[Senate Hearing 106-129]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 106-129
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S FISCAL YEAR 2000 BUDGET REQUEST
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 24, 1999
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
-----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
57-821 cc WASHINGTON : 1999
_______________________________________________________________________
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC
20402
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
one hundred sixth congress
JOHN H. CHAFEE, Rhode Island, Chairman
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia MAX BAUCUS, Montana
ROBERT SMITH, New Hampshire DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN, New York
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming HARRY REID, Nevada
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri BOB GRAHAM, Florida
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho BARBARA BOXER, California
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah RON WYDEN, Oregon
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
Jimmie Powell, Staff Director
J. Thomas Sliter, Minority Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
FEBRUARY 24, 1999
OPENING STATEMENTS
Baucus, Hon. Max, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana......... 2
Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California... 36
Chafee, Hon. John H., U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island 1
Crapo, Hon. Michael, D., U.S. Senator from the State of Idaho.... 11
Hutchison, Hon. Kay Bailey, U.S. Senator from the State of Texas. 11
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma... 6
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from the State of New
Jersey......................................................... 4
Smith Hon. Bob, U.S. Senator from the State of New Hampshire..... 36
Thomas, Hon. Craig, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming....... 10
Voinovich, Hon. George V., U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio... 7
Wyden, Hon. Ron, U.S. Senator from the State of Oregon........... 3
WITNESS
Browner, Hon. Carol M., Administrator, Environmental Protection
Agency......................................................... 12
Prepared statement........................................... 38
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Boxer............................................ 114
Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA)...................
Superfund............................................ 116
Senator Chafee........................................... 40
Clean air............................................ 46
Clean Water Act...................................... 45
Climate change....................................... 43
Commuter choice...................................... 73
National Environmental Performance Partnership System 68
Pesticides/Toxic Substances.......................... 72
Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA)............ 51
Safe Drinking Water Act.............................. 40
Superfund............................................ 60
TRI.................................................. 89
Information management............................... 91
Senator Crapo............................................ 102
Food Quality Protection Act.......................... 102
Better Bonds Initiative.............................. 104
Senator Graham........................................... 113
Methyl bromide....................................... 113
Senator Hutchison........................................ 105
Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOS)........... 106
Environmental review of Colonia Wastewater Treatment
Assistance Program................................. 109
Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA)................... 108
Proposed storm water Phase II regulations............ 105
Senator Inhofe........................................... 77
Clean Air Partnership................................ 81
Energy policy........................................ 91
Hydraulic fracturing................................. 94
NAAQS................................................ 78
NOx SIP Call......................................... 84
Sulfur............................................... 77
Superfund............................................ 82
The Kyoto Treaty..................................... 91
Senator Lautenberg....................................... 111
Superfund............................................ 111
Senator Smith............................................ 73
Superfund............................................ 74
Senator Thomas........................................... 95
Risk Management Program.............................. 95
Tier 2 Rulemaking.................................... 97
Senator Voinovich........................................ 98
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Letters submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency:
From Diane Thompson, Associate Administrator, Office of
Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations:
April 1, 1999............................................ 117
April 16, 1999........................................... 117
April 27, 1999........................................... 117
May 13, 1999............................................. 118
May 19, 1999............................................. 118
May 26, 1999............................................. 118
June 3, 1999............................................. 119
From Robert Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator, Office of
Air and Radiation.......................................... 85
Memorandum, Special Wastewater Treatment Projects in Fiscal Year
1995 Appropriation Bill, EPA................................... 110
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S FISCAL YEAR 2000 BUDGET REQUEST
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 1999
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:03 a.m. in room
406, Senate Dirksen Building, Hon. John H. Chafee (chairman of
the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Chafee, Baucus, Lautenberg, Inhofe,
Thomas, Voinovich, Wyden, Crapo, Hutchison, and Boxer.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN H. CHAFEE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
Senator Chafee. We want to welcome everyone here this
morning. The purpose of today's hearing is to receive testimony
from the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency,
Ms. Carol Browner, on the President's Fiscal Year 2000 budget
request for EPA.
First of all, I'd like to welcome Administrator Browner and
the other EPA officials who are here and thank you for coming
before this committee.
I will say that it's my understanding that at 9:45 a.m.,
we're going to have two votes, so we want to accomplish what we
can prior to those.
For the upcoming fiscal year, the President has requested
$7.2 billion in discretionary spending for the Agency. This
represents a $383 million reduction from the fiscal year 1999
enacted amount. I have a number of concerns with EPA's fiscal
year 2000 budget. One concern in particular is the 23 percent
cut in funding for the Clean Water Act.
As one of its 10 goals, EPA lists the effective protection
of America's rivers, lakes, wetlands, aquifers and coastal and
ocean waters. The budget document contains these facts: 16
percent of assessed rivers and streams and 35 percent of
assessed lake acres are not safe for fish consumption; 20
percent of assessed rivers and streams and 25 percent of lake
acres are not safe for recreational activities such as
swimming; 16 percent of assessed rivers and streams and 8
percent of lake acres are not meeting drinking water uses. If
these are facts, I don't see how a substantial reduction in
clean water funding can be justified. This is but one example
of the issues we need to explore, both in today's hearing and
in oversight hearings I plan to hold later in the spring.
Just under the wire, we welcome Senator Baucus.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MAX BAUCUS, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF MONTANA
Senator Baucus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Browner, I commend you and note that you've been
Administrator now more than 6 years and as you know better than
I, that's longer than anyone else in EPA history.
I'd also note that during that time you have testified
before this committee 19 times.
Ms. Browner. Oh really?
Senator Baucus. Yes. It may be a record of some sort. It's
still a big number.
I also commend you because I think during your tenure
you've made a lot of progress. You've done a lot that is
positive and constructive for the EPA, not only in improving
the environment, all the work you've done there, but also
improving the administration of environmental programs.
I think probably the best example is Superfund. In 1993,
again as you know better than most anybody else in this room,
the program was struggling, clean-ups were very expensive, lots
of paperwork and there was precious little cleanup. Today, it's
different.
The Administration has made a series of reforms and sure
some of these reforms may have occurred because of the prodding
of this committee, some of them, but still, on the other hand,
a good number of them have been made by you on your own
initiative. I believe credit is deserved all the way around--
you, Senator Lautenberg, Senator Smith, the chairman. There are
many people who have worked very hard to make this happen but a
large share of the credit goes to you.
As a result, while not perfect, the program is vastly
improved. For example, GAO estimates that by the end of next
year, the remedy selection process will have been completed at
95 percent of the non-Federal sites on the NPL list. In other
words, the decisions will have been made and the cleanups will
be underway.
EPA has also made progress in other areas, in the new ozone
and particulate standards to implementing the provisions of the
1996 Safe Drinking Water Act, to the new rules for handling of
hazardous waste at clean-up sites.
I want to commend you and I commend you wholeheartedly for
your work.
At the same time, a lot of work needs to be done. That's no
surprise to you. In some cases, this may require a creative new
approach. For this reason, I'm particularly interested in the
Administration's proposal to create Better America bonds to
help communities preserve open space, redevelop land and
control water pollution from runoff.
I believe this proposal has promise. We all talk about
using fewer sticks and more carrots. By creating incentives for
environmental protection, this bond proposal gives us a chance
to put our money where our mouth is.
I also have questions. For example, what experience do we
have to show that the tax credit device will actually attract
investors? What type of projects qualify? How will we assure
that all regions and States are treated fairly, not just the
more populous but some of the less populous parts of our
country? How will we assure that the program will supplement,
not displace local decisions?
At the beginning of a new Congress, as we look for win-win
solutions that benefit our environment and our economy, I look
forward to working on this and other important issues with our
Administrator and with members of our committee.
One last point, we recently learned that the distinguished
ranking member of the Superfund Committee, the distinguished
gentleman to my left, Senator Lautenberg, will be retiring at
the end of the Congress. I hope this decision is not caused by
the prospect of another round of Superfund negotiations.
In any event, we on the committee will be losing a very
good friend, a strong leader and a dedicated environmental
advocate. I know of no one who has worked harder for the
environment than the Senator from New Jersey. Frank Lautenberg
was one of the pioneers on Superfund. He wrote the community
right to know law and I know he's very proud of that and well
he should be because I believe that statute, probably more than
any other, has helped more efficiently put people on notice and
caused people to clean up faster than they otherwise might,
certainly much faster than a command and control regime. So I
commend the Senator for that.
He worked tirelessly to protect our air, water and land for
future generations for many, many years and he will for many
years more in whatever capacity he serves. I know he will be
sorely missed.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Chafee. Thank you. I join in that praise of Senator
Lautenberg who has been on this committee I believe since he
came to the Senate. He's a survivor of the Superfund efforts
and I hate to think of the suggestion that is driven from the
Senate, but in any event, we appreciate all he's done here.
I share your thoughts on the Better America bonds. One of
the questions obviously we will have is why are we going this
route when we already have the other vehicles which I'm not
sure why we're not using them while they are there.
On my early bird list, I have Senator Wyden next.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF OREGON
Senator Wyden. Mr. Chairman, thank you, but I'd be happy to
defer to Senator Lautenberg.
Senator Chafee. I think you can take your own time and we
can move through the list.
Senator Wyden. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll be very
brief.
I share your views and Max's views about the good work that
Ms. Browner's doing. There are really two areas that I'd like
to work on with the Administration.
The first is I think you all are aware that with the help
of Chairman Chafee and Senator Baucus, I authored the first
transportation program that uses Federal funding as an
incentive to promote smart local growth management. Given the
critical Federal role, and particularly the role EPA plays in
developing sewage treatment systems, and given the impact that
sewers have on local growth, I'm particularly interested in
examining with EPA the role of the sewage systems and the grant
funding that you all provide can assist in promoting good,
local growth management.
This committee took the first step with respect to ISTEA
and the way we use transportation dollars to promote smart
local growth management and I would hope in this session as we
look at the clean water funds that we could pursue the same
sort of approach with sewage grants and use them to address
smart growth as well.
The other area I'd like to examine with you, Ms. Browner,
is, as you know I've introduced the Water Conservation and
Quality Incentives Act which we think can save millions and
millions of gallons of water across this country in irrigation
systems. We've been able to get the Farm Bureau and the
Environmental Defense Fund, a coalition that doesn't come
together every single day, to support this legislation. I think
this is an ideal opportunity to look at some of the most
wasteful practices in America.
Senator Baucus knows as well that we have irrigation
systems in the West that are basically just ditches and if you
were to do nothing other than install some modern piping, we
could save millions and millions of gallons of water in
irrigation for fish and conservation, as well as for
agriculture. That's why we've been able to bring together the
Farm Bureau and the environmental community. We'd like to work
on that with you as well.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Chafee. Thank you.
Next in order of arrival was Senator Lautenberg. Before the
Senator goes, I just want to say one thing about New Jersey.
All of us who are interested in open space preservation have to
tip our hats to New Jersey for what they did in this recent
election. In effect, it's a billion dollars, $980 million, that
New Jersey is putting up of its own money. I understand that
was passed by the voters of New Jersey 2 to 1, 66 to 33. It's
an incredible tribute to the leadership of everyone--the
Governor, the Senators and the legislature and to the voters
and people of New Jersey because it's their money they are
spending, not Federal money. It's their money and they are
going to have to pay for it and they willingly went ahead with
this massive bond issue that to my understanding is 10 years at
$98 million a year.
Senator Lautenberg.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Senator Lautenberg. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank Senator Baucus with whom I've worked here
since I joined the committee. The funny thing is I actually
wound up with Scoop Jackson's seat on this committee. He
unfortunately passed away and I filled that spot at that time.
Senator Chafee. I don't think so. He wasn't on this
committee. We can figure out who it was.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Senator Lautenberg joined the Committee on Environment and
Public Work during the 98th Congress, when the committee membership was
increased from 16 to 18 members. Senators Lautenberg and Daniel J.
Evans, of Washington, were added to the committee. Senator Evans was
appointed by the Governor of Washington upon the death of Senator Henry
M. Jackson, who died on September 1, 1983. Senator Jackson was not a
member of the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Lautenberg. He enabled me to move--well, I didn't
take Scoop Jackson's seat.
[Laughter.]
Senator Lautenberg. But he had a strong environmental view.
Senator Baucus. Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
Senator Lautenberg. OK. Well, we've settled that so let me
go on further and say that now that our work is done with all
of our environmental problems, I kind of felt I could leave it
to the hands of those who will continue to be of service.
I will miss my position on this committee and the chance to
do things for the environment. As Senator Chafee notes, New
Jersey has been very aggressive in terms of trying to provide
open space funding. When you live in the most densely populated
State in the Union, you take advantage of whatever
opportunities you have. People are very determined in my home
State to provide places that people can visit, youngsters can
see and we protect them very aggressively. So we're looking
forward to implementing the programs and the Federal commitment
to more open spaces.
I'm delighted to be here with--I could say--the ``Mark
Maguire of EPA.'' You have a longstanding record of service and
you don't look any worse for wear, Ms. Browner. You've done an
excellent. You've brought great leadership and vision to the
task.
While it is hard to name an area of EPA's work that hasn't
been improved dramatically under the Clinton administration,
more Superfund sites have been cleaned up during the
Administration's 6 years than in the prior 12 years of the
Superfund program.
Many of the necessary reforms of the remediation waste
cleanup programs that we discussed in the last Congress have
been implemented by EPA with the issuance of the regulation the
Agency finalized in 1998.
The Agency has expanded the right-to-know program designed
to further reduce harmful emissions and citizens now have
greater access to all environmental data. So it's been a great
opportunity.
I will be here for 2 years and let it be known across this
Senate that Lautenberg intends to keep working just as
aggressively as he has before. I cannot relent because I see
what happens when progress is made. We have cleaner oceans,
including Long Island Sound that floats by Rhode Island. The
air is cleaner. The right-to-know law that Senator Baucus
mentioned was I think one of the most significant pieces of
legislation we passed.
We had companies volunteering to reduce their emissions.
They weren't being pursued by a huge bureaucracy and some
companies reduced their toxic or contaminant emissions by 90
percent. That was quite a discovery for them, they actually
made money from the material they captured.
So it's been a good service. Again, I intend to be here and
to finish some of the work we've done. I'd particularly like to
get brownfields in the law and get that positive program
underway.
Senator Baucus mentioned the President's Better America
bonds initiative and I'm anxious to see how that's going to
work as well.
I thank you.
Senator Chafee. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Voinovich.
Senator Voinovich. Mr. Chairman, Senator Inhofe as a
chairman, has to chair a meeting in 10 minutes and asked if I
would allow him to just take a minute to make his remarks so he
can scoot out?
Senator Chafee. OK. I didn't do it for Wyden, but I'll do
it for you. Go ahead.
[Laughter.]
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Senator Inhofe. Thank you.
In spite of accusations to the opposite, I'll now say
you're partisan and I appreciate that very much.
I did have the committee, as you well know, scheduled some
time ago before this committee meeting was scheduled, on Y2K,
the two committees. It was going to be a joint hearing at first
between Senate Armed Services' Readiness Subcommittee and the
subcommittee I chair here, so I've got to be there in time to
do that.
I'd like to say since Senator Lautenberg is retiring that
I'd associate myself with his remarks, but I won't. I think you
get a pretty good indication of the direction the committee is
going or that the EPA is going by the budget request. When I
read this, I was disturbed with some of the increases and some
of the decreases.
I think particularly when you are looking at goal one and
goal six, goal one being clean air increasing by 35 percent and
goal six, the global and cross border risks, I come to the
conclusion that there's going to be an effort to implement a
treaty that we are not going to ratify.
I get into a concern I have for the domestic oil industry
right now. This is a crisis, it is something that is a national
security crisis, in my opinion. I'm going to be making some
requests which I have made of you by letter and will continue
to do that.
I will submit the entire statement for the record.
[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. James Inhofe, U.S. Senator from the
State of Oklahoma
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this important hearing today. I
am sorry that I will not be able to stay long. As the chairman probably
knows, I am holding a hearing at the Armed Services Readiness
Subcommittee on the Y2K issue this morning and continuing that hearing
in the Clean Air Subcommittee this afternoon. I also want to thank Ms.
Browner for coming this morning and explaining the budget request the
EPA has proposed. I will be submitting questions for the record and
look forward to the responses.
Ms. Browner, after reviewing your budget request for next year, I
can not help but think that it is more of a political document than an
outline for protecting the environment. You have underfunded the Clean
Water State Revolving Fund, the Air Toxics Program, PM research and the
Safe Drinking Water Research funds. Yet, you have chosen to request
$200 million for a Clean Air Partnership Fund which appears to be more
of a Gore Campaign plank than a well thought out environmental program.
In reviewing the President's environmental goals I noticed that
Goal 1, Clean Air, received a funding increase of 35 percent (from $536
million to $722 million) and Goal 6, Global and Cross Border Risks or
Global Climate Change, increased by 78 percent (from $229 million to
$407.5 million). At the same time, Goal 2, Clean and Safe Water,
decreased by 25 percent (from $3.4 billion to $2.5 billion) and Goal 8,
Sound Science, decreased by 7 percent (from $347 million to $321.7
million).
It seems to me that you are sacrificing sound science and clean
water for a new, unauthorized, ill conceived and largely undefined
clean air initiative and implementation of an unratified global climate
treaty. As the chairman of the authorizing Clean Air Subcommittee, I
hope the Appropriations Committee transfers the entire $200 million
from the Clean Air Partnership Fund to the Clean Water State Revolving
Fund, the money would be better spent by the States than by the EPA on
so-called demonstration projects.
Your agency has also decided that Superfund does not need the
additional appropriation of $650 million that you have requested in the
past. While I am pleased to see that you are not requesting the
additional money, this can only lead me to believe that you were being
disingenuous in past years. What has changed in the program that now
makes it more solid? I am curious how your new financial views will
affect the re-authorization efforts of this committee.
I believe the current Superfund program does not work and
substantial effort will be required to fix it. With over 90 percent of
the NPL sites either cleaned up or in some stage of clean up, reforms
could make the system more cost-beneficial and the clean-ups more
scientifically sound, in fact, we need to phaseout the program. Last
congress, we made significant progress on reforming the program and,
while you may not have been happy with the product, I hope you will
continue to work with us to make the necessary changes. It is my
sincere hope that you are not using Superfund as a political wedge in
the upcoming Presidential elections.
As I'm sure you're aware, the oil patch is experiencing a crisis.
The price of a barrel of oil has fallen to record lows and many small
companies are closing their doors. The added burden the EPA has placed
on these companies over the last 6 years is simply accelerating the
closings. In essence, we are witnessing the death of our domestic
petroleum industry.
In December, I sent you a letter regarding this crisis and the
impact your Agency has on it. I requested that you carefully consider
the effect on our oil supply before you issue any new regulations. I
received a response from Bob Persciasepe, which I appreciated. However,
I sent you the letter because I am concerned not just about the pending
sulfur rule, but about all pending regulations across the entire
Agency, including TRI and RCRA.
I'm sure that you would agree, Ms. Browner, that this is a National
Security issue; we are becoming more dependent on foreign oil everyday.
As a Subcommittee chair on the Armed Services and a member of the
Intelligence Committee, I will be monitoring the actions of your agency
and the impact on our National Security. However, as a Subcommittee
chair on this committee, I hope that you and I can work together and
provide some regulatory relief to an ailing industry.
Thank you Mr. Chairman. I'm sorry I must leave but I look forward
to reading the answers to my submitted questions.
Senator Inhofe. I get into a concern I have for the
domestic oil industry right now. This is a crisis, it is
something that is a national security crisis, in my opinion.
I'm going to be making some requests which I have made of you
by letter and will continue to do that.
I thank the Senator from Ohio for yielding for that
purpose.
Senator Chafee. Now we go back to Senator Voinovich.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE V. VOINOVICH,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OHIO
Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I was just thinking as Senator Lautenberg was talking about
what an exciting honor it is for me to be a member of this
committee. I look back from my days when I first came to the
State Legislature and worked with Bill Ruckelshaus and Don
Mossman when they were setting up the Agency and traveled out
to Cheyenne, WY to talk to Rocky Mountain legislators about the
importance of clean air and water, and got involved with saving
Lake Erie and the Ohio House, kind of expert on the environment
and helped create our Environmental Protection Agency, and then
set up a committee in the Ohio legislature on the environment.
