ugitive dust at the levels measured in ambient air in the western and 

other parts of the United States over the years has never been documented to 

have had adverse effects on human health.’’ 

Benjamin G. Ferris, Jr., M.D., former member of CASAC, principal investigator 

in the Harvard Six-Cities Study, Professor at the Harvard School of Public Health, 

and nationally known expert in research on health effects of PM and other criteria 

pollutants (1984). Dr. Ferris was responding to health claims made in California 
227 

with respect to dust from deserts, and their potential health effects as carriers of 

‘‘biogens,’’ ‘‘pathogens’’ and ‘‘endotoxins,’’ as well as allegations of Valley Fever and 

assorted other respiratory ailments. Dr. Ferris had unique qualifications and experience for several decades, as a clinician, toxicologist, epidemiologist, clinician and nationally-respected researcher, whose Harvard Six Cities Study was one of the largest 

yet performed. 

And what did EPA’s CASAC’s PM Review Panel scientists have to say about the 

just-completed coarse PM NAAQS review? Here’s a sampling: 

1. ‘‘In this case, the apparent attempt is to provide the basis for a PM10–2.5 standard based on alleged associations with mortality and morbidity. In this case, the 

science does not exist.’’ CASAC letter to EPA Administrator Leavitt, August 16, 

2004 at B–28 to B–29, Individual Views of Dr. Roger O. McClellan, former Chair 

of CASAC. (Emphasis added.) And with respect to the PM10–2.5 indicator EPA proposed, Dr. McClellan stated: ‘‘I have concluded that in the absence of a scientific 

basis specifically for a PM10–2.5 indication, the choice of such an indicator would be 

arbitrary and capricious.’’ 

2. Dr. Petros Koutrakis of the Harvard School of Public Health: ‘‘The chapter [9 

of EPA’s summary of the science on coarse PM] tried to make a case for a coarse 

. . . standard, and the case was not there. . . . FORMER CHAIR OF CASAC, Dr. 

Philip K. Hopke: ‘‘Okay, but that comes across, and that’s a fair representation of 

the current state of the science . . . it’s going to be very difficult to build the case 

on the science alone for any particular coarse particle standard, . . .’’ Transcript of 

July 21, 2004 CASAC and PM Review Panel Meeting at 45–46. (Emphasis added.) 

3. Dr. Koutrakis: ‘‘I just am not satisfied that the information put forward here 

is really supportive of [a coarse particle standard].’’ DR. HOPKE: ‘‘But, I think it’s 

a fair reflection of the literature . . . . Now its up to [EPA] OAQPS then to decide, 

based on other considerations besides the science, as to the need for and the nature 

of the standard.’’ Id. (Emphasis added.) 

4. ‘‘It is my opinion that proposing a coarse PM standard is premature at this 

time.’’ 

Dr. Sverre Vedal, CASAC Member, Written critique of EPA Staff Paper presented 

at CASAC Nov. 2003 meeting. 

These candid statements by CASAC’s PM Review Panel may surprise some of you. 

When they became public, CASAC determined not to keep transcripts of its deliberations, and indeed resorted to non-public discussions of its reasoning and decisions. 

EPA Staff itself concluded that the science was too weak to do a risk assessment 

that would support any particular level or concentration of particulate matter: 

• ‘‘[EPA] staff has . . . considered the extent to which the PM10–2.5 risk assessment results . . . can help inform consideration of alternative 24-hour PM10–2.5

standards. . . . Staff has concluded that the nature and magnitude of the uncertainties and concerns associated with this portion of the risk assessment weigh 

against use of these risk estimates as a basis for recommending specific standard 

levels.’’ (Emphasis added.) 

• EPA Staff Paper at p. 5–69 

EPA Staff and CASAC likewise acknowledged that there was not adequate science 

to support a coarse PM standard in rural areas, and recommended that the coarse 

PM standard should not be applicable to such areas, but should instead be an 

Urban Particulate Matter PM10–2.5 standard (‘‘UPM10–2.5’’). 