Here I am sitting here as a member of the U.S. Senate on this
committee.
I look at this as a way of continuing my interest in the
environment. One of the things I feel very good about is, that
while I was chairman of the Council of Great Lakes Governors,
that we created a $100 million fund in six States to use the
interest to do research work on Lake Erie in terms of cleaning
it up. Today, what was once a dead lake that was touted all
over the world as being dead is one of the finest fisheries in
the world in terms of walleye and bass fishing.
In regard to our State, the Administrator knows that when I
came in as Governor, almost all of our areas were nonattainment
in terms of ozone and we brought them all up to attainment,
including increasing spending for the environment by 60 percent
to try and make an effort.
So I'm looking forward as a member of this committee to
working with you. Administrator, you and I have had some
interesting conversations over the years.
Senator Chafee. That's a curious way of labeling it,
interesting conversations.
Senator Voinovich. As well as with the chairman of this
committee over the last several years, as Governor of the State
of Ohio.
I really believe that our challenge is to determine how
best to protect the environment and the health of our citizens
using the limited resources that we have. I really think we
need to do a better job of setting environmental priorities and
spending our resources wisely.
We should not do things simply because some group out there
says this is it. We did a study in Ohio, for example, and the
public's opinion about doing certain things that looked like
they were really important, when you looked at them from an
environmental point of view, so often what really needed to be
done and the public's impression of what needed to be done,
they were a lot different.
In addition, we need to ensure that effective programs are
not being undercut by well-intentioned policies and regulations
that will lack scientific backing. Quite frankly, I believe
that the USEPA's policies often run counter to the efforts,
even the mission of other Federal agencies.
For example, the Federal Government has a number of
effective programs to promote education, safety, economic
development such as HUD's empowerment zones, welfare reform,
urban school programs and transportation projects. However, at
the same time, those agencies are spending this money to really
make a difference in our urban areas of this country, many
times the EPA through policy decisions I think so often are not
based on good science, and undermine the efforts of some of
this revitalization in other departments.
I think there needs to be a coordinated effort among
agencies, in fact, even within EPA itself, to ensure that a
program's successes is not being undercut by unnecessarily
restrictive regulations that do not increase protection of
public health and the environment.
For instance, one of the Administration's key initiatives
in fiscal year 2000 is Better America Bonds, which is aimed at
preventing urban sprawl and cleaning up brownfield sites, but
at the same time, in my opinion, Administrator, EPA has set
inflexible, one-size-fits-all air standards through its
NOX SIP call and NOX standards and in
many areas of the country, we're not going to be able to obtain
those.
Hence, while we're providing an incentive to reuse
abandoned industrial sites, many industries are going to bypass
areas that you'd like to use those because of the standards
that have been set by the Agency. In order to improve the
quality of life in our central cities, we need to have jobs in
our cities. That's what the HUD empowerment zones are trying to
achieve.
I think we can achieve both environmental and public health
safety and increase jobs in our urban areas if we base
regulations on sound science and cost-benefit analysis.
When I met with the Administrator prior to the final
enacted standards, she told me that her hands were tied, that
statutorily she could not use risk assessment and cost-benefit
analysis in her consideration for final regulation. I strongly
believe that what we need to do is to do a laser-like amendment
to the Clean Air Act and add the same risk assessment and cost-
benefit analysis provisions that we added in the Safe Drinking
Water Act in 1996. If they were good enough for water, safe
drinking water, they're good enough I think for our Clean Air
Act.
I think this country will not be well served by policies
and regulations that are implemented not to improve the
protection of public health and the environment. I think we
need to carefully review where taxpayer money is being spent on
programs that negate each other.
The point I'm making Mr. Chairman is this, that we have all
these agencies that are trying to reestablish our urban areas
and so often the policies of the Environmental Protection
Agency are adverse to those. You're talking about these bonds
and it seems to me that if you don't look at what you're doing
in these other areas--we'd like to clean up a lot more
brownfield sites. In fact, the States have done a much better
job of cleaning up brownfield sites but our hands, in so many
instances, have been tied by the EPA because we're considered
to be micromanaging.
Mr. Chairman, I know we're taking the Administrator's time
and she wants to talk about what she wants to do, but I think
it is important when we have these oversight committees that we
get into some of those things.
I talked to Secretary Cuomo about what he's trying to get
done and it seems there ought to be a better coordination of
what agencies are doing so that the left and right hands know
what they are doing.
[The prepared statement of Senator Voinovich follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. George Voinovich, U.S. Senator From the
State of Ohio
I thank the chairman for conducting this hearing on EPA's fiscal
year 2000 budget. I want to start off by saying that this Nation has
come a long way under environmental programs and we have seen dramatic
improvements in environmental quality.
Mr. Chairman, I consider myself an environmentalist. In Ohio, I
sponsored legislation to create the Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency when I served in the State legislature, and I fought to end oil
and gas drilling in the Lake Erie bed. As Governor, I increased funding
for environmental protection by over 60 percent and implemented an
innovative voluntary brownfields program to clean up hazardous waste
sites. When I first entered office as Governor, most of our urban areas
were not attaining the 1-hour ozone standard, but by the time I left,
all cities had attained the standard and we had a request into U.S. EPA
to recognize the last city as being in attainment.
I strongly believe our challenge is to determine how best to
protect the environment and the health of our citizens using limited
resources. We need to do a better job of setting environmental
priorities and spending our resources wisely. We should not do things
simply because of appearances.
In addition, we need to ensure that effective programs are not
being undercut by well-intentioned policies and regulations that lack
scientific backing. Quite frankly, I believe that U.S. EPA's policies
often run counter to the efforts, and even the mission, of other
Federal agencies. For example, the Federal Government has a number of
effective programs that promote education, safety and economic
development, such as HUD's empowerment zones, welfare reform, urban
schools programs and transportation projects.
However, at the same time EPA is thwarting these efforts through
policy decisions that are not always based on sound science and that
undermine efforts to revitalize our urban areas. There needs to be a
coordinated effort among agencies, in fact even within EPA itself, to
ensure that a program's success is not being undercut by unnecessarily
restrictive regulations that do not increase protection of public
health or the environment.
For instance, one of the Administration's key initiatives in its
fiscal year 2000 budget is Better America Bonds, which is aimed at
preventing urban sprawl and cleaning up brownfields sites. At the same
time, however, EPA has set inflexible, one-size-fits-all air standards
through its NOx SIP call and NAAQS standards that many areas
of the country will be unable to attain. Hence, there will be no
incentive to re-use abandoned industrial sites and industry will look
toward our greenspaces.
In order to improve the quality of life in our central cities, we
need to have jobs in our cities. That's what the HUD empowerment zones
are trying to achieve. I think we can achieve both environmental and
public health safety and increase jobs in our urban areas if we base
regulations on sound science and cost-benefit analysis.
When I met with Administrator Browner prior to the final NAAQS
standards, she told me that her hands were tied, that statutorily she
could not use risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis in her
consideration for final regulation.
I strongly believe that we need to go in with a laser-like focus
and amend the Clean Air Act to add the same risk assessment and cost-
benefit analysis provisions that we added to the Safe Drinking Water
Act in 1996--the same provisions that the Administration supported.
This will help ensure that reasonable and cost-effective rules are
being set that have scientific backing. I intend to introduce such
legislation.
This country will not be well served by policies and regulations
that are implemented but do not improve the protection of public health
and the environment. And I think we need to carefully review where
taxpayer money is being spent on programs that negate each other. I
look forward to exploring these issues during today's hearing and in
future oversight hearings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Chafee. OK.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CRAIG THOMAS, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF WYOMING
Senator Thomas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
holding the hearing today. I'm pleased the committee intends
this year to have a renewed emphasis on oversight and
implementation. It seems to me that the thing we ought to do
and before passing new laws, we need to make sure the current
regimes are working.
Welcome to you, Administrator. It's not been quite as much
of a love-in as you heard earlier. My last few trips to Wyoming
I've heard nothing but concerns about some of the water
suggestions that are being made in rural Wyoming. In fact, I
hope to suggest to the chairman that we have an oversight
hearing on the clean water action plan. I would hope very much
we could do that because I have to tell you that there's a lot
of concern about it. There are lots of things being said and
they are not nearly as complimentary as the things you've heard
this morning so far and you ought to also hear some of that. I
look forward to your discussion today a little bit today about
that portion of it.
We thank you for being here and really want to examine some
of these things that are happening that people think are going
to be very detrimental to agriculture in my State.
Senator Chafee. Thank you.
First, I want to say I welcome all the new members to the
committee. I think this is the first time we've met as a full
committee and we're delighted that each of you are here,
Senators Crapo, Voinovich, and Hutchison.
Senator Crapo.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL D. CRAPO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO
Senator Crapo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Administrator Browner, it's good to see you over on this
side.
Since this is a budget hearing, the questions I want to
focus on today will probably relate primarily to concerns I
have about the levels of budget request relating to rural water
technical assistance and the programs that are very important
to our rural communities and the levels of commitment to
Superfund in terms of a number of the issues you and I have
discussed on a number of other occasions.
I do associate with the comments that have been made about
concerns with regard to rigid and unyielding approaches,
whether it be to Superfund cleanup or to clean water or clean
air standards and the like. We'll discuss those with you at
another time in more detail. I think it's very critical that
the budget that we work with has the necessary resources to
address some of these issues.
In closing, I do want to say that I encourage you to
increase the dedication and commitment of the EPA to work with
local and State communities and letting them have as much
supervisory and management authority as possible under the law.
We are facing that out in Idaho right now with regard to
the cleanup in the Coeur d'Alene Basin. I think it's very
critical that the EPA recognize the need to allow the State in
particular and the local communities to have a strong voice in
the management options that are evaluated there. I'm not sure
that we've reached that there.
We've talked about this before but I just want to restate
my concerns about that and we will visit about that further.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Chafee. Thank you.
Senator Hutchison, we welcome you and are glad you're here.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Senator Hutchison. Thank you, Senator Chafee.
Thank you for holding this hearing and giving us the
opportunity to talk about some of the priorities.
First, I want to say that we are making great strides in
cleaning our air and water and soil in our country. I think in
the last 30 years, we have done a wonderful job.
I also want to say that I'm concerned that as we move along
and as we learn more, that we be very careful to use sound
science as the basis for the regulations that are coming
forward. I think in some instances we are not doing that and we
are causing great hardships, particularly in smaller
communities with some of the new regulations that are coming
forward.
Let me mention a couple key points that concern me with
your proposed budget. One is the hefty decline of funds in the
Clean Water State Revolving Fund. This has been very important
for States to be able to have a certainty so they can plan and
carry out their clean water projects. I'm very concerned with
the $600 million decline in the funds for that priority at the
same time when you're adding funds to what I consider to be
less certain results in the Climate Change Technology Fund.
I would reverse those priorities because we have actual
successes and a good record with the Clean Water Fund and that
has really been shown to make a difference.
Second, I have to be a little parochial and say that I'm
concerned at an ear mark in the last year's budget was air
monitoring in Big Ben National Park. This is one of the ways we
get the scientific data to be able to make good, clean air
regulations. I am concerned that is not being funded, even
though it was earmarked. I hope you will be able to address
that issue.
I want to work with you and I will have a question I hope I
will be able to propose later on some of the new regulations
coming forward but I realize you need to be able to speak. I
hope I'll be able to get back.
Thank you.
Senator Chafee. I certainly hope you will be able to get
back.
Madam Administrator, why don't you proceed with your
statement. What I'd like to do is get your statement completed
before we have those votes which apparently are scheduled at
9:45 a.m.
We welcome you. Why don't you proceed?
STATEMENT OF HON. CAROL BROWNER, ADMINISTRATOR, ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
Ms. Browner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Baucus and
members of the committee for the opportunity to be here today
to present the President's budget request for the Environmental
Protection Agency for fiscal year 2000.
If at the beginning I might just take a brief moment to
join in the comments with respect to Senator Lautenberg and the
service that he has provided. I will tell you that I was
obviously surprised but also saddened. Senator Lautenberg has
been a great friend of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Senator I would say to you that you leave quite a legacy.
The programs that you have been a party to creating at EPA are
some of the most important programs that we have in terms of
engaging and involving the public, most particularly, the
right-to-know programs which you certainly are the father of.
I would also just like to say as a parent and as a woman, I
really appreciate your leadership on a number of issues,
including the national drinking age and the work you did to
raise that. As a traveler, I appreciate your efforts to ban
cigarettes on airplanes. Certainly it has made my travel days
much more pleasant.
If I might also say welcome to the new members of this
committee and say that you raise issues that we look forward to
working with each of you on. I hope in some instances where
there is confusion we can resolve that and in other instances,
we can find ways to move forward. We may have to find at the
end of the day occasionally we do disagree, but I think many of
the issues I've heard today are issues where we would like to
work with you to find common ground and to move forward with a
common agenda.
Accompanying me today are the senior officials from the
Environmental Protection Agency: Peter Robertson is the Acting
Assistant Administrator, Sallyanne Harper is the Agency's Chief
Financial Officer.
Mr. Chairman, if I might just share with the committee
members, there is a very prestigious award that is given for
financial management. One recipient in the Federal Government,
one at the State level and one at the local level. It's the
Donald L. Scattleberry Award which recognizes senior financial
managers for their good job.
This year's Federal Government winner is Sallyanne Harper.
Senator Chafee. Congratulations, well done.
Ms. Browner. We're very proud.
Senator Chafee. You should be. That's wonderful.
Ms. Browner. She does a great job for us and for the people
of this country.
One more sort of internal matter I might share with the
committee in case they are not aware. On Y2K, an issue of great
importance to all of us, Congressman Horn recently issued
another report card and we got an ``A.'' EPA is one of the
agencies with an ``A'' and we have worked incredibly hard to
get all of our mission critical systems compliant. We are
essentially in that place now and we can move on to smaller,
less important things. We are one of the first agencies to be
done and to receive that grade.
Senator Chafee. Congratulations on that also.
Ms. Browner. Thank you.
I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, this committee, and the
members of this committee for all of the support that you have
offered me and the Environmental Protection Agency over the
last 6 years. I think together we have done an awful lot to
move toward a shared goal and mutual goal of protecting public
health in the environment, to do it in a way that is common
sense and that is cost effective.
I think if you look over the last several years of our work
together, there really are some pretty amazing things that have
been accomplished. Thanks to this committee, thanks to your
Governor, Governor Kempthorne's good work, and others, we have
a new Safe Drinking Water Act.
I want to inform the committee that as of this date, EPA
has not missed a single deadline that you placed in that new
law. We are taking our responsibility very seriously and we are
moving forward and honoring both your desires and the needs of
the American people.
Because of this committee's efforts, because of our work,
86 percent of the American population receives drinking water
that meets all health-based standards that have been on the
books since 1994, 86 percent. We certainly should be proud as a
country that we have the safest drinking water in the world.
We must remain vigilant. This budget honors that,
commitment, but I think we should be extremely proud of where
we find ourselves.
I'd also like to mention the President's Clean Water Action
Plan. I did want to thank Senator Bond who is the chairman of
the EPA Appropriations Subcommittee and Barbara Mikulski, who
have worked with us to provide the funding so that we can
continue our commitment under that plan.
We have now successfully addressed 50 percent of the 111
key action items included in that plan and we are continuing to
work in partnership at the State and local level with other
Federal departments and agencies. For example, together with
the Department of Agriculture, we will shortly announce a joint
strategy to protect waterways from polluted runoff.
With respect to the Superfund Cleanup Program, 585
Superfund toxic waste sites have been cleaned up as of the end
of 1998. We will complete an additional 85 cleanups this year;
227 communities are now benefiting from our brownfields
program, with grants to revitalize, to clean up, and to
redevelop their brownfields. These communities, when you look
at all of the activities going on, taken together they are
leveraging over a billion dollars in private investments.
I want to thank the committee for its support in what I
think is an incredibly important program. This budget does
carry forward our commitment to brownfields, $92 million, so
that we can continue to provide grants to local communities and
so that we can provide additional revolving loan funds.
I might note, Mr. Chairman, many of the members, and
certainly I, agree with the need to be flexible. We're working
in 227 communities today. Not a single Federal regulation has
ever been adopted to run this program. I'll tell you why.
We didn't need to because it's bottoms up. This is about
communities coming to EPA and saying, ``This brownfield site is
where we want to work.'' It is a competitive process.
Unfortunately, we get far more applications than we can honor
but we don't tell the community which site; we simply evaluate
them on a competitive basis and we award them the funds. We
provide them the assistance they need to do what is right for
their community.
No two sites, no two plans are the same. It is a bottoms up
program, it is an incredibly successful program. It has been
done without a single Federal regulation.
I also want to thank the committee for the work that you
have done to ensure clean air for the people of this country
and to Senator Baucus for your leadership and your support as
we sought to implement the public health protections of this
very, very important law.
We estimate that 164 million Americans are breathing
cleaner air today because of the Clean Air Act, because of the
work we have done with so many of you in our efforts to
implement that law.
If I might just also note and perhaps ask for a favor of
sorts, we do have two nominees that are pending before this
committee. Both gentlemen I think are well known to members of
the committee--Tim Fields for our Superfund Program and Gary
Guzzy for our General Counsel. We just want to work with the
members to ensure an expeditious confirmation process.
Senator Chafee. We will do that quickly.
Ms. Browner. Thank you.
Senator Chafee. We process your nominees and I believe our
record is pretty darned good in moving along and I want to keep
that up. I don't want these nominees hanging out there in
limbo, so we will move rapidly with that.
Ms. Browner. We do appreciate that.
The budget the President has presented for EPA, $7.2
billion, is designed to allow us to build strong, healthy
communities for the 21st century by protecting public health
and the environment in a common sense, cost-effective manner.
This budget really is based on our belief, which I believe we
have demonstrated time and time again that a healthy
environment, a healthy economy actually go hand in hand.
Under the President's leadership over the last 6 years, the
Vice President's work, we have set some of the toughest public
health and environmental standards in the history of the United
States. We have achieved the single largest reduction in toxic
air emissions in the history of the United States.
At the same time, the economy is literally soaring. We have
a record high budget surplus. I think this is a clear testament
to the fact that we don't have to choose as a country between a
healthy environment and a healthy economy.
There are environmental challenges. Senator Hutchison made
reference to this. Despite all of the good work that all of us
have done, there are problems that remain; there are new
challenges. This budget is designed to allow us to meet those
challenges, to prevent problems and to do what we think needs
to be done in terms of protecting the health of the American
citizens and their environment.
This budget recognizes that protecting our environment is
about more than protecting simply a beautiful vista or scenic
river. Those are important efforts, but our job is simply much,
much more than that. It is about protecting our health, our
air, our water, our land, our food, our children.
This budget is about neighborhoods, it is about protecting
where we live as Americans, it is about protecting how we live,
it is about what we do in everyday life, it is about
communities, it is about keeping them healthy, strong and
prosperous.
I'll just briefly highlight three important initiatives
included in the President's budget. They are efforts to provide
more tools to local communities, more options should they
choose--they are not required--but should they choose, more
tools, more options so they can do what they want to do to help
protect their environment.
The President and the Vice President announced a new
livability agenda to help communities grow in ways that ensure
a high quality of life and a strong, sustainable economy.
A key element of the livability agenda, it is a broad
agenda, and I want to speak to one section, is the innovative
financing tools. Several of you have mentioned it, Better
America Bonds. It is carried within the Department of
Treasury's budget as an amendment to the Tax Code; it is not
reflected in the EPA budget, but it is a program that is in the
tradition of our brownfields urban revitalization program.
It is about allowing communities who make their own
decision to protect an open space, a green space, to enhance
water quality through those protections, to convert a
brownfield to a green field. It is about providing some
financial assistance.
It is not about telling them what to do. No community is
required to participate, nor will EPA at the end of the day or
any other Federal agency own 1 inch of this land. It will all
be in the hands of the local community if they make this
decision.
Several members spoke to the fact and Mr. Chairman you
referenced New Jersey and the ballot initiative in New Jersey.
This is a story that can be told across the country. In my home
State of Florida, more than 72 percent of the voters went to
the polls and said we want to protect green spaces. Community
by community, it will vary dramatically.
All the Administration is doing is providing a financial
assistance in the form of a tax credit bond for those
communities that make this decision.
EPA would work with other agencies to award the tax credit.