Where, then, did the 150 μg/m3 24-hour concentration level come from? The answer is that it came from London, and from dominantly fine PM data, not coarse 

PM data. As EPA’s top science and policy staffer said in explaining where it came 

from: 

‘‘And this is the plot of the data from London that shows where the 150 came 

from . . . . [T]he number originally, at the lower bound of the range, came from the 

lower bound of the data that existed in London. It was British Smoke [a measure 

of combustion, fine PM ‘‘blackness, estimated at PM3.5–4.5]; it was not PM10.’’ 

Testimony of John Bachmann to CASAC, December 15, 1995, Tr. at p. 119. 

The pictures below show London during that episode. 
228 

The PM was dominantly fine PM from combustion, not coarse PM. It was a multiday stagnation event. The picture above is at midday. Here is a graphic showing 

the levels at which these effects from high levels of fine PM and SO2 were experienced. The fine PM, British Smoke averaged above 1,500 μg/m3 for several days. 
229 

By contrast, here’s what coarse PM looks like: 

Coarse PM, by definition, results from mechanical division of earthen and other 

materials. It falls out of the atmosphere over relatively short distances and periods 

of time. The London ‘‘150’’ data referred to occurred during an atmospheric stagnation event. Coarse PM levels typically reach high concentrations during high wind 

events. 
230 

What did CASAC conclude after all the thousands of pages of Criteria Documents 

and Staff Papers, tens of meetings and years of effort, as well as millions of dollars 

of EPA Staff time and effort? Here’s what CASAC’s May 2005 draft letter to the 

Administrator stated: 

‘‘. . . The [CASAC PM Review] Panel recommends that the setting of this [coarse 

PM] standard be set aside until further deliberations on the appropriate metric can 

be made.’’ 

I was present for that meeting, and I believe this statement fairly reflects the consensus of that meeting. However, a few weeks later, in its Final Letter, CASAC stated: 

‘‘Regardless, most of the Panel members felt that the evidence that exists supports a causal role for health effects for PM10–2.5. Moreover, setting this NAAQS 

would allow continuation and expansion of the PM10–2.5 monitoring network that 

would facilitate collection of data for future exposure assessment and epidemiological studies.’’ 

CASAC June 6, 2005 Letter. 

Did the science change? Did CASAC explain what changed its mind? Something 

extraordinary, and completely off the record, caused a complete reversal of the outcome of the public proceedings. I think that may be gleaned from the individual 

views expressed by several of CASAC’s members: 

‘‘Having a standard means that we’ll get a database, perhaps adequate in the next 

round but there’s hardly a basis for it being a very restrictive standard. So you 

know, practical considerations and not strictly based on scientific merit.’’ 

Dr. Mort Lippman, CASAC Transcript at 374 (Nov. 2003). (Emphasis added.) 

* * * * * * * 

‘‘Absent a standard for UPM10–2.5, the Agency does not have a basis for implementing a national monitoring network and obtaining data on concentrations of 

UPM10–2.5, that would . . . support the conduct of epidemiological research. Consequently, there is a need to either move forward on a relatively weak body of evidence or to overstate the strength of the evidence available. The Staff Paper appears 

to do both.’’ 

Comments of Dr. Jonathan Samet, Attachment D to CASAC Review of Final Staff 

Paper, at D–26. 

* * * * * * * 

‘‘I have never been convinced that EPA could find means other than setting a 

standard to get monitoring data. Setting a health-based NAAQS is a ‘heavy hammer’ to use to get monitoring data.’’ 

Comments of Dr. Roger McClellan, Attachment D to CASAC Review of Final Staff 

Paper at D–14. 

EPA’s top science and policy Staffer has put forward the same consideration: 

‘‘ . . . the number one recommendation will be we need significant additional research no matter what, no matter whether we set a standard or we do not set a 

standard. . . . ‘‘You be the judge of whether the folks who are likely to sponsor research . . . and EPA, remember, we are going to balance the budget in 7 years, so 

remember how much we are going to have. You may be the judge of how much new 

research will be done with and without a new standard. 