It would be a competitive process. The Administration is
proposing $9.5 billion in bond authority over 5 years for
investments by State, local, tribal governments, of public,
private, land trusts may become involved in this.
For fiscal year 2000, we are requesting $1.9 billion in
bond authority. We would allocate up to $1.9 billion in bonding
authority. All of the bonding requirements would be pursuant to
existing State and local requirements. They would manage this
under their own laws but simply a tax credit up to the amount
of the interest payment over the 15 years of the bond would be
available. In other words, the local community's money could go
that much further.
A second initiative I would like to call to your attention
is the President's Clean Air Partnership Fund, $200 million,
another new tool to help communities get the job done. This is
to promote cost effective, innovative technology to help
communities reduce ozone, fine particles, soot, smog, toxic air
pollution and greenhouse gases that contribute to climate
change.
There is no requirement to participate, in this grant
program to help finance public-private partnerships that are
locally managed and self supporting. We recognize there are a
lot of good ideas outside of Washington in local communities.
We simply want to facilitate those in the same way we have done
in brownfields--make the money available, award it through a
grant process, and good solutions will emerge.
Things that none of us can imagine today will come forward.
We want to be a part of these local efforts. We want to provide
financial assistance and that is what the Clean Air Partnership
Fund is all about.
Finally, I want to call attention to a very important
Administrationwide program and that is the President and Vice
President's commitment to fight the growing problem of
childhood asthma. EPA will take the lead in this effort. Five
million children today suffer from this debilitating disease.
Unfortunately the incidence of this disease is continuing to
rise.
This budget includes $22.2 million for education, for
outreach, for monitoring to reduce children's exposure to those
environmental factors, pollutants, toxins, that can make an
asthma attack worse.
Senator Chafee. Madam Administrator, let me just announce
what I'd like to do here. There is a vote on now. I was going
to ask you to continue until we get to the 7\1/2\ minutes which
should be just a couple of minutes from now. Then we'll go over
and have not one but two votes, so this will take some time. I
would urge everyone to please come back as soon as we finish
the second vote.
If you could just stand by now and we'll recess and come
back as soon as we can.
Senator Lautenberg. Are we going to let the Administrator
finish, Mr. Chairman?
Senator Chafee. No, we haven't got time now. Let's go on
over and vote. We'll go vote and we'll be back and finish. Then
there will be questions.
Thank you.
[Recess.]
Senator Chafee. All right, Madam Administrator, if you'd
like to continue where you were, we'd appreciate it.
Ms. Browner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I will be brief. I just wanted to note some existing
programs that we carry forward in this budget including the
President's Clean Water Action Plan, $651 million, to continue
our progress in restoring our rivers, lakes and coastal waters;
for drinking water, wastewater treatment facilities, $1.6
billion for State Revolving Fund.
We are asking for a change if you will in the Clean Water
SRF. We believe it is in keeping with the needs of the States
as they begin their focus on polluted runoff. We are requesting
that you give us the authority or quite frankly, the States the
authority to take 20 percent of their clean water SRF money and
set it aside for grants to local communities for nonpoint
source projects, for estuary management and other innovative
water quality projects.
It would be up to the State, but if we're going to give
them this flexibility, this additional tool, we will need an
adjustment. We will need the authority to allow them to set
aside up to 20 percent of their SRF money to take it out of the
revolving loan and turn it into a State-managed grant program
to local governments.
We do seek $1.5 billion for Superfund. As I mentioned
earlier, we continue our request, our program funding level of
$92 million for brownfields.
To help reduce pollution that causes global warming, the
President's budget requests $216 million for EPA. This would
allow us to build on our extremely successful voluntary
programs and energy use to provide efforts and partnerships for
energy efficient technologies.
You may be aware that just this past year we completed a
very successful partnership with very large buildings in terms
of energy efficiency including the Empire State Building, the
World Trade Center and the Sears Tower. That was an initial
investment in more efficient technologies, lights, windows,
heating and cooling. Not only could they do their part to
reduce greenhouse gas pollutants, but they would also save
money ultimately, there was a business interest in this.
Of special significance, and this is the last issue I
wanted to raise with the committee and I think it is of
particular importance to you and is certainly of importance to
us. That is the Agency's operating programs.
The easiest way to think about the EPA budget is there are
three big pots of money--what we give to the States, a big, big
chunk; what goes into Superfund; and then everything else we
do--drinking water, RCRA, standards, asthma, everything else is
in our operating program.
We are requesting an increase in that program, a 5 percent
increase over the levels enacted in fiscal year 1999. It really
is the backbone of our work to protect public health and the
environment. It's where we do our science, our standards, where
we run our enforcement programs, our right-to-know programs.
We have been concerned, Mr. Chairman. Last year we did
experience earmarks in that account which caused us to have to
take program reductions. There was also an across-the-board
cut. We have managed this but it has been extremely difficult.
I think if we were to face the same kind of levels of
earmarks into the heart of these programs and a general
reduction next year, our ability to manage it would not be as
great as it was this year. We are sort of slicing back to the
bone right now within the core agency programs. We would like
to work with this committee to really make sure we have our
operating program resources in place.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I hope and I know that we all
share a common vision of strong public health environmental
protections, a strong economy. That is our commitment to work
with all of the members of this committee, to work with your
States, with local governments, to build the partnerships that
will allow us to honor the needs of the American people to
protect their health, their communities and to continue to
ensure a strong economy.
I appreciate the opportunity to be here today and look
forward to answering questions.
Senator Chafee. Thank you very much.
What we will do is have 5 minutes allotted to each Senator
and come in the order of arrival. The lights will be right
here. If Senators could pay attention to these lights, that
would be very helpful.
Madam Administrator, I'd like to ask you about these Better
America bonds. On the face of it, it's something that I would
be highly enthusiastic about. Indeed, when the President
originally mentioned it, I thought it sounded great.
I'm confused though as to why you've launched into this
when with the Land and Water Conservation Fund we don't
presently fund that to its fullest extent. It seems to me that
to embark on this new proposal, which as I understand it, these
are zero interest bonds and if I buy a bond for $1,000, one of
these, I presume there is a formula somewhere that says I'm
meant to get 5 percent so I get 5 percent of $50 credit that I
take on my income tax return. Is that the way the thing works?
Ms. Browner. Exactly. You would take it against your
Federal income tax liability.
Senator Chafee. The cost of this program is very
substantial in the research we've done but again, why don't we
use the program we have there now? I'm not knocking the Better
America bonds but it certainly comes to mind that the Land and
Water Conservation Fund isn't currently being funded to the
extent it should be. Why do we embark on this new program?
Also, you're not involved with any of this currently; it's
a big new undertaking for your agency, but go to it.
Ms. Browner. First of all, with respect to the Land and
Water Conservation Fund, the President's livability agenda does
request congressional funding for the Land and Water
Conservation Fund. I believe it is $1 billion. That is one of
the components of the livability agenda.
As I think all of the members know, that program does
something very and has a different focus than an open, green
space, preservation effort. That program has largely focused on
our national parks and enhancing protections in our national
parks. The Administration has put forward a proposal to fully
fund that program.
Better America Bonds is not in any way I would suggest to
you the Land and Water Conservation Fund. For example, under
Better America Bonds, the Federal Government will not own one
inch of the property, it will all be owned, rather managed by
the local community pursuant to their needs.
Better America Bonds is designed to assist those
communities who make these voluntary decisions--with a targeted
tax credit so they can see their citizens' money go further.
You asked about the cost of the program. The Treasury
Department has scored this at $700 million over a 5-year
period. They are carrying that as part of their Greenbook
presentation to the tax committees. This amount represents the
cost to the Federal Government from the general revenues by
providing the tax credit on the interest payment.
I would suggest to you that an investment of $700 million
over the 5 years for $9.5 billion in bonding authority is a
pretty good investment. We've already seen tremendous interest
in this from local communities and Governors across the
country.
Finally, you asked why EPA? EPA would chair an interagency
committee made up of HUD, Transportation and others. You do
need someone to manage the program and I think the thinking is
that EPA, first of all, has run a very successful, similar
program which is brownfields, the bottoms up program.
Second, we do see that for many communities, green space
preservation not only brings with it an enhancement to quality
of life, it also brings improvement in air quality. It brings
enhanced water quality and we are increasingly of the mind that
we are now willing to give communities SIP credits, State
Implementation Plan credits for brownfields redevelopment
because we've been able to demonstrate with communities that
when you redevelop a brownfield you are taking some cars off
the road, you are reducing the air pollution burden.
Similarly, with green space preservation, you preserve an
acre in the community. I was just down in Tampa, FL where they
want to buy an acre total along their Hillsborough River. One
acre of green space along a river in the country is far, far
better and a more natural way to protect water quality if that
is what they decide rather than other mechanisms.
So this is simply a way of saying to a community, if you
want to make that kind of decision, then there is a program
available to help you to provide a targeted resource.
Senator Chafee. I tapped into a vein there apparently and
my 5 minutes is gone.
[Laughter.]
Senator Chafee. Senator Baucus.
Senator Baucus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'd just note that the Community Empowerment Board includes
a lot of people. Basically, the chair is the vice president and
Bruce Reid is the vice chair, and Gean Sperling and then
basically Cabinet secretaries.
Ms. Browner. Yes, including EPA.
Senator Baucus. Including the EPA, so it seems huge, it
seems large.
I'm with the chairman and basically I think it's a good
idea on the surface. I just want to think this through a bit.
Senator Chafee. You're talking about the Better American
bond?
Senator Baucus. That's right. For example, what are the
criteria going to be in selecting which projects are available
and which are not?
Ms. Browner. The Administration and the Department of
Treasury's budget submission has essentially suggested three
categories of projects, but again, we want to broadly define
these because the best answers will come at the local or State
level. They will know best.
The three categories are: open space or green space
preservation; the second is water quality enhancements. As I
said previously, frequently green space preservation will bring
with it water quality enhancement. Finally, brownfields that
would become green spaces or in the instance where a brownfield
has come onto the city's tax rolls because of a default in
taxes, then they could use the tax credit bond for the cleanup
of the brownfield, not for the redevelopment but for the
cleanup.
There are really three. One is open space preservation; two
is water quality enhancements and finally, brownfields into
greenfields.
Senator Baucus. What is your basis for concluding what the
demand will be?
Ms. Browner. I visited with a number of mayors, over 100
mayors, and a number of Governors across the country and
received a lot of enthusiasm. We do expect it will be
oversubscribed. It is structured that the EPA and the board
would award $1.9 billion in bonding authority for each of 5
years. We do anticipate we would receive more applications than
there are resources. It is designed to be a competitive
process, to bring forward the best ideas as we do in the
brownfields program.
We funded 227 brownfields projects. We've had over 700
applications.
Senator Baucus. But competitive in what way? How are you
going to allocate? If it's not to be competitive in dollar
terms, what is it?
Ms. Browner. Correct, but competitive in terms of the
benefits that the particular project--how many benefits are
served, how many issues are addressed, recognizing issues in
your State would vary dramatically from the issues in the
chairman's or Senator Lautenberg's State, in the same way we
tried to do with brownfields.
Senator Baucus. If it's a selection committee, why doesn't
the committee include more local people, State and local
people? This is all Federal. Right now the list is all
Washington, DC people.
Ms. Browner. It could.
Senator Baucus. It's all inside the Beltway.
Ms. Browner. For example in the empowerment zones and in
brownfields, you have had a Federal committee making the
determinations and the allocations, but I'm certainly not
adverse to expanding the review committee.
I do think it's important to note, for example, in the
brownfields showcase communities, it's all been handled by
career staff across an array of Federal agencies. They reviewed
these. These are people with long service.
Senator Baucus. What about populous areas versus less
populous areas? How are the less populous areas going to feel
they're getting a square deal here? I mention this in part
because proximity is power and right now decisions are made in
Washington. People closer to Washington, closer proximity
generally have more power. They are there, they can beat on the
doors, make telephone calls and so forth.
I can just tell you from very deep experience that the
farther one lives from Washington, DC, particularly if one
lives in a rural area, the more one feels unempowered. So how
can we give these people a fair deal so they feel they have a
fair shot compared to the people who have lobbyists and that
kind of thing and are just a few steps away?
Ms. Browner. It's extremely important and one of the
reasons I think the mayors like the program is that local
communities can apply directly. They don't have to come up
through their State and compete at the State level. They can
come straight into the application process. It's not cumbersome
to the local community.
Again, no one is required to do this so if a local, rural
community wants to do this, they come straight into the process
and they don't have to weave their way around.
Senator Baucus. You know we have industrial development
bonds which is somewhat similar. What if there is an
allocation, as I think there is in the law, with respect to
industrial development bonds and then caps. Why does EPA need
to be making the decision? That's my question.
Ms. Browner. Because the Administration does believe that
there will be more applications than there are resources
available. I think that is good because it allows more people
to come forward with locally driven, creative proposals. Then
when you have more than there are resources available, you will
have to run a competitive process.
Senator Baucus. As I said, I think on the surface that is
very interesting, very intriguing. I have a lot of questions.
Ms. Browner. It's a new idea.
Senator Baucus. Thank you very much.
Senator Chafee. I think if your answers could be a little
briefer, then they'd be able to get in more than one question.
Next is Senator Wyden.
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Browner, you heard me talk about smart growth in
transportation. The committee had I think a big victory, TEA-
21. Let me ask you about how we do that now with clean water
and try to relate particularly the sewage issue to this.
You all recognize the value that open space protection
plays in the context of the Safe Drinking Water Act by allowing
drinking water funds to be used to protect drinking water
sources from encroaching development.
Why not extend this approach to help rivers, streams and
lakes meet the Clean Water Act standards? You could again have
another kind of approach which wouldn't be either or, but you
could have watershed protection and conventional treatment work
together to meet clean water goals simply by doing the same
sort of thing for clean water that we're doing with the Safe
Drinking Water Act.
Ms. Browner. I think we agree that as you look at the
current water pollution challenges, polluted runoff is perhaps
the most significant. The more we can provide assistance to
local communities, an array of tools to address polluted
runoff, the better off we will all be.
I think everything from our Nonpoint Source Program, 319,
which we do request funding for, the set aside, the 20 percent
clean water SRF set asides, those are grants. Communities would
not have to pay them back like the Revolving Loan Fund they use
to build their sewer plants.
Better America bonds, the set aside in the Drinking Water
Program, we agree that more flexibility is needed.
Senator Wyden. We'll follow up with you, but the point is,
and you heard the question about the bonds, that's a new
program. Why not use existing authority, particularly where you
have the Safe Drinking Water Act model? I'll follow up with you
but it seems to me we could take the next step of the smart
growth fight in the clean water bill simply by taking the model
from safe drinking water.
My other question, given time constraints, I think you all
are aware I've introduced S. 188, the Water Conservation and
Quality Incentives Act. This is an opportunity to save millions
and millions of gallons of water. We brought together the
Environmental Defense Fund and the Farm Bureau for it simply by
saying that when they have a project that can meet tough
conservation standards, they could tap the Clean Water
Revolving Funds.
What does the Administration think of this?
Ms. Browner. We think quite frankly that a number of the
kind of projects you're talking about, if States would certify
them, they could do it right now. I think what's happened is
many of the States and keepers of the SRF State by State, the
Clean Water Revolving Fund, have traditionally been on the
bricks and mortar side.
We agree right now that the Clean Water Act does allow
States flexibility to address some of the projects you're
raising and we want to work with the States so they understand
that flexibility.
Senator Wyden. Let us work with you on it because our
understanding is the reason there have been only a handful of
these projects approved is because it's still a pretty unwieldy
kind of structure. That's what I think the Environmental
Defense Fund and the Farm Bureau were concerned about--that we
could do a whole lot more. This is something that is pro-fish.
You save water on these kinds of irrigation systems, you're
doing something for fish, you're doing something for farmers
and something for conservation.
The time is short and I just wanted to make it clear that I
wanted to pursue both smart growth issues and the question of
conservation with you as we go to markup.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Chafee. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Lautenberg.
Senator Lautenberg. Ms. Browner, I think the skeptics in
particular but even those who support the Superfund Program
generally are pretty much surprised and pleased by the progress
that has been made in the cleanups.
As I read your statement, by September of this year, I
think you said all cleanup remedies will be selected for 95
percent of all the non-Federal sites that are on the NPL. In
light of this progress, the improvements you've made in the way
the program is being administered, do we still need a
comprehensive Superfund reauthorization bill?
Ms. Browner. Senator, as you are well aware, having been
engaged in this process with us for 6 years, it has always been
our desire to see comprehensive reform. Having said that, I
would say after 6 years, I am increasingly of the mind--that is
unlikely. I would simply suggest that the Administration would
be willing to work with you and others on those areas where
there is broad agreement to fashion a bill that would allow us
to at least address those areas.
It would not be everything I think all of us had hoped for
but quite frankly, we never seem to get past some of the old
arguments. We seem to spend a lot of time debating issues that
I think were relevant 7 or 8 years ago.
Senator Lautenberg. Many of these have been settled in the
courtroom, et cetera?
Ms. Browner. Exactly, but I think at this point I would be
more than happy to work in any way the committee wants to work.
From our perspective, we think there is a lot of agreement on
things like prospective purchaser, innocent landowner,
contiguous property owner, perhaps municipal waste, generators,
transporters. Obviously we are very concerned about
replenishing the trust fund. Those are areas where we've had a
lot of agreement and maybe we should just do that so we can
incorporate it.
Senator Lautenberg. What happens if we don't replenish the
trust fund? We're now missing $600 or $700 million a year?
Ms. Browner. Yes. The fee collection is now in the third
year but we are not collecting the fees. At some point, we will
encounter a problem in terms of our ability.
The good news is we are doing a much better job at EPA in
recovering spent monies from responsible parties that we keep
bringing money into the fund. The list of those parties we are
collecting from is a diminishing list. We won't get all of it.
At some point, we will be done with this process.
At some point, the Congress is going to have to look
seriously at how they intend to fund this program as we really
sort of bring it into its conclusion. We're out there, at these
sites. The end of sort of the original Superfund effort in this
country is coming. It's not going to happen tomorrow but it's
certainly coming, not to say we won't always need a law and
problems won't arise that we haven't anticipated. In terms of
the large volume of these very big sites, we're well down the
road and we can see the end.
Senator Lautenberg. I want to take another look at it to
see if there is something we can do. Have you noticed that
industry generally has become more resigned to the fact that
they're going to have to help clean up the mess they've left
behind, the polluters and there is a more cooperative spirit
out there?
Ms. Browner. I think there is a more cooperative spirit. In
having talked to a number of industry groups and potentially
responsible parties, I would suggest to you that it is in part
because we were responsive to their legitimate complaints.
There were problems, it was slow, it was costly. We changed
that and I think there are many trade, associations and groups
that have actually put out very favorable reports in terms of
our administrative performance, which this committee was
instrumental in assisting us.
Senator Lautenberg. Very quickly because the chairman has a
quick hammer here, on the Better America bond, they are
particularly well suited to the brownfields program which has
been very successful and the facts bear you out.
I produced a bill earlier this month, S. 20, and I assume
you've had a chance to look at it. Do the goals we've outlined
there support what you think would be a good way to get the
brownfields program moving along at a better pace?
Ms. Browner. I think it's very much in keeping with our
vision of this program and the future of the brownfields.
Senator Lautenberg. Any particular changes there that you
would recommend?
Ms. Browner. No, I think it's something that is very much
in keeping with what we have recommended to Congress
previously. I think we would be very inclined to support it.
Senator Chafee. Before Senator Voinovich goes, and we're
not deducting it from his time, I think it would be helpful to
the committee Ms. Browner, I see you have some of your
assistant administrators. If you could identify who they are,
then we become more familiar with them. Just briefly.
Ms. Browner. Beginning on my left is Diane Thompson,
associate administrator for Legislative and Intergovernmental
Affairs; Bob Perciasepe, who was previously the assistant
administrator for Water who is now the assistant administrator
for the Office of Air and Radiation; Tim Fields is a career
employee of the Agency whose nomination is now pending before
this committee to be the assistant administrator for the Office
of Solid Waste and Emergency Response; Mike Ryan, comptroller;
Nanci Gelb, budget director; Chuck Fox who is the assistant
administrator for Water; Susan Wayland is the acting assistant
administrator for the Office of Pesticides and Pollution
Prevention and Toxic Substances; Norine Noonan who has recently
been confirmed as the assistant administrator for the Office of
Research and Development.