‘‘But that is not a reason to do a standard, frankly. 

Testimony of John Bachmann 

December 15, 1995, Tr. pp. 127–128. 

CONCLUSION OF THE COARSE PM NAAQS REVIEW PROCESS

In the end, EPA proposed an ‘‘urban’’ PM10–2.5 [an indicator that excluded fine PM 

from the coarse PM measured] standard at 70 μg/m3, excluding agriculture and 

mining, based on the ‘‘weak,’’ ‘‘uncertain,’’ ‘‘limited’’ urban evidence of coarse PM 

health effects at these concentrations. However, in the final rule, EPA said it was 

simply reverting to the 1987 PM10 standard, but adopted it as a coarse PM standard. 

What conclusions can be drawn from this example, and what reforms suggested? 

I submit that they are at least the following: 

• EPA Staff and its CASAC Science Advisers Have Recommended, and EPA Has 

Promulgated, a Coarse PM10 Standard for the purpose of obtaining data and funding 

further epidemiological studies. 

• EPA Staff and its Science Advisers Have Recommended a Coarse PM Standard 

at Concentrations Not Supported by evidence that a coarse PM10 24-hour standard 

at 150 μg/m3 is necessary to protect public health, and neither more nor less stringent than necessary to accomplish that purpose. 
231 

• It is difficult to characterize the coarse PM standard as based on science demonstrating that it is necessary to lower coarse PM concentration to the level of the 

standard. As one member of the CASAC PM Review Panel characterized the ‘‘consensus’’ view of the majority of that panel: 

‘‘I think ‘‘the vast majority’’ of my colleagues have reverted to a pre-scientific 

‘‘miasma theory’’ of disease causation, with UPM as the replacement for ‘‘foul 

and foetid odors.’’ If I raised my voice . . . And am lapsing into outrage here, 

it is because I want clearly to dissociate myself from what I consider a mistake 

of historic proportions. I don’t see how the indicators PM2.5 and UPM10–2.5 can both survive the inevitable legal challenges . . .’’ 

Dr. Warren H. White, Individual Views, Sept. 15, 2005. 

And, as Professor Frank Speizer of CASAC and the Harvard Medical School concluded at the end of the coarse PM NAAQS review process: 

‘‘Up front we need to admit that[UPM10–2.5] must be a relative term and set 

out some criteria for all of us to agree upon that make the measurement of interest first to go out and measure it and then to pay attention to the potential 

health related associations that might be found.’’ 

Dr. Frank Speizer, Individual Views, Sept. 15, 2005. 

I happen to agree with those views. The NAAQS review and adoption process 

needs to be reformed to provide clearly that health and welfare standards need to 

be adopted after specifying what needs to be measured, going out and measuring 

it and finding out whether there are effects, and then paying attention to the concentrations where there are effects. The process is very clearly not doing that at this 

point. 

WHAT SHOULD BE DONE?

The NAAQS review process needs to be opened up to free and fair dialogue. Transcripts need to be kept again. The process should be public and transparent. EPA 

and CASAC should make their decisions based on the weight of the evidence, and 

explain them, rather than simply hiding behind general statements that even 

though the evidence is ‘‘highly uncertain,’’ ‘‘weak’’ and ‘‘limited’’ they nonetheless require the adoption of NAAQS that says they are ‘‘necessary’’ to protect public 

health. 

Scientific review of proposed NAAQS should be by an independent scientific 

group, not one selected and connected to any group’s agenda, including any group 

within EPA, and surely not one whose members are directed and funded by EPA. 

NON-ENFORCEMENT OF HEALTH STANDARDS—A CONSEQUENCE OF ADOPTING NAAQS

NOT NECESSARY TO PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE

In closing I should mention that one of the most insidious and untoward consequences of adopting coarse PM10 standards for research and data purposes that 

are required by law to define levels at which the exposed public’s health will be adversely affected, but evidently, on their face, are not necessary for that purpose, is 

that neither EPA nor the scientists involved have any confidence that those effects 

in fact occur, or that the standard needs to be enforced. The result is that EPA has 

assured those whose emissions will result in violation of the standards that they 

need not be concerned about enforcement, stating that: 

‘‘In response to comments regarding potential impacts of any coarse particle 

standard on agricultural and mining sources, EPA notes that the NAAQS do not 

create emissions control obligations for individual sources or groups of sources. In 

this particular case, even if an individual source were shown to cause an exceedance 

of he 24-hour PM10 standard, this would not necessarily result in regulation of that 

source.’’ 