Senator Chafee. OK. Senator Voinovich.
Senator Voinovich. Administrator, you don't need to give me
this now but I would be real interested in knowing the increase
in your budget over what it was last year, taking into
consideration additional money that you're asking for and also
anticipating tax expenditures, money we'd lose to the Treasury
if people took full advantage of the Better America bonds and
other things that are out there?
Ms. Browner. I'd be happy to answer that. I can answer for
the record if that's better.
Senator Voinovich. Second, Senator Wyden made a point,
there are a lot of programs you're into right now that could
use additional money. For example, when we worked with you on
the Safe Drinking Water Act, we put in a loan fund for
communities to enhance their local water systems.
Ohio has been accessing that program, but I can tell you we
could use a lot more. As a matter of fact, we're using our
Small City Block grant money for the more rural areas of the
State to put money into those programs. I'm just looking at
priorities.
I don't know exactly what Senator Wyden was talking about
but I'm sure he's got some good ideas before you go off on a
new program.
The other point I'd like to make is this. New Jersey just
passed their bond issue. As Governor of Ohio in 1993, we went
to the voters and we were spending $250 million, 25 percent of
that for the locals, to do about the same thing you're talking
about doing with the Federal program.
One of my concerns has always been what is the role of the
Federal Government, what's the role of the local government and
is it fair if you really get at it for the taxpayers of Ohio or
New Jersey or other States where they step to the plate and
provide money for open space and doing some of the things that
this would work to say we're going to make you pay to the
Federal Government your taxes to fund the national program for
a lot of people out there when you're already taking care of it
on the local level.
In spite of the fact that we're talking about the fact we
have a surplus, the truth of the matter is we don't have a
surplus but for social security. In fact, we're going to be at
a deficit this year and maybe we'll have a little on budget
surplus in 2001.
It seems to me that one of the jobs of all agencies would
be to work harder and smarter and try to do more with less. I
would rather have you, instead of going with the new program,
go back over and look at areas where we really need help and if
you're going to put more money into it, assuming we've got the
money to give you, to maybe put it there where we're going to
get a better return on our investment than going forward with a
brand new program.
Senator Baucus talked about how do you administer it? I'm a
former mayor and anytime I can grab some more money, it's like
revenue sharing, I'm going to go after it. It seems to me that
if this ever did go forward, there ought to be some look at
what the States are doing and whether States have an agency in
terms of allocating it so that you get the biggest return for
your investment.
I really say to you, if you're going to get some more
money, why don't you look at the programs you're already into
that I think you're going to get a much better return on your
investment than going forward with a new program.
Senator Chafee. Specifically addressing the Better America
Bonds?
Senator Voinovich. Right.
Ms. Browner. First of all, I agree with a number of points
you made. I certainly think what States and local communities
are doing in terms of their bonding programs has been
incredibly successful and incredibly innovative.
All we are suggesting in Better America Bonds is not a
Federal decision, not Federal ownership, but some financial
assistance. I think there is a long history of very successful
programs, particularly at EPA through the Clean Water SRF, the
Drinking Water SRF that you were very instrumental in helping
us create, providing to local communities, in some instances
through the States, sometimes directly, some financial
assistance, not decisionmaking, financial assistance. That's
really what Better America Bonds is all about, helping local
communities take their dollars a little bit further.
I'm sure you know this but for the record, Better America
Bonds and all of the other programs we are discussing in the
EPA budget request are within the balanced budget. They are not
about the surplus; they are all contained within the balanced
budget.
Senator Voinovich. Could you just tell me how you intend to
fund it, fund the additional dollars?
Ms. Browner. Better America bonds are costed within the
balanced budget. Obviously the Administration made choices
across the full array of Federal programs and it is carried as
an adjustment to the Tax Code. It is scored within the
Department of Treasury's Green Book at $700 million over a 5-
year period. That, the bond market experts tell us equates to
$9.5 billion in bonding authority for local communities.
I did want to come back to the Drinking Water SRF. The
budget request before the Congress is, No. 1, an increase over
last year.
Senator Voinovich. Are those bonds going to be included
within the State caps on tax exempt financing?
Senator Chafee. I don't think they're affected by that.
Ms. Browner. No, they are not affected. I should correct
myself on how it is scored within Treasury. It is taxes
foregone because of the credit. It is managed as a credit; it
is not affected as the chairman points out.
Very quickly on the drinking water, we are asking Congress
for an increase in the Drinking Water SRF. That keeps us on
track with what this committee authorized to fully fund the
program. We all may agree at the end of that authorization that
full funding, we need more. We see a large need out there in
the States but we are on track and we do seek an increase for
the Drinking Water Program.
Senator Chafee. Senator Thomas.
Senator Thomas. I will ask quickly if you can answer
quickly.
I want to go back to the Clean Water Action Plan,
specifically the animal feedlot operations which I'm told are
fairly well spelled out in current law and regulations. Many
believe what you're talking about now goes far beyond that.
I guess my question is, if you were going to change the
rules and do something quite different, why don't you do it
under the Clean Water Act rather than by regulation? Two horses
in a corral I understand.
Ms. Browner. Senator, we have been working with the
Department of Agriculture. We have issued a proposed strategy
pursuant to our authority under the Clean Water Act. We are
relying on that.
Senator Thomas. You'll have a lawsuit because a lot of
people don't believe you have the authority to do that. You
talk about partnerships all the time and my second thought is
this really was very little notice. I was out in Wyoming for a
week and I heard about this more than anything else. In terms
of the amount of notice and public comment periods on this, I
think there are some groups prepared to sue.
Ms. Browner. We did have a public comment period. It began
in September. It was not closed until January 19. I will be
honest with you, that is much longer than many of our public
comment periods and certainly longer than we are required by
law to provide.
Senator we have worked with a number of the farm groups,
the producer groups. For example, the pork producers, we have
worked very closely with them to design a program to address
the animal feeding operations issues within that industry. I
think they would attest to the partnership that we have
developed with them as an example of how we're trying to do
this.
Senator Thomas. I don't agree with you. You can say that if
you like but that isn't what I find at all. You always talk
about partnerships but it's kind of one horse and one dog sort
of an arrangement. I really must say I disagree with you
thoroughly on that and I wish we had a chance to talk a little
more in detail about it because I didn't make up that. That's
people's thinking about that.
You talked about the economy being so great, I can tell you
in agriculture and in mineral oil and gas, it's not great. So I
think when you impose considerable costs on these folks at this
point, it's a difficult thing. You need to understand that.
I understand with respect to the funding for Superfund tax
that GAO said last year only about 46 percent of the money goes
into actual cleanups, and the rest is in administrative costs.
How do you react to that?
Ms. Browner. I'm more than happy to explain it to you. We
don't agree with that. It is a long answer. If you'd like me to
take the time, I'm more than happy to do so.
Senator Thomas. No, probably not, but I would like to know.
GAO usually does pretty good work. You don't agree with their
work?
Ms. Browner. Not in this case and we've made them aware of
that. We think the appropriate allocation of resources is
reflected in how we manage the program, 69.5 percent goes to
cleanup.
Senator Thomas. You don't need to go into it right now.
[Additional information supplied for the record follows:]
agency perspective on gao's report ``analysis of contractor
cleanup spending''
The Agency uses a different and more meaningful measure of what
constitutes cleanup spending than the General Accounting Office (GAO)
uses in their August 1998, report: Analysis of Contractor Spending.
EPA's definition of cleanup spending includes all necessary program
cost in the response/cleanup portion of the budget. This funds most,
but not all, elements of the cost of cleaning up a Superfund site.
Using this definition, EPA focuses resources on those activities that
yield the greatest environmental results. Effective use of enforcement
authorities and oversight along with strong partnerships with States
tribes and other Federal agencies result in more cleanups each year
that the narrow band of predominately Fund-lead work GAO focuses on.
GAO's definition of cleanup is so narrow that many sites that have
reach construction completion would be deemed to have had little or no
spending on cleanup. GAO does not include many key components of the
cleanup process. GAO omitted functions such as lab analysis,
engineering and technical analyses, project manager salaries, state/
tribal activities, community involvement activities, and oversight of
responsible parties and many other activities necessary to achieve
cleanups. GAO's contractor cost computation also fails to recognize the
$175 million in annual Superfund appropriations used by other Federal
agencies (e.g., ATSDR, USCG, NIEHS, FEMA, NOAA) for cleanup, testing
and assessment, and the approximately $30 million in annual
appropriations to DOJ which has resulted in settlements with private
parties for more than $15 billion in cleanup or reimbursements to the
Federal government. Without these resources, the response cleanup
process could not proceed.
Ms. Browner. They defined it in a way that ignored a lot of
the work we do across the country to clean up toxics and that's
why they came with their number.
Senator Thomas. They stated nevertheless that only 46
percent goes into cleanups.
Ms. Browner. We disagree.
Senator Thomas. I understand and I disagree with you on the
other, so please let's talk a little more about that because I
certainly find a lot of evidence that there wasn't notice, that
there are a lot of concerns about it.
Wyoming is the only State that doesn't have a unified
assessment. The incremental funds are tied to the completion
and approval of a unified watershed assessment, correct?
Ms. Browner. That's correct. Forty-nine States have
applied; Wyoming has chosen not to apply. We are processing all
of the other 49 State applications and we will be making those
grant awards.
It has been explained to me why Wyoming chose not to apply.
I think your Governor has taken a position that our work under
the Clean Water Action Plan is illegal and therefore, he will
not apply.
Senator Thomas. I think they have applied. It wasn't
approved.
Ms. Browner. If I stand corrected, I stand corrected.
Senator Thomas. We have a lot of confusion in my State and
we need to get together because all the great things you're
talking about, all this working together and so on, I can tell
you just doesn't reflect. These people are saying we're being
ordered around so we can't do it here but I would like to talk
about it some more because it isn't a happy situation.
Ms. Browner. We're more than happy to work with you. If I
stand corrected, I stand corrected, but as of yesterday, I'm
under the impression that Wyoming chose not to apply. We would
love to work with them to get an application so that they too
can participate in the program.
Senator Thomas. The conditions under which you can
participate has something to do with it also.
Ms. Browner. Well, 49 other States did participate.
Senator Thomas. At any rate, I would like very much to talk
about some of these specific things. If you or someone who
works with this region could come see me, I would be very
grateful.
Ms. Browner. We'd be more than happy. We'll set up a
meeting here and we'd also be happy to set up a meeting back in
the State.
Senator Thomas. Thank you very much.
Senator Chafee. I think that is a good idea. Obviously the
Senator has a serious situation in his State. If you could make
yourself available, whoever it might be, but I think probably
you would be the one.
Ms. Browner. I will do it. I think we have a meeting
scheduled or we were trying to schedule one.
Senator Chafee. Get together with Senator Thomas and then
we can see how you come out with that.
Senator Crapo.
Senator Crapo. I want to follow up briefly on the
difference of opinion which you have with GAO on the amount of
money that goes into cleanup only to ask if you would provide
the documentation to me with your perspective on that.
Ms. Browner. Yes.
Senator Crapo. I would like to review that at another time.
I understand while I was out of the room for a minute, the
question of Superfund reform came up. What's been relayed to me
is that you responded that you do support comprehensive
Superfund reform. Is that correct?
Ms. Browner. No, I don't think that fully characterizes my
answer.
Senator Crapo. Tell me how you would respond?
Ms. Browner. I said we have worked 6 years to achieve
comprehensive reform but I'm a realist, I'm a pragmatist, it
hasn't happened and at this point, we would be happy to work in
a bipartisan manner with any member who would like to advance a
bill that covers the areas where I do think there is broad
agreement, for example, contiguous landowners, innocent
purchasers. No one has any disagreement on these issues. It
seems we're sort of holding resolution of those hostage to
issues where we continue to have some disagreement.
We've done this in RCRA, we've taken the things we all
agree on and we've gotten it done to great success for both the
States, industry, and the environmentalists. We should do the
same with Superfund. I would still like comprehensive reform
but I've been up here for 6 years and it hasn't happened.
Senator Crapo. You're not saying that you do not support
comprehensive reform, you're saying you think we ought to move
ahead to where we have agreement?
Ms. Browner. I think after 6 years, it might be the best
avenue to travel. We haven't been able to find agreement on all
of the issues. If we could find agreement, I would be for
comprehensive reform tomorrow. I've probably spent more time
testifying and meeting with members on Superfund comprehensive
reform than any other issue.
Senator Crapo. That we could agree on.
You stated earlier that 585 sites have been cleaned up?
Ms. Browner. Yes.
Senator Crapo. When you say cleaned up, does that mean
those sites have been delisted?
Ms. Browner. No. A large number of sites involve the
ongoing treatment of water contamination. It's called a pump
and treat. What we mean is the facilities are up, they're
running, they're being managed. No other activity is going on.
181 have now been delisted and are completely done but for pump
and treat situations, which is a large amount, there are no
bulldozers out there. There's a little box generally sitting on
the ground which have the treatment.
Senator Crapo. So construction has been completed in those
sites?
Ms. Browner. Yes and we're out of there.
Senator Crapo. You're out and operation and maintenance is
underway?
Ms. Browner. Exactly.
Senator Crapo. I take that means an ROD has been signed.
Ms. Browner. That's the first step in the process, that's
an early step in the process. A record of decision gives you
the plan for what the cleanup will be.
Senator Crapo. But 181 of those 585 have been delisted?
Ms. Browner. Yes.
Senator Crapo. When you say you're out of there on the
others, that means it's operational?
Ms. Browner. It's what we would refer to as O&M, correct.
Senator Crapo. How many are not?
Ms. Browner. There are about 1,300 sites on the master
list. We have added a few over the last several years, sites
we've worked with Governors to add to the list and in some
instances were requested by the Governors and in some
instances, we reach an agreement.
Of the approximately 1,300, as many have pointed out, we
are active at almost all of the non-Federal sites, over 95
percent, but 181 have been delisted, 585 we have completed
cleanups on. We are in the process of concluding--995 have
RODs.
Senator Crapo. Does all of this activity include the
activity that will be undertaken with regard to natural
resource damages or section 106 orders or the like?
Ms. Browner. With respect to natural resource damages, I
think as you're aware, we're not a trustee; EPA is not one of
the trustees. The trustees are the Department of Interior and
others. At sites where there are natural resource damages,
those are handled by the trustees.
Senator Crapo. The point is all of that activity under
Superfund is still outstanding and when you're talking about
585 sites being cleaned up, that has nothing to do with the NRD
or the 106 activity?
Ms. Browner. Only a few of the 585 do the trustees have an
interest in.
Senator Crapo. What I'm talking about is all of the other
sites in America, all the other locations in America where
there are NRD concerns and potential NRD activity, that's not
included in your description of the winding down of Superfund?
Ms. Browner. No. In the 1,300-plus sites, we'd be more than
happy to give you a list of those sites which are not all of
them by any stretch of the imagination, where the trustees have
raised a potential NRD claim.
Senator Crapo. At this point in time?
Ms. Browner. Yes. We can provide that.
[Additional information supplied for the record follows:]
list of sites in which the trustees have raised potential nrd claims
The agency is working with the Department of Justice to compile a
list of Superfund National Priorities List sites where the Natural
Resource Trustees have raised a possible Natural Resource Damage Claim.
This information will be provided to the member and the committee as
soon as it is compiled.
Senator Crapo. Nothing prohibits that from being done in
the future?
Ms. Browner. We can provide that to you. Again, we are not
a trustee, so I don't know the answer to your question about
what timeframes they operate under but we could get that for
you.
Senator Crapo. All right. Thank you.
Senator Chafee. Senator Boxer.
Senator Boxer. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
I'm going to have to rush right off after I ask my
questions due to a conflicting hearing.
Thank you for being here. I'm glad I'm here because I've
seen kind of an attack on the work you do. I want to say I want
to bring those fights to the floor of the Senate because if
there's any issue that brings America together, it's the
environment. It's cleaning up these Superfund sites, it's
continuing to make progress. Yes, it's even Better America
bonds although it is a new idea, it's a very old idea in some
way because the local communities are going out with
initiatives.
I'm a former county supervisor so I come from the same
perspective as Senator Voinovich who talked about being there.
I started as a county supervisor, passing open space
initiatives. What a joy it would have been to leverage those
monies. We could have done so much more and now we're
struggling to do everything we want.
We've got parks that are closed up in San Francisco where
kids are looking from the street to a closed up park. We've got
to do more and I want to bring these issues, these debates to
the Senate floor. Maybe we won't have the votes but we'll have
the people and I'm going to be there.
I want to say that I was very proud yesterday to introduce
a piece of legislation I talked with the chairman about called
Resources 2000 which goes beyond what we're talking about here
and would fully fund about eight trust funds for the
environment and make it mandatory to do that.
As we look at saving social security's trust fund and
saving the Medicare Trust Fund and the Highway Trust Fund. What
about these environmental trust funds like Land and Water
Conservation and Historic Preservation? It is pathetic to see
the neglect of our environment.
What you are trying to do within the context of the
balanced budget is to bring some new, fresh ideas to the table.
I, for one, if maybe the only one in this room, want to say
thank you for being visionary. I'll tell you, every time there
was a new idea, Teddy Roosevelt just looked up and said, oh,
it's a new idea. Who would ever have been able to have the
progress that we have made so far.
Maybe this is part of this whole impeachment deal--opening
up. We ought to open up to new ideas and take new steps and
think big and yes, to leverage $9 billion won't even meet the
shortfall. My State has 33 million people. We're going to have,
Mr. Chairman, 50 million people in the year 2020. If we don't
move forward and leverage some of these dollars and do what we
can, we're not going to be able to breathe. If we keep losing
the trees and the wetlands, these people are going to have a
very low quality of life and it's just not right.
In closing, so I leave some time for you, in California, 76
percent of Superfund sites have final decisions in place. We
are very pleased. As much as I would like to do reform because
with the chairman's help, I got an amendment passed to
Superfund reauthorization that I love. It says you've got to
clean it up to protect the kids and I don't think we do that.
I would love to see Superfund reform but at the same time,
I don't want to stop the program when we're making progress. So
I want to be pragmatic about it. I will work with my chairman
to see what he thinks about it and of course, Senator
Lautenberg.
Can you tell me a little bit about what you're doing on
this very important program called the Food Quality Protection
Act that's supposed to protect kids? I love what you're doing
on the asthma front, it is a huge problem all over the country
with so many kids. The increase in asthma is up I think 160
percent among kids, it's horrible. But I have reports that the
EPA is not consistently following the mandate in the Food
Quality Protection Act to set pesticide tolerances in a way
that protects kids. I would love to have your response.
Also, last, MTBE, I know the chairman is concerned, how are
you doing on your panel? We've got to get rid of it. It is
terrible, it is ruining our water supply, we don't know how to
clean it up. So how are you doing on your timetable?
Ms. Browner. We do have a blue ribbon panel on MTBE. I
think you're well aware of the membership and it is truly blue
ribbon. We do anticipate that they will be able to respond to
our questions within the allotted timeframes. I think by June
we expect a set of recommendations. It is an extremely
difficult issue, Mr. Chairman, and we will want to work with
the committee as we receive those recommendations.
Senator Boxer. Will you supply that to the chairman and to
those of us who are interested?
Ms. Browner. Yes, absolutely.
If I might quickly respond on our Food Quality Protection
Act work. As you well know, Senator Boxer--you were
instrumental in passing this new and very comprehensive
legislation--it is really I think a watershed of change in
terms of how we as a Nation address these issues while
providing a level of important child protections and continuing
to feed the people of this country.
We are on track. It is not easy. It has not been easy. It
will not be easy but in terms of what Congress asked us to do--
for example, we were told by Congress to go back and review all
of the existing tolerances. There are 9,000 tolerances--in
other words, how much of this pesticide can be used on this
food product. There are 9,000 on the book. We have to have one-
third of them done by August of this year and we will make it.
What is happening thus far is of the ones we have reviewed,
we've completed about 2,300 of the 3,000 we will need to have
done. Approximately one-third of them have been revoked. We
have worked with the manufacturers, we have worked with the
grower groups and we have reached a decision that particular
use on that particular crop was not within the risk range and
they have been revoked.
Senator Boxer. Will you keep me informed because I don't
want to overdo the patience of my leader.
Ms. Browner. Yes.
Senator Boxer. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Chafee. Thank you, Senator.