Final Coarse PM NAAQS Rule, 71 Fed. Reg. 61215 (October 17, 2006) (Emphasis 

added.) 

EPA’s Acting Administrator for Air wrote on October 17, 2006 to the State of 

Iowa’s air control Agency that ‘‘[t]he NAAQS themselves do not establish emission 

control obligations for individual sources or groups of sources.’’ While true in an immediate technical sense, the central purpose of the primary, health NAAQS is the 

Clean Air Act’s central requirement that States must adopt measures to meet them 

in order to protect public health. Every Administration from those of Presidents 

Carter and Reagan, to those of Bush and Clinton, have excluded rural fugitive dust 

from the PM NAAQS, because (1) that dust would exceed the PM NAAQS even after 

best management practices and controls were applied, (2) enforcement of the PM 

NAAQS against such sources would prohibit them due to their inability to comply, 
232 

and (3) the lack of substantial public health or welfare effects from such dusts at 

ambient levels. This is the first Administration that has proposed to exclude rural 

fugitive dusts from the PM NAAQS and then decided not to do so, and instead included those dusts in a new coarse PM standard based on weak, uncertain, limited 

evidence in a few urban areas, and none in rural areas. Why did it reverse its proposal? Because it had no evidence that its weak urban evidence did not apply to 

rural areas. That kind of specious, ‘‘double negative’’ reasoning and ‘‘science’’ is 

where the NAAQS process has taken us in the case of coarse PM. I would hope that 

you would agree that the NAAQS process is in need of reform. 
233 
234 
235 
236 
237 
238 
239 
240 
241 
242 
243 
244 
245 
246 
247 
248 
249 
250 
251 
252 
253 
254 
255 
256 

Senator BOXER. Just so we know where we are, and we are going 

to look forward to Ms. Klinefelter’s testimony, and for the benefit 

of Senator Whitehouse, if he would move up, Senator, could you 

move up a little bit closer? 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Will do. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. Because I may have to just run out for a second 

and have you take over. But where we are is, we called this hearing to look at various rollbacks. Where we are is that the lead 

standard is under review, so we are very hopeful that with Dr. 

Solomon’s expression of optimism that EPA will hear us and not 

roll back the lead standard, the testing. 

The libraries, the status is very bizarre. We are going to have to 

continue to monitor, we don’t know if they are destroying documents, what is going on. We are very concerned about that. 

The air toxics rule is a proposed rule. The final policy is to take 

the science out of the NAAQS process, which Mr. Connery, I think 

from your testimony, I think you support that. The rest of the 

panel so far, I don’t count Ms. Burger there, but the two doctors 

don’t. 

The perchlorate testing has ended. There is a Boxer-LautenbergFeinstein bill to start that up again. The Toxic Release Inventory, 

there has also been a final rule there. There is a Lautenberg bill 

coming shortly, I believe, to overturn that. 

So that just gives you a sense of where we are headed. Now we 

are going to hear from Ms. Klinefelter, who I think is going to 

speak from the standpoint of a small business, is that correct? 

Ms. KLINEFELTER. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator BOXER. Please, go ahead. 

STATEMENT OF NANCY KLINEFELTER, PRESIDENT, 

BALTIMORE GLASSWARE DECORATORS 

Ms. KLINEFELTER. My name is Nancy Klinefelter, and I am president of Baltimore Glassware Decorators. I am a past president of 

SGCD and a member of NFIB. 

The company was started in 1977, and we have 15 employees, including my mom and my dad, also two brothers that work there. 