We've got a difference in the cost of the Better American
bonds. It's my understanding from the Treasury Department and
CRS that you gave us a figure of up to 5 years or something,
whatever it was?
Ms. Browner. Right.
Senator Chafee. It's my understanding the total cost is $6
billion for this program. That's a Treasury figure and we can
tell you where we got it from and then you can tell us where
you think it's different.
Ms. Browner. As I understand, Mr. Chairman, we did get this
number from Treasury, it is carried in their budget documents,
the scored figure for the 5 years that we all score our numbers
over in the budget, it is $700 million over the 5 years.
You are correct, and I don't know what the number is, that
these are 15-year bonds and the interest, the tax credit
remains available obviously for the life of the bond. So there
are costs beyond the fifth year, but in terms of the 5-year
scoring, this has been scored by Treasury at $700 million over
the first 5 years.
Senator Chafee. I don't want to beat this to death but it
seems to me that many won't even be issued in the first 5
years?
Ms. Browner. In fact, we worked with Treasury because of
our concern with respect to that and while they do cap it at
$1.9 billion in bonding authority a year, if we do not issue
all of the tax credits for the $1.9 billion in the first year,
we can move them into the second and third year, so there is a
mechanism precisely because of that concern.
Senator Chafee. As I mentioned in the start of this, the
mere idea of my questioning this is unusual because it's the
kind of program--when I was Governor, we started a green acres
program and at that time, we did receive some Federal funds--
I've forgotten where the source was. It might have been the
Land and Water Conservation Fund. Whether it goes back that
far, I don't know.
In any event, this is a subject that's dear to my heart but
I must say three things do bother me--No. 1, the cost of it;
No. 2, if we're not just duplicating another program; and No.
3, you've made quite a point about this is local, there are no
Federal requirements here, but it's EPA that approves the
projects, as I understand it. So that's a pretty big power
right there. In other words, it's not a local decision whether
we'll get Better America bonds, it's you that will decide it.
Ms. Browner. But it's a local decision whether or not to
apply, no one is required.
Senator Chafee. That's right but the decision of whether
Sacramento or Pawtucket, RI or Greenville, NC gets it is
determined by you folks?
Ms. Browner. I'll be honest with you.
Senator Chafee. I hope you'll always be honest with me.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Browner. I'm going to get in trouble for this, I am
sure, but I would obviously like a program that could service
the needs of every community who made this choice. Within a
balanced budget, caps are put on programs and when you do that,
you do need to run a competitive process.
My sense is there are lots and lots of communities out
there that the benefit of that interest, not having to make
that interest payment is a lot to them. They're stretching
every penny to make these programs work and that's quite
important to them.
Senator Chafee. Now, let's shift gears here and you might
want Mr. Perciasepe's assist but you call on anyone you want.
This is a chart that's provided during the recent briefings
on the Clean Water Act. It's an EPA chart. It shows the permit
backlog under the Clean Water Act. Can you see it?
Ms. Browner. Yes.
Senator Chafee. Some of these permits are issued by EPA and
when they expire, there is a new application and either the
State or EPA reissues the permit, quite often with tighter
allowable discharges than previously.
What this chart does is show the percentage of permits that
have been reissued. We've divided it into two groups, the minor
being the green and the major being the brown. Can you
designate which is green and which is brown?
Ms. Browner. Yes.
Senator Chafee. This shows the percentage that have expired
and not been reissued. So the States are doing a pretty good
job, but fully 85 percent of the EPA-issued permits have
expired and are waiting renewal. This is a serious problem.
What do you have to say about that?
Ms. Browner. Let's make sure we all agree. This chart
reflects water permits, the NPDES permits that are issued under
the Clean Water Act.
Senator Chafee. Correct.
Ms. Browner. We have recognized this as a major weakness
under the Federal Management and Financial Integrity Act in
FEAA.
It's by no means an excuse but one of the things I have
worked really hard to do in 6 years is to get the States to run
this permitting program. We are now up to 42 States who are
actually running this program as opposed to EPA running the
permitting side of it.
When I came from Florida, we didn't have it. We had not yet
taken steps as a State to take control of this program at the
State level, so we're doing much, much better.
As you can see, EPA is still responsible for more of the
permits than the States and if we could get to all 50 States,
assuming day-to-day permitting authority, that I think would
help to deal with the backlog but we do recognize and we are
seeking increased funding, $10 million in the fiscal year 2000
budget, to help address this problem. We agree it's a problem.
Senator Chafee. What strikes me as odd is that you've come
in with a 23 percent reduction in your funding request for the
water program and then we've got problems like this. I just
have trouble understanding why you're requesting less money
when you've got these problems out there.
Ms. Browner. It's two different programs, Senator. This is
a permit program, this is not the revolving fund program within
the permit program. Within the clean water, day-to-day work not
the revolving loan fund, we are requesting an increase, $11
million specifically, to address this problem.
The fund that you're speaking to is the State Revolving
Fund and it's come up several times, but we made a commitment
to fully fund a $2 billion revolving amount in the 50 States by
the year 2002. We will hit that now because of our funding
increases over the last several years this year. We will be
revolving at $2 billion. States will be loaning out $2 billion.
That is why you see that adjustment in that account, because we
are honoring a very significant commitment and we are doing it
earlier.
Senator Chafee. All right. Again, I'd like to echo the
point made here about the Better America Bonds. It seems to me
you've got to establish some kind of criteria, some kind of
formula to determine why you send the money or why you give
approval to Idaho versus Florida or wherever it might be. So I
would urge you to try to get some criteria organized for this
program.
I don't know how the program will fare. I suppose others
will have concerns that I have that we're not using the Land
and Water Conservation Fund, but maybe there's an explanation
that I haven't yet become convinced of.
Thank you for coming and we'll be in touch with you. If you
can work with Senator Thomas, I'd appreciate it.
Ms. Browner. We will certainly do that. If I might say, Mr.
Chairman, Better America Bonds is a new idea, it is a new tool
for local governments and States. We want to work with you. We
want to design something that really does make sense. You,
coming from State government, probably know far better than we.
Each of the States have adopted different programs. We don't
want to micromanage, we don't want to judge that. We simply
want to provide some resources and we would like to work with
you to structure something.
Senator Chafee. I like the concept. As I said, for me to
even be questioning it is odd because it espouses the kind of
program that I've been for and have spent a lot of time on over
the years in our State, not only in the city I come from where
my son happens to be the mayor, where they came up with a bond
issue for open space, the State had a bond issue for open space
and both passed by 70 percent. It's very, very popular. It
isn't elitist--the inner city votes for it just as strongly as
the suburban areas but it does bear examination as to whether
we're getting into something that is duplicative.
Thank you very much.
[Whereupon, at 11:29 a.m., the committee was adjourned, to
reconvene at the call of the chair.]
[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Bob Smith, U.S. Senator From the State of
New Hampshire
Thank you Mr. Chairman and welcome, Administrator Browner. I will
be brief.
I'm pleased to see Ms. Browner and her team here this morning. We
have several unfinished pieces of business left over from the last
Congress, and I am looking forward to making progress on those fronts.
I have also been interested to see press reports indicating that
EPA views the Superfund program as in a ``ramp down'' mode. that view
is also reflected in the budget request for the Superfund program,
which is some 30 percent less than the fiscal year 1999 budget request.
I will be exploring these issues further in my questioning, and
look forward to Ms. Browner's testimony.
Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Barbara Boxer, U.S. Senator From the
State of California
I am very pleased to welcome you Administrator Browner to the
committee today, and look forward to hearing your testimony on the
President's proposed $7.2 billion budget for the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). Balancing the financial demands of bringing
Americans cleaner air, cleaner water, a safer food supply, and stronger
environmental protection for our children, is a difficult task. This
budget reflects a good balance among these competing demands, and I
thank you for your work to achieve that balance.
I am particularly pleased to see reflected in this budget the
recognition that many of the best ideas about how to protect the
environment are formed in local communities throughout the Nation.
In so many parts of the country, local communities have identified
lands they would like to preserve, parks they want to expand, and
suburban development they want to control. The record number of ballot
initiatives directed to these purposes throughout the Nation in this
last election is a strong expression of the importance of these issues
in people's everyday lives. In Ventura County, California, for example,
citizens overwhelmingly supported a ballot initiative providing that
agricultural and rural lands outside the city boundaries could not be
developed until the year 2020. Development after that point may only
take place if approved directly by voters.
As I understand it, the Administration's proposed Better America
Bonds program would help our communities finance the open space
preservation, wetland restoration, park expansion and other related
projects that are often the subject of these initiatives.
That is a great idea.
As work on the proposal moves forward and authorizing legislation
is prepared, I will be particularly interested in finding a mechanism
that would ensure that Better America Bonds program funding would be
directed to the most environmentally beneficially projects.
I was also pleased to see the Administration provide for a $17.4
million increase in funding to tackle childhood asthma. The dramatic
increase in asthma rates among children is staggering. The incidence of
asthma in children under the age of five has increased 160 percent from
1980 to 1994. Approximately 150,000 children are hospitalized each year
from asthma, making it the leading cause of hospitalization of children
due to chronic illness. The Administration's increase in funding for
asthma programs is desperately needed to help us gain control over a
problem that affects so many of our children.
As you move forward to implement new programs to protect children
from pollution, however, I am concerned that EPA may not be fully
implementing existing authority in this area.
In particular, many constituents have told me that EPA is not
consistently following the mandate in the Food Quality Protection Act
(FQPA) to set pesticide tolerances in a way which protects children.
The recent study by Consumer's Union indicating that fruits and
vegetables often contain pesticide residues that are unsafe for
children would seem to confirm this concern.
I was a strong supporter of the FQPA children's health provision
when the bill moved through the Senate. And, as you know, my own
Children's Environmental Protection Act (CEPA), which I will
reintroduce shortly, would expand the application of that provision to
require that all standards EPA establishes under our environmental laws
protect children. EPA's implementation of the FQPA children's health
provision, as one of the first of its kind, may well set the standard
for how a broader standard such as the one embodied in CEPA would be
implemented.
Given that, I am keenly interested to learn how the Agency has been
implementing this FQPA provision. I have questions on this subject I
will submit for the record.
Finally, I once again urge you to craft a national solution that
will protect our drinking water from contamination by the fuel additive
methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE). As you know, MTBE contamination of
drinking water continues to be a serious problem in California. Just
last month, Lake Tahoe closed its 13th drinking water well due to MTBE
contamination.
Due to the drinking water threats posed by MTBE, California has
been actively pursuing a solution to the MTBE problem. I would like to
call to your attention a number of recent California studies addressing
this problem.
First, in November 1998, the University of California released a
study evaluating the health and environmental effects of MTBE. It
concluded that MTBE should be phased-out of use. Second, in October
1998, the California Energy Commission released a study evaluating the
economic and gasoline supply effects of a 3- to 6-year phaseout of
MTBE. It concluded that a 3- to 6-year phaseout would be feasible.
I understand that you have established a panel of experts that will
report to you by July 31, 1999, whether MTBE use should continue. I
thank you for that action. I hope the panel will evaluate these two
recent California MTBE studies. I also understand that your Office of
Research and Development (ORD) will establish a pilot program in
California to identify new treatment technologies to clean up drinking
water contaminated with MTBE.
I am particularly interested to learn from the panel and from your
ORD whether a drinking water standard for MTBE, combined with a cost-
effective treatment technology, together could effectively protect our
drinking water supplies from MTBE.
Once again, thank you for presenting the Administration's budget
request today. As always, I look forward to working with you in the
year ahead to bring Americans a cleaner, safer environment.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Carol M. Browner, Administrator,
Environmental Protection Agency
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am very pleased to be
here today to present the President's Fiscal Year 2000 Budget Request
for the Environmental Protection Agency. Our $7.2 billion request
continues the President's efforts to protect public health and the
environment and provides States and communities with new, innovative
funding tools to help build strong, healthy communities for the 21st
century.
I would like to begin by thanking you, Mr. Chairman, and all the
members of this distinguished committee for your support over these
past few years. You have done a great deal to create a productive
working relationship with the Environmental Protection Agency. With
your leadership, we have been able to work together toward our mutual
goal of protecting public health and the environment. And our
achievements are truly impressive. To cite just a few examples:
This year, as a result of your work on the Safe Drinking Water
Amendments of 1996, we estimate that 88 percent of the American
population will receive drinking water from community water systems
that meet all health-based standards in effect since 1994.
Because of the support of this committee, and particularly the
actions of Senator Bond, we have made significant progress on many of
the 111 key action items in the Clean Water Action Plan and will soon
announce a joint strategy with USDA to protect waterways from non-point
source pollution from animal feeding operations.
Today, because of the Clean Water State Revolving Fund and
Construction Grants programs authorized by this committee, more than
176 million Americans receive the benefit of at least secondary
treatment of wastewater, keeping pollution out of our rivers, lakes and
coastlines.
585 Superfund toxic waste sites have been cleaned up, as of the end
of 1998, and an additional 85 construction completions will occur in
1999. Two-hundred tweny-seven communities have benefited from more than
$44 million in grants to revitalize Brownfields--again, thanks to this
committee.
Approximately 164 million Americans are breathing cleaner air
today, because of the work and wisdom of this committee when it passed
the Clean Air Act.
I also want to acknowledge the committee for your continued efforts
to forestall attempts to limit our ability to do our job. I look
forward to what we can achieve with your continued cooperation.
Our Fiscal Year 2000 Budget, in the tradition of every previous
budget submitted by this Administration, is based on what the President
and Vice President have proven time and time again--the environment and
the economy go hand in hand. They are inextricably linked.
Today, we have some of the toughest environmental and public health
protections in the world, and our economy is not only strong, it is
soaring. In 1992, this Nation had a record high $290 billion deficit.
This year, we expect a $79 billion budget surplus. That's progress.
Building on this record of success, the Clinton-Gore 2000 budget
charts a new course to meet the environmental challenges of the coming
century. This budget recognizes that protecting our environment is
about more than beautiful vistas and scenic rivers, and it's about more
than passing new environmental and public health laws.
This budget reflects a new American ideal. It's about
neighborhoods, protecting where we live and how we live, and what we do
in the everyday life. It's about communities--and how we keep them
healthy, strong, and prosperous. It's about improving the quality of
our lives.
Three new landmark initiatives in this budget reflect President
Clinton's and Vice President Gore's commitment to America's
communities. These initiatives provide significant new, innovative
financial tools to give communities the flexibility they need to
address their most pressing environmental and public health needs. They
tap into our nation's greatest resources--our ingenuity and spirit of
collaboration. They protect our most precious resource first--our
children.
The Better America Bonds program puts the Agency in the forefront
of support for the President's and the Vice President's creative
initiative to build livable American communities. This new, innovative,
financial tool is aimed at helping communities address problems
associated with urban sprawl--such as, traffic congestion, lost
farmland, threatened water quality, shrinking parkland and abandoned
industrial sites, or Brownfields. This is about flexibility.
Communities can decide for themselves how they will preserve their open
spaces, protect their water, revitalize their blighted urban areas, and
improve their quality of life. The Administration proposes Federal tax
credits that will support $9.5 billion in bond authority over 5 years
for investments by state, local and tribal governments. I urge you to
give local communities this flexibility to address their most urgent
environmental needs.
The President's budget includes $200 million for a new Clean Air
Partnership Fund--an initiative that is part of the Administration's
efforts to clean the Nation's air and meet the challenge of global
warming. The Clean Air Partnership Fund will promote innovative
technology demonstrations to help communities nationwide reduce harmful
air pollution and greenhouse gases. The Fund finances, through grants,
the creation of partnerships among local communities, States and tribes
and the private sector and the Federal Government. These partnerships
are designed to finance projects that are locally managed and self-
supporting and enable communities to achieve their clean air goals
sooner. The Fund will stimulate cost-effective pollution control
strategies, spur technological innovation, and leverage substantial
non-Federal investment in improved air quality.
The Agency will take a leadership role as part of an
Administration-wide effort to fight childhood asthma and address this
growing problem. President Clinton has provided an additional $17
million, for a total of $22 million, to reduce children's exposure to
toxins in our environment that can exacerbate asthma. The money will
implement an inter-agency initiative for education, outreach and air
monitoring. An additional $12 million, for a total of $40 million,
focuses on other chronic childhood afflictions, such as cancer and
developmental disorders. EPA's investment to protect children from
environmental threats totals $62 million.
In addition to these three new initiatives, the President's budget
also continues our work on the Nation's other environmental and public
health priorities.
Last year, the President announced a national blueprint to restore
and protect our nation's rivers, lakes, and coastal waters--and we made
great progress. The President's budget allocates $651 million for the
Clean Water Action Plan, and related activities, to continue our
efforts to restore and protect watersheds across the country.
Because polluted runoff is one of the most serious problems facing
communities, the President proposes another important flexible funding
mechanism--this one designed to help communities provide clean water.
The President's proposal will allow States greater flexibility to
address their most pressing water quality problems--polluted runoff
from city streets, suburban lawns and rural areas. The proposal will
give States for the first time the option to set aside up to 20 percent
(or as much as $160 million) of their fiscal year 2000 Clean Water
State Revolving Fund allotment for grants to implement non-point source
pollution and estuary management projects. I look forward to working
with Congress to implement this important, new funding mechanism.
In addition, the President's budget provides a combined $1.625
billion for the State revolving funds (SRF), of which $800 million
funds the Clean Water SRF and $825 million funds the Drinking Water
SRF. The Drinking Water SRF increases from last year, and will help
achieve the Administration's goal of capitalizing the Drinking Water
SRF until States can provide an average of $500 million in annual
financial assistance for drinking water projects. The Clean Water SRF
request is part of the Administration's overall capitalization plan to
ensure States can provide an average of $2 billion a year in financial
assistance for water quality projects. We plan to continue
capitalization of the Clean Water SRF until this goal is met, and I
would like to note that almost $16 billion in Federal capitalization
grants have been provided so far to the Clean Water SRF, or almost 90
percent more than originally authorized.
The President's budget invests approximately $216 million at EPA,
and $1.8 billion governmentwide, to help reduce the pollution that
causes global warming. This program will continue the Administration's
efforts to address the challenge of climate change through innovative,
cost-effective partnerships with businesses, schools, States and local
governments that voluntarily lower energy use--and energy bills, for
everyone. The Climate Change Technology Initiative proposed by the
President this year also offers tax credits for consumers who purchase
fuel efficient cars, homes, appliances and other energy-efficient
products. It also includes increased spending on research to develop
new, cleaner technologies in areas like the Partnership for a New
Generation of Vehicles and the Partnership for Advancing Technology in
Housing.
The President's budget invests $1.5 billion in Superfund to
continue cleanup of toxic waste sites. The Agency plans to complete
clean up construction at 85 sites for a total of 755 construction
completions by the end of 2000, with a target of 925 through 2002. The
Budget also invests approximately $92 million in the clean up and
redevelopment of abandoned industrial sites through our Brownfields
Program, including $35 million for the Brownfields Revolving Loan Fund
which helps communities leverage funds for actual cleanup of Brownfield
sites. Through 2000, the Agency will have funded Brownfields site
assessment pilots in 350 communities across our great nation.
Of special importance in this budget proposal is our request to
increase the Agency's Operating Programs by 5 percent over the fiscal
year 1999 Enacted level. This budget provides $3.7 billion for the
Operating Programs, which include most of the Agency's research,
regulatory and enforcement programs and funds our partnership programs
with states, tribes, and local governments. The Operating Programs,
which have grown 33 percent during this Administration, represent the
backbone of the nation's efforts to protect public health and the
environment through sound science, standard setting, and enforcement.
It is through these programs that the Agency works to ensure that our
water is pure, our air is clean and our food is safe. I cannot
emphasize enough the important contribution the Operating Programs make
to the Agency's ability to meet the expectations of the American public
for a safe, healthy environment.
As part of these important Operating Programs, the President
requests $19 million for the Chemical Right-To-Know Program. This
includes $14.4 million to focus on accelerating the screening and
testing of the 2,800 highest production volume chemicals used in the
United States. We will conduct this initiative through a voluntary
industry challenge program and a series of test rules for those data
not obtained through the voluntary program. Information on these
chemicals, many that we use daily in virtually every aspect of our
lives, will be broadly disseminated to the public. The President's
budget also provides $18 million for Environmental Monitoring for
Public Access and Community Tracking (EMPACT) to provide citizens with
access to real-time information about the health of the air, land and
water in their communities.