We have no engineers on staff, let alone an environmental engineer, so TRI paperwork is my responsibility. We are a wholesale 

decorator. We custom imprint on mugs and glasses, and we may 

use lead-bearing enamels on the outside surfaces to achieve color 

and durability demanded by our customers. 

As a rule, unleaded enamels do not have the durability, gloss or 

color ranges that our customers require. These lead-free colors do 

not hold up well for abrasion or deterioration in dishwashers. It is 

very important to understand that the leaded colors become part 

of the glass after they are fired. Also, due to the cost of these colors, we use only what is needed. The rest goes back on the shelf. 

I am testifying today in support of EPA’s recent burden reduction 

rule that allows companies such as mine to utilize the simpler TRI 

reporting Form A, instead of the more complicated Form R. That 

is only if we meet very strict eligibility requirements. I equate this 

to the IRS allowing taxpayers with very simple returns to use the 

1040EZ instead of the complicated 1040. 
257 

I will still be providing my neighbors the same information about 

release that I have always provided. But the Form A will make it 

a lot easier for me. Our neighbors will still have the same access 

to information about our releases as they do now. To qualify, we 

must use less than 500 pounds of lead in a year and report zero 

release of lead onsite and zero release offsite. That means that we 

will essentially be reporting nothing of significance to our neighbors. Lead compound is the only TRI chemical we need to report. 

We try to complete the Form R properly. Every year, though, we 

receive notices from EPA that paperwork corrections are needed. 

These changes do not reflect any failure to report color use or release. They just reflect paperwork errors. Last year I received a 13 

page notice that informed me that I had not identified lead compound by their chemical category code. Using Form A should prevent this paperwork runaround for myself and my company. 

I would estimate that tracking color use and completing the 

Form R paperwork takes more than 130 hours a year. I can’t say 

that I have ever attempted to formally track the time spent. Each 

ceramic color has a different percentage of lead, so we must calculate lead use differently for each color. This varies from day to 

day and the calculations take time. 

If we can maintain zero releases, this would be a much easier 

process, since we would be reporting on the Form A instead of 

Form R. Remember that time spent on completing paperwork is 

time that I cannot spend on other things. Like I said, we have 15 

employees and there are only so many hours in the day. That time 

could be spent supervising employees, working with customers and 

most importantly, looking for new business. 

We face brutal competition from Chinese decorators. The reality 

is that paperwork burdens add to our cost of business by absorbing 

my time in particular. EPA estimates that I will save about 151⁄2

hours a year of staff time if I qualify to use Form A instead of the 

complicated Form R. That is almost 2 days of my time, which 

would really help. 

As a responsible small business owner, I believe that it is important that we keep track of any releases that might impact my 

neighborhood and my environment. That will not change as a result of EPA’s new rule. If we have a release, no matter how minuscule or even if it is managed offsite, we would be required to use 

the Form R. If we do manage to avoid any releases, the ability to 

use the simpler Form A will make it easier for me to handle the 

paperwork. 

I also believe that this new EPA rule encourages companies like 

mine to adapt the best decorating methods possible to eliminate releases. I am glad that EPA listened to our concerns and made an 

effort to reduce my paperwork burden. I am glad they did this 

without impacting the information that I will provide to the public. 

I urge this committee to support such paperwork burden reduction 

efforts. They are critical to maintaining the competitiveness of 

small companies in America. 

Thank you again for giving me the opportunity to testify today. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Klinefelter follows:] 
258 

STATEMENT OF NANCY KLINEFELTER, PRESIDENT, BALTIMORE

GLASSWARE DECORATORS

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on EPA’s efforts to reduce the paperwork 

burden of TRI reporting on small businesses like my company. My name is Nancy 

Klinefelter, and I am President of Baltimore Glassware Decorators. I am a Past 

President of the Society of Glass and Ceramic Decorators (SGCD) and a member of 

the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB). The company was started 

in Baltimore by my brother in 1977 with the help of my father who has worked in 

glass decorating for more than 50 years. We have 15 employees including my Mom 

who works in the office, my Dad who acts as general manager and my two brothers 

who work in sales and production. We have no engineers on staff, let alone an environmental engineer, so the TRI paperwork is my responsibility. 

We are a wholesale decorator. Our specialty is custom printing small quantities 

of glass and ceramic ware for advertising specialty, restaurant and souvenir distributors. When custom printing mugs or glasses, we may use lead-bearing enamels 

on the outside surfaces to achieve the color and durability demanded by our customers. As a rule, unleaded enamels do not have the durability, gloss or color ranges 

that our customers require. These lead-free colors do not hold up well for abrasion 

or deterioration in either domestic or commercial dishwashers. It is very important 

to understand that the leaded colors become a part of the glass after they are fired. 

Also, due to the cost of these colors, we use only what is needed, and the rest goes 

back on the shelf. 

I am testifying today in support of EPA’s recent burden reduction rule that allows 

companies such as mine to utilize the simpler TRI Reporting Form A instead of the 

more complicated Form R if we meet very strict eligibility requirements. I equate 

this change to the IRS allowing some taxpayers with very simple returns to use the 

1040EZ instead of the complicated 1040 form. I will still be providing my neighbors 

and anyone else who might want to know with the same information about release 

that I have always provided, but the Form A will make it easier for me to file a 

report. Our neighbors will still have the same access to information about our releases as they do now. 

To qualify, we must use less than 500 pounds of lead in a year and report 0 release of lead on-site and 0 release off-site. That means that we will essentially be 

reporting nothing of significance to our neighbors. Lead is the only TRI chemical 

used at my shop, and we report our lead use since the reporting threshold is 100 

pounds of annual usage. We do exceed that threshold, although only barely. I want 

to emphasize that these threshold numbers reflect lead used, not released. 

We make every attempt to complete the Form R properly, but every year, we receive notices from EPA that paperwork corrections are needed. These changes do 

not reflect any failure to report color use or release; they just reflect paperwork errors. For example, last year, I received a 13-page notice from EPA that informed 

me that I had not identified lead compounds by their CAS Number or chemical category code. Using Form A should streamline the process for us, and prevent this 

paperwork run-around. 

I would estimate that tracking color use and completing the Form R paperwork 

takes my company more than 130 hours a year, although I’ve never attempted to 

formally track the time spent. Each ceramic color has a different percentage of lead, 

so we must calculate lead use differently for each color used. This varies from day 

to day, and the calculations take time. If we can maintain zero releases, this would 

be a much easier process since we’d be reporting on the Form A instead of Form 

R. 

Remember that time spent on completing paperwork is time that I cannot spend 

on other things. Like I said, we have 15 employees, and there are only so many 

hours in the day. The time that I spend on paperwork is time that is not spent supervising employees, working with customers, and most importantly looking for new 

business. We face brutal competition from Chinese decorators, and the reality is 

that paperwork burdens add to our cost of doing business by absorbing my time in 

particular. EPA estimates in the final rule that I’ll save 15.5 hours a year of staff 

time if I qualify to use the Form A instead of the complicated Form R. That is almost two days of my time which would really help. 

As a responsible small business owner, I believe that it is important that we keep 

track of any releases that might impact my neighborhood or the environment. That 

will not change as a result of EPA’s new burden reduction rule. If we have a release, 

no matter how miniscule or even if it is managed off-site, we would be required to 

use the Form R as in the past. If we do manage our production process during a 

year to avoid any releases, the ability to use the simpler Form A will make it easier 

for me to handle the paperwork to demonstrate that fact. 
259 

I also believe that this new EPA rule encourages companies like mine to adapt 

the best decorating methods possible to eliminate releases and to qualify for simpler 

TRI reporting. 

I also want to emphasize that this burden reduction effort was not done in haste. 

EPA has focused on expanding Form A eligibility after many other options were considered. The Agency also sought input from a wide variety of stakeholders. Both 

SGCD and NFIB have participated in the two on-line Stakeholder Dialogs that EPA 

conducted between 2002 and 2004. It has taken quite a long time to complete this 

process, although I understand that things move slowly here in Washington. 