The President's budget supports sound science with $681 million for
developing and applying the best available science for addressing
current and future environmental hazards, as well as new approaches
toward improving environmental protection. The Agency will focus its
research efforts on areas such as Particulate Matter, Global Change,
Mercury and the Coastal Research Initiative.
The Air Toxics program increases by almost $18 million in new
funding, for a total of approximately $109 million. This program will
focus on urban air toxics to develop tools and data that will move the
air toxics program from an almost exclusively technology-based program
to a risk-based program. The program is geared to reduce risks for poor
and minority groups, who are more prevalent in urban areas, and will
increase protection to a larger number of more sensitive populations,
such as children and the elderly.
The budget request for the Mexican Border is $100 million, a $50
million increase, for projects there. The Agency will use these
resources for direct grant assistance intended to address the
environmental and public health problems associated with untreated
industrial and municipal sewage on the border.
These are the highlights of our Fiscal Year 2000 Request. I look
forward to discussing with you, as the year progresses, these
initiatives and innovative financing mechanisms. I would be happy to
answer your questions at this time.
______
Responses by Administrator Browner to Additional Questions From
Senator John H. Chafee
safe drinking water act
Question 1a. Do you disagree with the National Drinking Water
Advisory Council assessment and recommendation to request the full
authorized amount for the research program? Considering that the Safe
Drinking Water Act requires the issuance of new standards for a
substantial number of contaminants within the next several years, what
is your justification for the proposed reduction in funding?
Response. EPA's investment in drinking water research, which has
grown from a level of $20.8 million in fiscal year 1995 to $41.5
million in fiscal year 2000, has enabled the Agency to improve the
science and provide new data in support of all priority Safe Drinking
Water Act rulemakings and risk management decisions required to date.
The discontinuation of funding for fiscal year 1999 Congressional
earmarks in the fiscal year 2000 request accounts for a decrease of
$7.6 million from the fiscal year 1999 enacted level. When this is
taken into account, the fiscal year 2000 budget request for drinking
water research actually shows an increase of $1.4 million over the
fiscal year 1999 enacted level. In the process of planning research
activities and identifying resource needs for fiscal year 2000 during
the planning cycle, EPA determined that the funding level reflected in
the fiscal year 2000 President's request would allow the Agency to
continue to provide the necessary scientific data and technologies
required to meet future sound science requirements of the Safe Drinking
Water Act. EPA is now conducting an intensive, comprehensive evaluation
of research needed to support the wide range of regulatory activities
facing the Agency over the next 5 years (e.g., Stage 2 Disinfection By-
Product Rule, Long-Term Enhanced Surface Water Treatment rule,
Contaminant Candidate List, and the reevaluation of existing national
primary drinking water standards). This comprehensive evaluation will
inform the Agency's future budget requests.
Question 1b. If Congress were to fund drinking water research at
the level recommended by the President, how would you address the
concerns raised by the National Drinking Water Advisory Council?
Response. As indicated above, EPA is committed to ensuring that all
upcoming drinking water regulations and risk management decisions are
based on sound science. We believe that if Congress funds drinking
water research at the level recommended by the President, we will be
able to continue to develop the research products needed to meet this
sound science requirement without missing statutory deadlines.
Question 1c. What process is used to determine where the Office of
Research and Development (ORD) places its resources within the drinking
water portion of its budget? To what extent does the Office of Water
determine the research priorities?
Response. As part of the Agency's annual planning and budgeting
process, ORD works with EPA's program and regional offices to allocate
funds across various research programs. For example, ORD works with the
Office of Water (OW) to help determine drinking (and other) water
research priorities.
The starting point in this process is input from many sources
including:
EPA's Strategic Plan
ORD's Strategic Planning--ORD's Strategic Plan and peer-
reviewed Research Plans
Customer and User Needs--Input from EPA's Program and
Regional Offices and Federal research partners
Outside Peer Advice--e.g., the NAS National Research
Council, the EPA Science Advisory Board.
This information is then used to develop annual research
priorities.
Research priorities are first set by media-specific Research
Coordination Teams (RCTs), which include ORD and Program and Regional
Office staff. For example, there is a Water RCT, which includes OW and
ORD staff. The RCT recommendations are then reviewed and modified as
appropriate by ORD's Executive Council and EPA's Research Coordinating
Council (RCC) of Deputy Assistant Administrators from across the
Agency. This review ensures that the media specific recommendations are
adjusted as needed to address the highest research priorities across
the Agency. The recommendations of the RCC then go to the Assistant
Administrator for Research and Development who works to resolve any
differences. These recommendations are subject to EPA-wide review
during the Agency's planning and budgeting process, are submitted to
OMB for review, and inform the Agency's request to Congress.
Question 1d. If Congress enacts the research funding contained in
the President's budget, spending on drinking water research only would
be 7.8 percent of the total ORD budget. How does this compare with
other areas of research such as air, pesticides, water, hazardous
wastes, toxic substances, etc. for fiscal year 2000? How does this
compare with previous budget spending from fiscal year 1997 to fiscal
year 1999?
Response. Please see the attached tables.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
99
Pending 2000 PB2
EPA's Office of Research and Development Budget1 Enacted [in
[in percent]
percent]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Goal 1 Clean Air (PM, Air Toxics, and Trop.
Ozone):
Goal 1 compared to Total ORD Resources.......... 17.0% 16.8%
Goal 2 Clean Water (Water Quality):
Goal 2 compared to Total ORD Resources.......... 13.5 13.1
Goal 2 Drinking Water Research compared to Total 8.5 7.8
ORD Research:..................................
Goal 3 Safe Food:
Goal 3 compared to Total ORD Resources.......... 1.1 1.2
Goal 4 Safe Communities:
Goal 4 compared to Total ORD Resources.......... 2.5 2.1
Goal 5 Waste (Includes Superfund Research):
Goal 5 compared to Total ORD Resources.......... 9.8 9.1
Goal 6 Global Change:
Goal 6 compared to Total ORD Resources.......... 3.0 4.3
Goal 7 Empowering People:
Goal 7 compared to Total ORD Resources.......... 2.0 2.4
Goal 8 Sound Science3:
8.1. Ecosystem Research compared to Total ORD 19.8 22.2
Resources......................................
8.2. Human Health Research compared to Total ORD 9.0 10.5
Resources......................................
8.3. Emerging Risks Research compared to Total 8.8 7.9
ORD Resources..................................
8.4. P2 and New Technology for Environment 13.5 10.4
Protection compared to Total ORD Resources.....
---------------------
Total ORD Resources........................... $562 $535
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Beginning in 1999, EPA began operating under its new budget structure
designed along GPRA principles.
2 Funding for fiscal year 1999 Congressional earmarks is not continued
in the fiscal year 2000 President's Budget.
3 Resources in Goal 8 directly and indirectly support other goals.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
95 96 96 97 98
Enacted Enacted Enacted Enacted Enacted
EPA's Office of Research and Development Budget 1 [in [in [in [in [in
percent] dollars] percent] percent] percent]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drinking Water Research.................................. 3.9% $23.2 5.0% 7.9 7.0%
Air Quality Research..................................... 14.4 72.5 15.6 13.8 16.8
Acid Deposition Research................................. 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Water Quality Research................................... 4.2 21.3 4.6 4.9 6.0
Hazardous Waste Research................................. 4.9 21.2 4.6 3.0 2.6
Toxic Substance Research................................. 3.3 14.4 3.1 2.3 2.2
Pesticides Research...................................... 2.5 12.1 2.6 3.8 5.6
Multimedia Research...................................... 37.7 186.1 40.0 36.7 35.4
Global Change Research................................... 4.3 21.0 4.5 2.8 2.5
Oil Spills............................................... 0.3 1.3 0.3 0.2 0.2
Lust Trust Fund.......................................... 0.1 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.1
Superfund................................................ 12.2 28.2 6.1 6.9 6.8
Hazardous Spill & Site Remediation....................... 0.0 7.0 1.5 0.0 0.0
Lab, Field, & HQ expenses and some payroll............... 11.8 56.6 12.2 17.6 14.8
------------------------------------------------------
Total ORD Resources (In million) 2..................... $538.8 $465.5 $465.5 $503.9 $574.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 This table represents EPA's program element budget structure. Beginning in fiscal year 1999, EPA began
operating under its new budget structure designed along GPRA principles.
2 These totals include funding for Congressional earmarks at the following levels: fiscal year 1995: $27.4
million; fiscal year 1996: $27.8 million; fiscal year 1997: $20.7 million; and fiscal year 1998: $72.1M
______
Question 2. The Drinking Water Strategic Needs Assessment Project
developed by EPA's Office of Water provides an analysis of statutory
requirements and the resources needed to meet priority Safe Drinking
Water Act mandates. Most importantly, it identifies shortfalls in the
program's funding and research to support the basic public health
objectives in the Safe Drinking Water Act. Will you please identify the
funding shortfalls identified by the Office of Water in the area of
research and explain what EPA has done to address those areas?
Response. [No response to question 2 was provided by EPA].
Question 3. The Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996 require
EPA to make a determination of whether or not to regulate at least 5
contaminants from the contaminant candidate list in August 2001. I am
concerned that without an adequate level of research the contaminants
selected for regulation will not be regulated at an appropriate level
to protect public health or even be the contaminants considered most
harmful to the public. What is the level of research funding that has
been attributed to those contaminants included on the contaminant
candidate list since fiscal year 1997?
Response. The final contaminant candidate list (CCL), published in
the Federal Register in March 1998, divides the contaminants into three
main categories: (l) regulatory determination priorities; (2) research
priorities; and (3) occurrence priorities. The first set of five or
more contaminants to be considered for regulation in August 2001 will
be selected from the regulatory determination category. The
contaminants in this category are considered to have sufficient data to
evaluate the extent of exposure and risk to public health. This will
enable EPA to make regulatory determinations in 2001 that are
protective of public health and based on the best available scientific
information.
EPA began developing a comprehensive strategic research plan to
address critical needs for chemical and microbial contaminants on the
CCL after the publication of the list in 1998. Research on the health
effects, treatment and analytical methods for CCL contaminants has not
been delayed while the comprehensive plan is being developed. A number
of priority CCL contaminants (e.g., MTBE, perchlorate, Norwalk virus)
have been under investigation for several years, and general
solicitations have been made under the Agency's external grants
program. The fiscal year 2000 funding level of $6.0 million for CCL
contaminants research represents the first major transition of
resources within the drinking water research budget to address CCL
research needs. This funding request will allow us to meet our August
2001 requirements and to initiate some research projects that will be
helpful for the August 2006 regulatory decisions.
climate change
Question 1. Carbon Sequestration.--Of the $242.8 million requested
for EPA's climate change activities in fiscal year 2000, $3.4 million
is requested for ``carbon removal'' or carbon sequestration activities.
This $3.4 million represents 1.4 percent of the overall request for
climate activities at EPA in fiscal year 2000.
A. Is this rather modest request truly representative of the
importance of sequestration in the overall effort to address this
potential climate change threat?
B. Your budget justification indicates that this funding ``will
allow EPA to develop incentives to increase carbon storage on
agricultural and forest lands. . .'' Does this mean that EPA believes
that we know enough scientifically about sequestration to go forward
with additional projects?
C. How is EPA coordinating this initiative with the Departments of
Agriculture, Interior, and Commerce?
D. The justification also states that, ``EPA will continue efforts
to fully account for carbon sequestration in the U.S. greenhouse gas
inventory to enable these activities to receive credit internationally
. . .'' Specifically, what EPA activities will help to enable
international crediting of domestic sequestration?
[No responses to Questions 1a-1d were provided by EPA.]
Question 2a. Potential Climate Change Impacts.--Assessing the
consequences of global change and climate variability at a regional
scale is identified in the budget justification as a top objective for
the year 2000. How will EPA's assessment of potential climate change
impacts be coordinated or consistent with the next report by the
International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)?
Response. As part of the U.S. Global Change Research Program
(USGCRP), EPA is making significant contributions to the ongoing U.S.
National Assessment Process which is evaluating ``The Potential
Consequences of Climate Change and Variability to the United States.''
(Section 106 of the Global Change Research Act of 1990 requires that
assessments be conducted ``not less frequently than every 4 years.'')
EPA is sponsoring the Mid-Atlantic Regional Assessment, the Great Lakes
Regional Assessment, the Gulf Coast Regional Assessment, and the Health
Sector Assessment. These assessments are being conducted through a
public-private partnership that actively engages researchers from the
academic community, decisionmakers, resource managers, and other
affected stakeholders in the assessment process. The first National
Assessment Report will be delivered to Congress in January 2000.
The National Assessment is being timed to provide input into the
Third Assessment Report of the IPCC which will be completed in 2001.
The IPCC itself has been developing a regional focus and published a
Special Report on regional impacts of climate change in 1997. This
report, ``The Regional Impacts of Climate Change,'' contained a North
American Regional Assessment. It is expected that the IPCC Third
Assessment Report will also contain a North American Regional
Assessment, and the first U.S. National Assessment Report will
contribute significantly to the North American Regional Assessment in
the IPCC Third Assessment Report. It is noteworthy that the U.S.
National Assessment will provide extensive region-specific information
on climate change impacts in the United States. In the National
Assessment, the United States has been divided into 20 regions, in
order to capture the ``regional texture'' and specificity of the
potential consequences of climate change and climate variability. This
regional detail for the United States may be reflected in the IPCC
Third Assessment Report.
In addition to its participation in the National Assessment
process, EPA's Global Change Research Program is an assessment-oriented
program, with primary emphasis on understanding the potential
consequences of climate variability and change on human health,
ecosystems, and socioeconomic systems in the United States. Assessments
are also being made of potential opportunities to adapt to climate
change in order to reduce the risks, or take advantage of the
opportunities, presented by climate variability and change. EPA
assessments are often consistent with IPCC assessments because climate
models and scenarios that are reviewed by the IPCC are often used in
EPA assessment activities. Also, EPA assessment activities are
generally consistent with IPCC guidelines for conducting assessments.
EPA researchers who are involved in this activity will actively
participate as authors and reviewers of the IPCC Third Assessment
Report.
Question 2b. Will EPA's impacts assessment be peer reviewed by
scientific experts from within and outside the government?
Response. Both the USGCRP's National Assessment Process and EPA's
research and assessment activities are founded on the principles of
scientific excellence and openness. EPA and its Office of Research and
Development (which includes the Global Change Research Program) both
have written Standard Operating Procedures for peer review of all
research and assessment products. All of EPA's impacts assessments
undergo peer-review by scientific experts from within and outside the
government. In addition, peer review comments on studies produced by
EPA's Global Change Research Program, along with the responses to the
peer review comments, are carefully documented.
Question 3. Impediments to Voluntary Action.--The budget
justification indicates that, ``EPA's climate change programs have
reduced U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 260 million tons of carbon
dioxide equivalent and that for every dollar spent by EPA, we have
received 2.5 tons of CO2 reduced.'' If accurate, these are
fairly encouraging numbers for a voluntary program. You will agree,
however, that we must do better. What do you see as the largest
impediments to additional voluntary actions by business, states, and
localities?
Response. EPA's technology deployment programs have demonstrated
great cost-effectiveness. For every dollar spent by EPA, the deployment
programs have reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 2.5 tons of carbon
dioxide equivalent and delivered $70 in energy bill savings to
consumers and organizations.
These results demonstrate that climate protection and economic
growth can go hand-in-hand. Overall program effectiveness is expected
to improve over the next several years as well, because much of EPA's
work to date has been devoted to program design and startup. EPA will
be delivering more and more greenhouse gas reductions over the next
several years. By the end of the year 2000, EPA's climate change
programs are expected to have reduced U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by
58 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent.
EPA's voluntary programs effectively help reshape the way energy-
using products are purchased and the way energy is managed in buildings
and facilities by removing market barriers that impede organizations,
businesses, governments and consumers from investing in ``energy-
efficient'' technology. With the additional $107 million over fiscal
year 1999 funding requested in the fiscal year 2000 budget, these
programs could deliver even greater results, helping more businesses,
schools, hospitals, localities, and consumers make smart energy
decisions (without the use of financial subsidies). Over 60 percent of
this country's carbon emissions in the year 2010 will come from
products purchased between now and then. EPA's programs help these
equipment buyers choose the energy efficient solution, providing energy
savings and pollution prevention.
EPA's voluntary programs work to remove several of the most
significant impediments to actions that increase the efficiency of
energy use. One of the biggest barriers is lack of clear information
about the value of energy-efficiency and the performance of products.
Decisionmakers in the public and private sector as well as consumers do
not have the information and tools that they need to make the smartest
investments. For example, consumers often do not consider the savings
from lower energy bills associated with buying more energy-efficient
products. EPA's voluntary programs are providing clear, unbiased
technical information to all sectors of the economy on the value of
energy-efficient products and practices.
Another very important impediment is limited access to capital, as
financial lenders generally do not recognize the ``soundness'' of
energy-efficiency. EPA's voluntary programs work with financial
institutions to demonstrate the higher value and lower risks of energy-
efficient product purchases, and encourage lending institutions to
offer more attractive financing packages for purchasing these products.
Finally, a variety of ``split incentives'' exist between landlords
and tenants as well as builders and buyers that limit the accessability
of energy-efficiency products to certain buyers. Split incentives are
present where one party has an opportunity to make an investment to
produce net savings through energy efficiency, but such savings would
be realized by another party, which removes the incentive for the first
party to act. EPA's voluntary programs attempt to remove this barrier
to action by providing opportunities for the same party to make the
efficiency investment and reap the associated financial rewards of
lower energy costs.
EPA's voluntary programs will continue to focus on addressing these
market impediments including the commercial real estate market and the
new homes market. With the additional funding requested in the fiscal
year 2000 Budget, these programs can deliver even greater environmental
and financial benefits by focusing in areas such as the home
improvement market, the industrial sector, as well as increasing
penetration of combined heat and power systems in commercial,
industrial, and institutional buildings.
clean water act
Question 1a. State Revolving Fund Cut.--EPA estimates that the
country faces $139 billion in infrastructure needs over the next 20
years. According to the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies,
90 percent of the funding burden for compliance with the Clean Water
Act falls on local governments. Between 1986 and 1994, wastewater sewer
rates increased 71.4 percent, more than double the rate of inflation.
Despite substantial need and strong State support for the Clean Water
State Revolving Loan Fund, EPA's budget proposal cuts SRF funding by
$550 million, a 40 percent decrease from last year's enacted amount.
What does EPA propose to do with the money it is diverting away from
clean water SRF?
Response. The Administration has submitted a budget for EPA that is
consistent with the balanced budget agreement and that honors its long-
standing commitment to capitalize the Clean Water SRF at a level that
will allow it to generate at least $2 billion in annual infrastructure
assistance over the long-term. This substantial Agency investment,
along with funding from other Federal sources such as the Department of
Agriculture's Rural Utility Service and the Department of Housing and
Urban Development, represents a significant complement to the annual
clean water infrastructure investments being made by State and local
governments.
Question 1b. Does EPA feel that water quality has improved to such
a degree that current commitments to clean and safe water are no longer
warranted?
Response. While significant improvements in water quality have been
achieved, the Agency agrees that additional Federal investment is
necessary to achieve clean and safe water for all Americans. Toward
that end, the Agency, through its fiscal year 2000 budget request, is
continuing to meet its long-standing commitment to capitalize the Clean
Water State Revolving fund at a level that will allow it to provide at
least $2 billion in annual financial assistance over the long-term. In
addition, the Administration is proposing new flexibility that would
allow States to better target SRF dollars to those projects that
address their most significant sources of water quality impairment.
It is also important to remember that while the State Revolving
Fund is providing a substantial source of infrastructure investment
over the long-term, it was always intended to be part of a broader
package of investment that included funding from other Federal agencies
(such as through the Department of Housing and Urban Development and
the Department of Agriculture's Rural Utility Service) and State and
local government investments.
Question 2a. 20 percent SRF set-aside for non-point source
grants.--In recognition of the need for greater effort in addressing
nonpoint source pollution, EPA plans to withhold full section 319 grant
funding from those States that fail to incorporate nine key elements
into an approved section 319 nonpoint source management plan. EPA also
has proposed to allow States to reserve up to 20 percent of their
Federal capitalization grants to provide grants for nonpoint source and
estuary restoration projects. Could you please assess the progress made
under the section 319 program since the creation of the program in
1987?