I am glad that EPA listened to our concerns and made an effort to reduce my paperwork burden without impacting the information that I will provide to the public 

through the TRI program. I urge this committee to support such paperwork burden 

reduction efforts which are critical to maintaining the competitiveness of small companies in this country. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify before you today. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE [presiding]. Thank you very much. 

The Chair will be returning shortly, but while she is away, I 

would like to explore with the panel some of the thoughts that 

have already been brought up in this hearing today, particularly 

about the, what you might call the declining status of science in 

the environmental debate, which has, it appears to me, a number 

of components to it. For years, there has been phoney baloney 

science thrown around by the American Tobacco Institute, telling 

us that cigarettes were fine, or the American Lead Institute, telling 

us that lead wasn’t a danger to anybody. Now we seem to have a 

few residual pockets of that sort of science, suggesting that global 

warming isn’t really happening. 

It seems to me that in the contest between science and spin, particularly where the world gets more complex and the science gets 

more complex and the audience is somebody who is working two 

jobs, who owns their own small business, who is driving around in 

the van from job to job and getting what news they can off the 

radio station as they go, and they don’t have the luxury to sit down 

and read the authoritative journals or do the calculation as to 

which argument really stands muster or to look behind the phoney 

baloney names of the science organizations that try to look as if 

they are neutral and find out that in fact they are propped up entirely by an industry. 

How do we cope with that as legislators, and is there a way to 

procedurally try to strengthen the science administratively so that 

in hearings and in the regulatory aspect, which is so important to 

environmental protection, there are, I don’t know, stopgaps of some 

kind or another that can help people distinguish between where 

the science really is and what is nothing but adulterated spin and 

phoney baloney science? 

Dr. Balmes, you are leaping for the microphone. 

[Laughter.] 

Dr. BALMES. I would submit, Senator, that the Clean Air Act National Ambient Air Quality Standard review process, while too slow 

in its current form, and it does need to be made faster so that the 

every 5-year deadline can be met, is in fact a model conceptually 

of how to do environmental health standard reviews. It is an environmental standard review process that doesn’t require cost-benefit 

analysis. It is an environmental statute that requires protection of 

the public health with an adequate margin of safety. It statutorily 

has a scientific advisory committee of external scientists whose job 
260 

it is to determine what is the sound science, what do we know with 

scientific certainty. 

The way that that scientific information gets translated for policy 

purposes, or the way it has been in the past, has been through the 

staff paper. Now, I am a member of CASAC currently. You didn’t 

hear some of the testimony or statements of your fellow Senators 

earlier, where they were saying that getting rid of the staff paper 

is not changing the input of science at all, it is the same process, 

but that is actually not true. By substituting a policy statement or 

policy assessment for a staff paper, you take the scientists out of 

the dialog at a crucial point. Right now, the external scientists, the 

Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, reviews the research 

carefully, it takes too long. It could be streamlined. There are many 

ways you could streamline it. 

But then the EPA staff, staff scientists, not the policymakers, try 

to translate that information into a document for the policymakers 

to use. So it is scientists talking to scientists. I think it is an incredibly powerful approach to environmental health policy. I think 

the impact goes beyond the Clean Air Act if the staff paper is removed from this kind of process. 

So my answer to how we might ensure that the scientific knowledge base remains credible, is to make sure that there is dialog between external scientists and the internal EPA staff scientists 

without the policymakers hovering over them. It is fine for the policymakers to then take that science, the credible scientific information and figure out the best way to implement policy. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. There is the old saying, you are entitled 

to have your own opinion, you are not entitled to have your own 

facts. 

Dr. BALMES. Correct. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. You are entitled to have your own opinion, 

you are entitled to have your own policy recommendations, based 

on the facts—— 

Dr. BALMES. But based on the facts. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. But you are not entitled to have your own 

facts. 

Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER [presiding]. Well, it is hard for me to top that 

one. 

I just want to thank this panel. I want to say to our small business people here, I really think there are ways we can work together and still protect the public health. I have a god-son who 

went for a regular checkup and they found high levels of lead and 

the mom and dad thought it was the toys, tested the toys, no. They 

finally found out it was Wedgewood china that had this lead. As 

soon as they stopped the exposure, the lead levels went down. 

Well, the problem is, lead in a baby, in a child, is exceedingly 

dangerous in terms of their development of their brain. So if we 

can take that 15 hours and try to reduce it by using some way that 

we can make it easier, I think we need to do that. But whether we 

run small businesses, we are still all family members, we need to 

protect each other, we need to work together, we need to help each 

other with this. 
261 

So I think this hearing has been really important. Some people 

said, why would you put all these rollbacks in one hearing? It is 

because we have so much we want to do, looking forward, moving 

forward. I don’t want to have hearing after hearing about what has 

been done in the past. But I thought it was important, and we will 

shine a light on these rollbacks. We are going to try to fix them 

if we can. 

Because I think what I loved about this particular panel, to listen to our doctors, is this is why we are here. We are here to protect the people. That is our job, that is our role. This is not a question. It is the Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental 

Protection Agency. That is who we protect, the people, not the special interests. The special interests are powerful. The people, a little baby who is exposed to lead in a plate, how is he responsible 

for that? 

We have to be brought back to why we are here. So I view this 

today, for me, as the new Chair of this committee, as reestablishing 

the fact that we are here to protect the public, the American people, families, the most vulnerable. If we do that, I think everybody 

does prosper at the end of the day. I don’t see any conflict between 

a healthy environment and a strong economy. I think we proved it 

over and over again, since we passed the Clean Air Act, this is the 

greatest Country in the world, the strongest economy. We have 

some of the toughest laws. 

But if we start to step back and our people get sick, and our 

workforce is not productive, we haven’t done very much at all. 

So I just want to thank all of you for coming here. As usual, I 

think my colleagues on both sides of the aisle were terrific. Everybody brought their own points of view but were very respectful. I 

think we are going to move forward from here on out. 

Thank you very much, and the hearing stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:35 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

[Additional statement submitted for the record follows.] 

STATEMENT OF HON. BERNARD SANDERS, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE

STATE OF VERMONT

Senator Boxer, Senator Inhofe, our oversight responsibilities of the Environmental 

Protection Agency are of great importance to Americans all across the country and 

that’s why today’s hearing is so significant. It has been far too long since this committee exerted its oversight role and I applaud the Chairman for holding this hearing. 

As Vermont is on the receiving end of much of the Nation’s air pollution, 

Vermonters are very concerned about the way the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) sets clean air standards. In December 2006, EPA announced that it 

intended to change the way that health-based air quality standards are set, reversing its long-standing process. Until that announcement, the EPA had counted on scientific advice from recognized experts prior to reaching policy recommendations or 

decisions. Now, the process will be reversed in an ‘‘Alice in Wonderland first-theverdict, then-the-trial’’ manner that has been roundly condemned by the legitimate 

scientific community. Under the new policy, high-level political appointees will become involved early on in the process to determine what the ‘‘policy-relevant 

science’’ will be so the political point of view is represented. This is as if EPA is 

saying, ‘‘Don’t confuse me with the facts—my mind is made up.’’ 

This change in policy is particularly galling in that is comes after EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson overruled the advice of his scientists regarding the standards for fine particulates, which is the fine soot or particles that can get past human 

protective mechanisms and lodge deep in the lungs. The scientific advisory members 

have said that the EPA ‘‘twisted’’ or ‘‘misrepresented’’ the recommendations of the 
262 

scientists. It seems as if this recent change in policy is a pay-back for those scientists who dare to challenge the political appointees. 

It is my hope that the Congress will not allow this outrageous approach to continue. Unfortunately, the scenario I describe regarding air quality standards is only 

one example of a number of rollbacks that the EPA has recently pursued. I will 

work with all members of this committee to ensure that we get the EPA back on 

track, for if we don’t reverse its course, the health of our citizens will be at risk. 

Æ