Question 2b. Has there been a measurable improvement in terms of
water quality and the number of water bodies coming into compliance
with water quality standards due to section 319?
Response. States have made significant progress since the creation
of the Section 319 nonpoint source program in 1987. First, States have
successfully demonstrated the effectiveness of a large number of
technologies and approaches to solving nonpoint source problems.
Second, they have solved nonpoint source problems and either achieved
water quality standards or measurably improved water quality in a
variety of settings. Third, they have improved public knowledge of
nonpoint pollution and its solutions and involved numerous members of
the public in volunteer monitoring and citizen restoration efforts.
These and other successes are outlined in Section 319 Success Stories:
Volume II (EPA, October 1997--copy attached).
Despite this progress, nonpoint source pollution remains a
significant contributor to water quality impairment. For this reason,
EPA has been working with State water quality agencies to upgrade their
nonpoint source programs to meet the key elements of effective
programs. These elements include such critical steps as establishing
clear long-term and short-term goals; engaging a broad set of public
and private-sector partners to assist the State in implementing its
program; and using an iterative approach with a mix of water-quality
and technology-based approaches to achieve the State's program goals.
In 1999, EPA asked and Congress provided increased Section 319 grant
dollars to assist States in implementing their upgraded nonpoint source
programs. EPA stated in the Clean Water Action Plan that increased
Section 319 funds (all funding over $100 million) will only be provided
to those States that have approved upgraded Section 319 programs
starting in 2000. The Agency believes this will provide an incentive
for States to upgrade their programs to include the nine key elements
recommended by an advisory committee. In 2000, the Agency is also
proposing to allow States to reserve up to 20 percent of their State
Revolving Fund capitalization grants to implement their programs. These
steps will increase the extent to which nonpoint source funding
directly contributes to attainment of water quality standards.
Question 3. Use of SRF for providing grants.--There are currently
multiple programs which provide grants to address problems associated
with nonpoint source pollution. Section 319 of the Clean Water Act, and
the Department of Agriculture's Environmental Quality Incentives
Program (EQIP) are examples of such programs. The intent of Congress in
enacting the State Revolving Loan program under Title VI of the Clean
Water Act was to create a self-perpetuating source of funding to ensure
future resources for clean and safe water. Rather than attempting to
implement a nonpoint source grant program through the State Revolving
Loan Fund, would it not be simpler and more effective to increase
funding to existing programs?
Response. Rather than earmarking funds for nonpoint source
projects, the Agency is advocating an approach that allows State
Governors the flexibility to determine the appropriate mix of point and
nonpoint source project funding. This proposal, which would allow a
State to use up to 20 percent of their Clean Water SRF capitalization
grant allotment to make grants for nonpoint source and estuary
management projects, will allow substantial resources to be dedicated
to these types of projects without requiring an increase in Agency
budget authority. This approach recognizes that the relative need for
different types of clean water projects varies from State to State. The
proposal will also allow States to package grants and loans together
for communities that might otherwise find a loan program unaffordable
or inappropriate for the type of project being financed (e.g., one that
does not generate a stream of revenue that could be used for loan
repayment). Finally, the Agency believes that providing this type of
flexibility within the SRF will promote a more integrated priority
setting process in the State between point and nonpoint source
candidate projects that will result in projects being financed that
provide the greatest environmental benefit.
clean air
Question 1a. Clean Air Partnership Fund.--The President has
proposed the ``Clean Air Partnership Fund,'' a $200 million grant
program divided between two EPA objectives: $66.7 million to ``reduce
emissions of air toxics'' and $133.3 million to ``attain the NAAQS for
ozone and particulate matter.''
The Agency has stated that the money from the fund will be targeted
toward ``multipollutant control strategies.'' But, since we do not know
how the grants will be administered, the environmental benefits are not
clear. For example, the EPA is planning to use the Fund to help achieve
its air toxic reduction goals. But, if Statesdo not submit projects
that target toxics, then the air toxics program is adversely impacted.
What is the money in this Fund going to be used for?
Response. The Clean Air Partnership Fund will be used to provide
grants to local and State governments, tribes and multi-state
organizations to demonstrate ways to reduce pollution. The Clean Air
Partnership Fund will support research, development and demonstration
projects that: (1) control multiple air pollution problems
simultaneously; (2) leverage the original Federal funds; (3) facilitate
meaningful public involvement; and (4) provide innovative approaches to
air pollution control that could be replicated in other cities and
states. For example, grants could be awarded for demonstration projects
in the following areas:
Partnership funds could help provide startup capital for
municipalities to establish programs to convert existing diesel fleets
of school and transport buses to cleaner fuels.
Partnership funds could help local entities establish home
energy efficiency investment loan funds. Cost savings could allow
borrowers to repay loans and provide an ongoing source for future
demonstrations. Reducing energy use in homes will demonstrate
simultaneous reductions in local soot, smog and air toxics and
greenhouse gas emissions.
Partnership funds could be used to demonstrate incentives
for utilities to generate cleaner electricity. Increased use of
combined heat and power and natural gas combined-cycle electricity
generation will yield criteria pollutant, air toxic and greenhouse gas
emission reductions.
Partnership funds could support local revolving loan funds
to finance the demonstration of energy efficient retrofits for local
and State agency buildings, public schools, hospitals and private
industry. Energy efficient retrofits could provide integrated early
reductions of air pollution. The cost savings realized from lower
energy bills would allow borrowers to repay the loans and provide an
ongoing source of funding for future innovative investments.
Partnership funds could help Statesand municipalities
develop in demonstrating the use of tax credits for innovative air
pollution control technology investments.
Partnership funds could be used to help stimulate demand
for renewable sources of energy. Certain renewable energy sources such
as fuel cells, photovoltaics, wind and geothermal provide ideal
integrated air pollution control technologies.
Question 1b. Please define ``innovative'' and ``optimal, multi-
pollutant control strategies.''
Response. In the context of the Clean Air Partnership Fund,
``innovative'' can generally be defined to refer to a new or different
way to address air pollution control and prevention. The innovation may
come in a variety of ways: the financial mechanisms used, the
institutional or organizational arrangements established, or the
technology developed or applied.
In the context of the Clean Air Partnership Fund, ``optimal, multi-
pollutant control strategies'' can generally be defined as air
pollution control and prevention strategies that address more than one
air pollution problem simultaneously. To the degree that an air
pollution control and prevention strategy is more successful than other
strategies in addressing more than one air pollution problem
simultaneously, then it is optimal.
Question 1c. Why is it more prudent to spend $66 million on these
grants rather than completing the Maximum Achievable Control Technology
(MACT) regulations?
Response. EPA is not planning on spending $66 million on the
Partnership Fund instead of completing the MACT regulations. EPA
intends to meets its statutory obligations and is exploring options to
complete the MACT regulations by the MACT ``hammer date'' of May 15,
2002.
Our budget request for the Clean Air Partnership Fund represents
EPA's and the Administration's judgment that there are critical State
and local air quality protection programs that need funding at this
level. Similarly, our air toxics budget request represents EPA's and
the Administration's judgment on the appropriate level of funding for
air toxics control that most effectively protects public health. For a
discussion of EPA's air toxics budget request, please refer to our
answer to Question 2 below.
The Clean Air Partnership Fund will fund demonstrations that will
result in reductions in all categories of air pollution, including air
toxics. EPA is well aware of the significant needs on the local level
to implement successful urban air toxics programs. New air toxic
resources, including additional monitoring and more comprehensive
modeling, will provide more information to local areas about the
importance of developing strategies to reduce air toxics. We agree that
the MACT program has been successful; the program remains a critical
part of our national air toxics program. In fact, we are increasing our
overall funding for air toxics and will continue to fund development of
MACT regulations. We also believe that there is a need to develop and
implement innovative local solutions to local urban air taxies issues.
The Clean Air Partnership Fund provides such a mechanism.
Question 1d. Will priority be given to nonattainment areas or
specific geographic regions?
Response. After the appropriation is enacted, EPA will develop and
issue a Solicitation for Proposals and appropriate guidance containing
all criteria by which grants under the Fund will be made. Certainly, a
demonstration of air quality need will be one of those criteria and
priority will be given to those proposals demonstrating specific needs.
Attainment of the ambient air quality standards is certainly an
important air quality goal and it is expected that this will be
reflected in a meaningful way in the final selection criteria. At this
time EPA does not intend to prioritize one specific geographic region
over another independent of a consideration of a specific geographic
region's needs.
Question 2a. Air Toxics.--The overall funding for the toxics
program is increasing but most of that increase is the $66 million in
the proposed Clean Air Partnership Fund--a program that we know very
little about. At the same time, funds for toxic emissions standards--
the MACT program--are being cut. The MACT program has been very
successful. Toxic emissions have been cut by a million tons per year,
and there has been excellent cooperation between Federal and State
officials, industry representatives and environmentalists. So, it is
unclear why the Administration wants to cut the MACT program when EPA
is only about halfway through writing the rules required by the Clean
Air Act, while also putting $200 million into the Clean Air Partnership
Fund. When and how do you expect to complete the Clean Air Act-mandated
MACT program to reduce toxic air pollution?
Response. The MACT program, authorized by section 112(d) of the
Clean Air Act, entails regulating approximately 174 different industry
source categories split into 4 different ``bins'' over a 10-year time
span. We are currently completing the 7-year bin of standards. The 10-
year or final bin contains 50 percent of all the source categories to
be regulated under section 112(d), or as many as were required in the
2-, 4- and 7-year bins combined. Our goal has been to complete all
standards by November of 2000, the statutorily-mandated requirement.
However, due to the sheer number of 10-year standards required, the
remaining work to finalize some of the 7-year standards, and other
statutorily-required air toxics activities, we recognize that we will
not be able to finish all of these standards by 2000. We do intend to
complete all 10-year standards by May 15, 2002, informally known as,
the ``MACT hammer'' date. The hammer date refers to the requirement for
a case-by-case technology standard for individual facilities if EPA
does not set a standard within 18 months of the statutory date (see
section 112(j) of the Act).
Question 2b. Despite a 93 percent increase in the line-item for
``reducing emissions of air toxics,'' why are funds for the MACT
program being cut when the Agency has completed barely half of the
mandated standards?
Response. The President's fiscal year 2000 budget request does not
reflect a cut in the MACT program. Total funding for the MACT program
(covering standard development and implementation activities) was
$20,610,000 for fiscal year 1999 and $20,660,000 is requested for
fiscal year 2000.
The President's budget request would increase funding for the air
toxics program (apart from the Partnership Fund) by $18 million--from
$91 to $109 million. The budget request reflects the large number of
air toxics activities, including MACT standards, required by the Clean
Air Act. These include: mobile source air toxics, the Great Waters
program, the Urban Air Toxics program, the residual risk program, the
Utility Air Toxics program, section 129 combustion standards and
others. Fiscal year 2000 is a pivotal year in which a number of these
activities are being completed under court-ordered deadlines. Many of
these requirements are studies or strategies that will require further
regulatory action.
In order to adequately fund these programs and provide the
appropriate regulatory tools to make decisions on these essentially
risk-oriented requirements, we prioritized the MACT standards to focus
our resources on the highest priorities and, as a consequence, defer
action on less critical source categories. We plan to continue work on
some of the deferred standards and to explore options to complete all
standards by the hammer date.
Question 2c. If we spend about $5 million over the budget request
during the next 2 or 3 years, the remaining MACT work could be
completed on time. Why couldn't we cut the Clean Air Partnership back
to $195 million so EPA could meet its obligations under the law and
complete a program that has worked quite well?
Response. EPA intends to meet its statutory obligations and is
exploring options to complete the MACT standards by the MACT ``hammer
date'' of May 15, 2002. We believe our budget submission provides a
balanced approach to moving toward completing the MACT standards,
addressing our other statutory requirements such as the urban air
toxics strategy, and achieving the goals of the Clean Air Partnership
fund, which we have addressed in our response to your first question.
Completing the MACT standards is not simply a matter of additional
funding. We. are in the process of collecting data necessary to develop
many of these standards, and will not have sufficient information to
finalize certain rules before the end of next year. We intend to
request adequate resources to ensure that we have sufficient
information to propose and finalize these standards by 2002.
Reducing air toxics emissions and public exposure is an important
priority for the Agency. The President's budget request would increase
funding for the air toxics program (apart from the Partnership Fund) by
$18 million--from $91 to $109 million.
MACT is an important method to reduce air toxics emissions. In
addition to reducing emissions, we are very concerned about reducing
the public health risks associated with increased exposure to toxic air
pollutants--particularly in urban areas. As Congress required, we
continue to reduce the emission of air toxics through the MACT program.
We are on a parallel track to reduce exposure and associated risk,
including focusing on reducing emissions of toxic air pollutants in
urban areas.
Question 3a. Particulate Matter Monitoring Network.--In 1997, when
testifying in favor of EPA's proposed revision to the Particulate
Matter air quality standards, Ms. Browner assured Congress that the EPA
would bear the full cost of the new monitoring network needed to
implement the regulation. In the subsequent budget, a portion of the
monitoring grant money came from other State grant funds. States have
asked EPA repeatedly to replace that money in order to make good on the
Administrator's promise for full funding. The Administration claims
that this budget restores the money taken from State grant funds and
provides the final installment of funding for the new monitors. How
much new money was added for monitors and how much money was restored
to the State grant fund?
Response. Our budget request for fiscal year 2000 includes $42.5
million to complete the equipment purchase for the nationwide
particulate monitoring network and pay the annual State and local costs
for operating and maintaining the network. EPA provided State and local
agencies with a total of $86.3 million for the particulate matter
monitoring network in fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999; of this
total, $72.6 million was in ``new'' funds. We awarded all the funds for
the particulate network using the authority of section 103 of the Clean
Air Act. In addition to the $42.5 million for particulate matter
monitoring, our fiscal year 2000 request also includes $13.7 million to
address previous decreases in grant funds for continuing air programs
and $3 million in new funds to purchase air taxies monitoring
equipment. We will award these funds using the authority of section 105
of the Act.
Question 3b. Why has the section 105 funding only increased by
$11.2 million if $13.7 million needs to be added to fully restore the
money that was transferred from State programs?
Response. In the fiscal year 2000 budget request, EPA restored the
full $13.7 million to the section 105 grant program for continuing
State and local air programs and added an additional $3 million for air
toxics monitoring equipment. We did not, however, carry forward a one-
time Congressional earmark of $5.3 million, consistent with our general
policy on Congressional earmarks. Therefore, the total net increase in
105 grant funds from fiscal year 1999 to fiscal year 2000 is $11.4
million. The funding changes between the fiscal year 1999 enacted
budget and the fiscal year 2000 budget request are detailed below
(dollars in 1000's):
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
S. 103 Fund S. 105 Fund Grants
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1999 enacted level... $50,700.0 $144,833.0 $195,533.0
Minus Congressional earmark...... ........... -$5,343.0 -$5,343.0
Minus S. 103 funding to reflect -$8,200.0 ........... -$8,200.0
anticipated completion of
monitor purchases...............
New funds for toxics monitors.... ........... +$3,000.0 +$3,000.0
New funds for restoring S. 105... ........... +$13,700.0 +$13,700.0
Fiscal year 2000 grant funding... $42,500.0 $156,190.0 $198,690.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 3c. Will this be enough money to ensure that the
monitoring network is fully installed and operational by the end of
this year as scheduled?
Response. Yes. The funding in this budget is sufficient to provide
for completing the instrumentation of the network, as well as the
annual operation and maintenance costs for the network. The network
will be fully sited by the end of this fiscal year and, with the
funding requested in this budget, will be fully instrumented in the
first quarter of fiscal year 2000, allowing for the network to be
completely operational at the beginning of calendar 2000.
Question 4. Regional Haze.--When the committee held a hearing on
the proposed regional haze rule last year, one of the concerns
expressed by States was about multi-state planning organizations.
States sought assurance that they would receive technical and financial
assistance similar to the assistance EPA provided Western States in
planning how to meet the requirements of the regional haze (visibility)
rule. EPA assured Members that multi-state planning was essential to
the success of the regional haze rule and that such assistance would be
made available. The EPA budget states that EPA will ``ensure that air
quality planning and related Federal, tribal, State and local planning
are coordinated.'' Does this refer to EPA's commitment to assist multi-
state visibility planning organizations?
Response. Yes, in fact EPA has recently initiated discussions with
State Environmental Commissioners about the establishment of Regional
Planning Organizations (RPOs). The EPA envisions these organizations as
providing a forum for the multi-state planning that EPA believes is
necessary to successfully implement a regional haze program. EPA
expects that these organizations also will provide a forum for the
integration of the planning for the implementation of the PM-fine NAAQS
with planning for the implementation of a regional haze program. The
initial phase of this discussion will focus on the geographic scope of
the RPOs as well as the organizational aspects of establishing a
regional planning organization.
In asking for State input, EPA provided five criteria to assist
States in formulating their recommendations. These include: (1) the
extent of commissioner support for the establishment of RPOs; (2) the
best way to ensure adequate protection of Class I areas, including
consideration of the source and receptor areas, and transport patterns;
(3) the means to ensure appropriate tribal involvement; (4) provision
for balanced stakeholder involvement which includes states, tribes,
industry, environmental and public interest groups, land managers,
transportation and local planning organizations; and (5) any plans/
activities that States now have to support the integration of the fine
particle standards and the regional haze rule.
Following receipt of State input, EPA expects to work with States
to establish mutually acceptable RPOs and to work with the RPOs to
develop work plans which identify RPO outputs and schedules for
delivery. Finally, EPA also intends to play an active role in each of
these RPOs by participating in meetings and providing early and active
feedback on the acceptability of technical and policy proposals under
consideration by RPO.
Question 4b. How much money is allocated in the budget to the
support of such multi-state groups?
Response. EPA currently provides direct funding to two multi-state
groups, the Northeast Ozone Transport Commission ($350,000) and the
Western Regional Air Partnership ($150,000). States also use Federal
grant funds, as well as their own funds, to support several other
multi-state groups.
Question 4c. Why has nearly $9 million been cut from efforts to
study regional approaches to haze?
Response. In response to Congressional recommendations EPA targeted
approximately $9 million in fiscal year 1999 to two regional haze
efforts, (1) a one-time study of the Big Bend National Park and (2)
State development of organizations and comprehensive work plans to
address regional haze. The status of these two efforts is summarized
below:
EPA provided the Big Bend Regional Aerosol and Visibility
Observational (BRAVO) study $4 million for a 1999 summer study.
Preliminary field work has already begun and the study will be
completed in 1999.
The Agency also has made funding available in fiscal year
1999 for the formation and implementation of regional planning
organizations to address regional haze. Recently, EPA sent letters to
all 50 State Environmental Commissioners asking for their input
regarding the formation of such planning organizations, the States to
be included in such regional groupings and points of contact. Upon the
identification of these planning organizations, the Agency will provide
initial funding to these groups for the development of work plans.
Following review of the work plans, the Agency will award the remaining
fiscal year 1999 funds to these organizations to commence regional
planning activities. It is envisioned that the schedule of activities
is such that the initial awards for work plan development will occur in
the spring of 1999, with final awards occurring in the June-July
timeframe. Fiscal year 1999 funds will carry these organizations
through fiscal year 2000. The Agency will prepare a request for
additional funding in fiscal year 2001 for the support of the regional
planning organizations, based upon the funding needs identified through
their work plans.
resource conservation recovery act (rcra)
Question 1a. Leaking Underground Storage Tank Program.--EPA's
fiscal year 1999 Annual Plan Summary requested over $69 million to
assist, among other things, in the cleanup of 22,000 leaking
underground storage tanks. What were the total Federal expenditures for
cleaning up underground storage tanks in fiscal year 1999?
Response. The total LUST appropriation for EPA in fiscal year 1998
was $65 million. The total obligated by the Agency in fiscal year 1998
was $65 million. The total expenditures were $62 million.
Question 1b. How many underground storage tanks were addressed
(cleaned up, replaced, or closed)?
Response. In fiscal year 1998, 24,950 cleanups were completed. As
of December 22, 1998, EPA estimated that 65 percent of 850,000 (i.e.,
about 552,000) active tanks were in compliance with the 1998 deadline
for upgrading, replacing, or closing tanks.
Question 1c. EPA's fiscal year 2000 Budget request indicates that
the Agency intends to assist in the cleanup of an additional 21,000
leaking underground storage tanks and that, by the end of the year, 90
percent of existing tanks will be in compliance with the requirements
of RCRA Subtitle I. Even if EPA achieves its goal of remediating 21,000
tanks this year, what is the basis for the Agency's assumption that 90
percent of the existing leaking underground storage tanks will be in
compliance?
Response. The Agency's Underground Storage Tank Program is
comprised of two parts: the Underground Storage Tank (UST) Program and
the Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Program. The UST Program
focuses primarily on preventing leaks from USTs by ensuring that UST's
are managed properly and meet appropriate technical requirements. The
LUST Program generally focuses on cleaning up leaks from tanks.
The 90 percent compliance rates apply to the UST or prevention side
of the program. It means that the Agency expects 90 percent of
substandard tanks to be upgraded, replaced or closed to help prevent
leaks. The goal of completing 21,000 cleanups refers to the LUST side
of the Program and refers to cleaning up releases from tanks.
Therefore, EPA does not have a goal of ``remediating 21,000 tanks'' but
of remediating 21,000 releases from USTs.
The UST program prevents, detects, and corrects leaks from USTs
containing petroleum and hazardous substances. In fiscal year 2000, the
Agency's goal is to promote and enforce compliance with the regulatory
requirements aimed at preventing and detecting UST releases.
The States are considered to be the primary enforcers of the UST
program requirements. The Agency's assumption that 90 percent of the
existing underground storage tanks will be in compliance by the end of
fiscal year 2000 is based, in part, on the fact that many States have
laws and enforcement tools that go well beyond those available to EPA.
This includes the ``red tag'' laws in 19 States (see list below) which
allow them to prevent delivery of fuel to noncompliant facilities. In
addition, distributors in many other States have decided not to deliver
fuel to non-complying facilities for liability reasons. These State
enforcement tools will force increased compliance.
states with delivery prohibition programs
Alaska
California
Georgia
Illinois
Iowa
Kansas
Louisiana
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Montana
North Carolina
Oklahoma
Oregon
South Carolina
Utah
Vermont
Washington
Wisconsin
While EPA expects that as more tanks are upgraded, replaced or
closed, there will be fewer leaks, there are still approximately
168,000 cleanups from historical releases that have yet to be
completed. The goal of 21,000 completed cleanups refers to EPA's desire
to assist States in completing cleanups for historical releases and new
releases that will be discovered when owners and operators upgrade,
replace or close their tanks as required by the 1998 regulatory
deadline.
Question 1d. What is EPA's current estimate of the number of
underground storage tanks that have not complied with the December
deadline? This summer, EPA estimated that there were at least 221,000
underground storage tanks that would not comply with the December 22
deadline. Other EPA estimates have been as high as 370,000 tanks. The
fiscal year 2000 budget request, however, States that there is a
backlog of 168,000 noncomplying tanks requiring cleanup. Even assuming
that this lowest figure is accurate, and that EPA, with its State and
Tribal partners, achieves its goal of cleaning up 21,000 tanks this
year, won't the compliance rate fall far short of 90 percent?
Response. As of December 22, 1998, EPA estimated that while 65
percent of underground storage tanks were in compliance, 35 percent of
the 850,000 (i.e., about 298,000) active tanks were not in compliance
with the December 1998 deadline for upgrading, replacing, or closing
underground storage tanks. The 221,000 figure mentioned in part D was
estimated by EPA in 1997. The 298,000 figure was based on more current
estimates from State UST programs. As stated in the answer to Part C
above, the backlog of 168,000 refers to historical releases for which
cleanups have not yet been completed and not to the number of tanks
that have been upgraded, replaced or closed.
Question 1e. How does EPA plan to address the remaining backlog
after this year? Using the most favorable estimates, there will still
be over 147,000 leaking underground storage tanks to be cleaned up. At
EPA's current pace of cleanup, it will take over 7 years to complete
the cleanup process and comply with the law. What additional resources
would be needed to accelerate the pace of cleanup of USTs?
Response. EPA, with very few exceptions, does not perform the
cleanups of the leaking underground storage tanks. States and
Territories use the Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST) Trust
funds to administer their corrective action programs, oversee cleanups
by responsible parties, undertake necessary enforcement actions, and
pay for cleanups in cases where a responsible party cannot be found or
is unwilling or unable to pay for a cleanup. Most States have cleanup
funds that cover the majority of owners and operators' cleanup costs.
These State funds are separate from the LUST Trust Fund. Collectively,
the States have and spend about $1 billion annually to pay for cleanup
of releases from underground storage tanks.
The President's fiscal year 2000 budget request provides sufficient
resources to meet the goal of 21,000 cleanups in fiscal year 2000.
Question 1f. The fiscal year 2000 Budget Request and Congressional
Justification identifies as one of the Agency's highest priorities the
approval of States to operate their own UST/LUST programs. Yet, in
fiscal year 1999, EPA approved only 2 State programs for a total of 26.
EPA's goal for fiscal year 2000 is to approve an additional four
states, for a total of 30. If approval of State programs is a high
priority, why did the Agency request $162,000 less than was
appropriated in fiscal year 1999 for UST State program approval?
Response. In fiscal year 2000, the Agency will still be working
with the States to promote and enforce compliance with the December
1998 upgrading, replacing or closing tank requirements. The shift from
State program approval was in part to ensure adequate resources for
promoting compliance with the December 1998 tank requirements.
Furthermore, fewer States are requesting technical assistance for
developing their State program approval applications.
State Program Approval (SPA) remains one of EPA's top priorities
because obtaining SPA benefits both States and the regulated community.
States run their UST programs under separate State authorities until
they obtain State Program Approval (SPA), at which point they run the
Federal Program in lieu of the Federal Government. Until States obtain
SPA, owners and operators are subject to both Federal and State UST/
LUST Program laws and regulations. Therefore, it is much easier for
owners and operators to know which laws to comply with when States have
SPA.
Question 1g. The Budget Request and Congressional Justification
states that the reduction ``is being made because of the moderate
success States have had in achieving SPA.'' Is the Agency satisfied
with its progress in approving State programs? Does the Agency feel
that having only 30 approved UST programs reflects ``success?'' Is the
Agency satisfied with its approval of only two State programs in fiscal
year 1999?
Response. The Agency wants to have as many States approved as
possible. Therefore, the Agency is working closely with a number of
states, both encouraging them and pushing them toward State program
approval. Furthermore, in fiscal year 1998, the Agency has built in
incentives and rewards into its formula for allocating LUST Trust
funding to the Regions. Regions are allocated additional funds for
States that have achieved SPA or incremental steps toward SPA. Thus far
in fiscal year 1999, one State has been approved for a total of 27
States, plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. The Agency is
hopeful that the target of two State programs for fiscal year 1999 will
be exceeded.
The Agency cannot force States to apply for State program approval,
nor can the Agency approve States that do not meet the minimum
requirements for State program approval. The remaining 23 States that
do not have State program approval have statutory or regulatory
inadequacies that do not allow them to meet the State program approval
requirements. Many of these States have decided that it is not in their
interest to seek approval at this time. They have decided to apply
their staff's limited time to carrying out the preventive and
corrective action sides of the program rather than divert them to do
the necessary paperwork required for program approval.
Question 1h. What level of resources would be required to complete
the State program approval process?
Response. The main issues are that the remaining 23 States either
have statutory or regulatory inadequacies that do not allow them to
meet SPA requirements or their legislatures are unwilling or unable to
allocate sufficient resources to provide the staff necessary to work on
the State program approval effort. There is no guarantee that
additional funding will help because there are other impediments to SPA
other than resource levels.
Question 1i. How does the Agency intend to proceed with approving
qualified Indian Tribe programs.
Response. The Agency does not intend to approve such programs. This
is because the Agency lacks authority to treat Indian Tribes like
States for purposes of approving UST programs under Subtitle I of RCRA.
However, the Agency does have the primary responsibility for
implementing the UST program in Indian country. In carrying out this
responsibility, the Agency's regional offices conduct a range of
activities including educating owners and operators about the UST
requirements, conducting inspection and enforcement activities,
maintaining a data base of information on USTs located in Indian
country, and overseeing cleanups of releases from USTs. The Agency
provides assistance to help Tribes to develop the capability to help
administer the UST program and develop their own programs under tribal
law.
The fiscal year 2000 budget increases State and Tribal Assistance
Grant (STAG) funding for tribes from $450,000 to $1,850,000.
Underground storage tanks are found on about 175 Indian Reservations.
These USTs are owned and operated by a wide variety of individuals,
corporations, and governments including tribes, tribal members, non-
tribal members, oil companies including major oil, the Bureau of Indian
Affairs and the Indian Health Service. Tribes are increasingly
interested in having an underground storage tank program to regulate
USTs (or to help EPA regulate USTs in Indian Country). In the past few
years, EPA has provided approximately a dozen grants per year to tribes
to help them develop an underground storage tank program. The fiscal
year 2000 President's budget will allow the Agency to provide 24 grants
averaging $75,000. Larger tribes, such as the Navajo Nation, would
receive over $100,000. Tribal consortia may also receive larger amounts
than average grants. Tribes with smaller numbers of USTs would receive
smaller grants in the $25,000-$50,000 range.
There are a few tribes including the Navajo Nation that have their
own UST regulations. Even when tribes do not have their own rules and
regulations, they play a vital role in helping us implement the Federal
program by providing outreach to owners and operators, helping to
oversee corrective actions and attending tank closures to determine if
releases have occurred.
In the fiscal year 2000 budget, the Administration is requesting an
increase of $300,000 in LUST funding for work in Indian Country. In
fiscal year 1999, the Administration requested and received an increase
of $2,300,000 for LUST work in Indian Country. These funds were
requested to deal with the increasing LUST workload--site assessments
and cleanups--in Indian Country and the projected workload that would
result from compliance with the 1998 requirements. As owners and
operators upgrade, close or replace USTs to meet the deadline,
additional releases have been and will be discovered. When owners and
operators are unable or unwilling to pay for corrective action, EPA may
use the LUST Trust Fund.
It is still too early to judge the impact of the 1998 deadline on
the number of reported releases in Indian Country. This is due in part
because owners and operators can choose to permanently close or
temporarily close their tanks to come into compliance with the
requirements. Site assessments are not yet completed on tanks that were
permanently closed around the time of the deadline. Tanks can be closed
temporarily for 12 months before a site assessment is required.
However, in the latest report for the period April 1-October 31, 1998,
there was an increase of 5.2 percent in the number of confirmed
releases in Indian Country. (In contrast, the increase nationwide was
3.6 percent.)
Question 2a. Addressing Risk in the RCRA Program.--EPA's Annual
Performance Plan and Congressional Justification singles out as one of
its highlights to better address risk in the RCRA program, a ``proposed
Hazardous Waste Identification Rule to regulate lower risk wastes, such
as those that have already undergone treatment, under alternative State
non-hazardous waste regulation programs.'' What specific rulemaking
does this statement refer to?
Response. This rulemaking is referenced in the most recent Agency
regulatory agenda (63 FR 62455) as the Hazardous Waste Identification
Rule (HWIR): Identification and Listing of Hazardous Wastes (Sequence
number 3737). This rulemaking is commonly referred to as HWIR-Waste (as
compared to the regulation on contaminated soil and other media which
is commonly referred to as ``HWIR-Media'').
HWIR-Waste seeks to revise how and when the hazardous waste
regulations apply to residues from the treatment of hazardous wastes
and mixtures of hazardous and non-hazardous waste. HWIR seeks to
develop a set of chemical concentration levels (``exit levels'') such
that wastes that contain hazardous chemicals at concentrations below
those levels would no longer be regulated as a hazardous waste.
Question 2b. What was EPA's estimated cost for completing work on
this proposed rule?
Response. The estimates below reflect the Agency's work on this
rule through fiscal year 2000.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
1999 Fiscal year Total
($ in thousands) Operating 2000 Estimated
Plan Request Cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Dollars.................. $1,965.0 $2,112.3 $4,077.3
FTE.............................. 8.9 8.9 17.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 2c. Considering EPA recently withdrew its proposal to
distinguish between lower and higher-risk contaminated media and exempt
lower-risk media from regulation under Subtitle C, does EPA still plan
to proceed with a rulemaking exempting lower-risk wastes (as opposed to
contaminated media) from Subtitle C?
Response. Yes, EPA fully expects to proceed with the ``HWIR-Waste''
rule on lower-risk wastes. EPA is currently under a court-ordered
schedule for the development of this rulemaking, and is required to
have a proposed rule by October 31, 1999 and a final rule by April 30,
2001.
Question 2d. If so, why isn't the Agency proceeding with a similar
effort with respect to lower-risk contaminated media?
Response. In its final rule for HWIR-Media, the Agency discusses
historic attempts to distinguish between lower and higher-risk
contaminated media, a proposal known as the ``bright line'' (63 FR
65878). The ``bright line'' option got its name from a ``line''
dividing more highly contaminated media from less contaminated media
and this differentiation was to be based on risk.
In considering the ``bright line'' option for the final rulemaking,
the Agency agreed with the concerns expressed by commentators that the
bright line approach would be too difficult to implement. Most
fundamentally, a bright line that would satisfy those who sought
conservative levels would not sufficiently reform the system to remove
the existing barriers to efficient, protective remediation waste
management (63 FR 66102). The Agency went on to discuss the time- and
resource-intensive process that would most likely result. Such a
process would, in addition, provoke litigation and uncertainty, which
would in the mean time have a detrimental effect to ongoing and future
cleanups.
Question 2e. If not, how does EPA plan to reallocate the funds that
would have gone to completing the rulemaking?
Response. As discussed above, the Agency plans to pursue the HWIR-
Waste rulemaking.
Question 2f. What other efforts does the Agency have underway ``to
better address risk in the RCRA program.'' This, too, is identified as
a highlight of the RCRA budget.
Response. There are many ongoing activities at the Agency concerned
with the consideration of risk in the regulation of waste under RCRA.
Improved risk evaluation models and approaches have been used in
several recent activities:
Agency's Air Toxics Multi-media Initiative.--EPA will evaluate the
relative contribution air pathway risks to human health and the
environment from wastewater treatment tanks, surface impoundments, and
landfills. The results of this evaluation should be available in June
1999.
Risks from Surface Impoundments.--The Agency is currently
conducting a study of risks from management in-surface impoundments,
including a national survey of such units. This effort expects to use
the risk assessment tool currently being developed under HWIR-Waste.
The results of this study should be available in March 2001. The Agency
is conducting critical surveys and sampling to provide data for the
statutorily mandated 5-year surface impoundment study, which will
improve our understanding of risk, exposure and potential ecosystem
stressors associates with waste waters and surface impoundments.
Toxic Constituent Leaching Procedure (TCLP).--The RCRA risk
analysis program is supporting a review of the TCLP procedure and other
leach testing protocols and their applicability to various wastes and
waste management conditions at land disposal sites.
Hazardous Waste Minimization and Combustion Strategy.--Addresses
the risks posed by indirect exposure (through the food chain,
primarily) to the dioxins, furans and toxic metal emitted by hazardous
waste combustion in incinerators and boilers and industrial furnaces.
Hazardous waste listing determinations.--EPA's improved groundwater
fate and transport model (Composite Model for Leachate Migration and
Transformation Products (CMPT) was the basis for recent final hazardous
waste listings for the petroleum refining industry.
Industrial Non-Hazardous Waste.--Draft guidance to States is being
developed to ensure that non-hazardous industrial waste is managed in
accordance with any risks it may pose. Such examination also uses the
EPA CMTP model and considers engineered controls at waste Agency is
heavily involved in the development of risk assessment tools to be used
management units (e.g., liners at landfills).
The Agency is heavily involved in the development of risk
assessment tools to be used for present and future regulatory needs.
The HWIR risk assessment tool, in particular, is expected to be used in
future risk examinations. Other analyses of chemicals in waste and
their ability to leach into the environment are underway.
Finally, across many of these risk assessment efforts, the Agency
is seeking ways to improve our ability to represent the complexity of
chemical contamination in the environment and to understand risks posed
to different members of the population. Most specifically, the Agency
has recently focused its risk assessment efforts to consider risk
exposures to children.
Question 2g. Does EPA intend to proceed with this as a rulemaking
or will it instead simply issue ``guidance?''
Response. As discussed above, the Agency plans to pursue a
rulemaking for HWIR-Waste.
Question 3a. Corrective Action Program.--In the fiscal year 1999
Annual Plan Summary, EPA states that it ``will focus on controlling
human exposure and groundwater releases at RCRA facilities designated
as high priorities.'' This same general goal is reiterated in the
fiscal year 2000 Annual Plan Summary. How does EPA define ``high
priority'' sites?
Response. EPA has identified 1700 high priority facilities in its
``Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) Baseline.'' This
baseline is used to measure progress toward attaining the corrective
action goals established for the GPRA. High priority facilities in this
baseline are composed of facilities that score as ``High'' on the
National Corrective Action Prioritization System (NCAPS), as well as up
to 15 percent of the total facilities that scored as ``Medium'' or
``Low'' on the NCAPS, but are of high priority for the cleanup program
due to other factors, such as environmental justice concerns or
brownfields interests. NCAPS sets the environmental priority of a
corrective action facility through consideration of several factors,
including nature of contaminant sources, waste management history and
practices, site hydrogeology, contaminant migration pathways and
likelihood of human and environmental exposure.
Question 3b. How many ``high priority'' sites has EPA identified?
Are there additional or alternative sites that the States have
identified as high priority sites?
Response. There are 1700 facilities on the GPRA baseline (see
answer to A) which were identified by both EPA and the States. When
States identified high priority RCRA corrective action facilities, they
were added to the baseline. Due to the substantial efforts EPA Regional
Offices have made to work with them, the Agency believes there is
general agreement among States that the 1,700 facilities have been
correctly identified as the primary focus for RCRA corrective action.
Question 3c. What were the total expenditures to address these
sites in fiscal year 1999?
Response. (Total Federal Dollars in thousands--Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response Corrective Action Program)
Fiscal Year 1999 Enacted
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dollars FTE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Headquarters...................................... $2,025.9 17.5
Regions........................................... 16,141.5 125.5
States Grants..................................... 24,808.8 N/A
---------------------
Total........................................... $42,976.2 143.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The resources listed above include salary, travel, and contract
dollars for the Corrective Action program. Regional resources support a
variety of corrective action activities including program
implementation in States that are not authorized, State oversight,
workload sharing in those States that are partially authorized, and
program implementation training. Headquarter resources for the
Corrective Action Program nationally encompass regulation reform,
streamlining and reinvention projects that will improve the program's
implementation. State and Tribal Grants (STAG) are awarded to States
and tribes to support corrective action program implementation. Grants
are awarded only to States that are authorized or partially authorized
and they become the primary implementors of the Corrective Action
program. STAG resources are allocated according to the State's workplan
submitted to EPA regional grants coordinators.
It should be noted that authorized States are required to match 25
percent of the RCRA Program grant and that many States provide
additional funding to provide oversight of owner/operator cleanups at
RCRA facilities.
Question 3d. How many of these sites were actually addressed by EPA
in fiscal year 1999?
Response. Information for the first part of fiscal year 1999 is
incomplete, in large part because EPA has been developing nationwide
guidelines for EPA Regions and States to use when determining that
human exposures and groundwater releases have been controlled. EPA
Regions and States have been waiting to enter new data pending issuance
of these guidelines which were issued in February 1999. The Agency
expects that entry of the new data will show significant progress
beyond the current levels (299 with human exposure controlled and 244
with groundwater migration controlled). However, we can provide the
cumulative number of determinations of human exposures controlled and
groundwater migration controlled achieved through the first quarter of
fiscal year 1999. The two measures, (also known as ``environmental
indicators'') comprise the fiscal year 2005 GPRA measures for the
corrective action program and are its primary short term goals for
stemming risk. The measures reflect whether cessation (or absence) of
actual human exposures has occurred and whether groundwater
contamination is under control at each facility. The long term goal for
the program continues to be final cleanup of RCRA facilities with an
implementation focus on risks from highest priority facilities first.
As discussed in the response to part F below, final cleanup is in
progress or being addressed at many of the 1,700 high priority RCRA
facilities.
Facilities are not ``actually addressed'' by EPA or the States in
the RCRA corrective action program, in that EPA and the States neither
finance nor conduct cleanups. The EPA and State role is to oversee
actions taken by the facility owner or operator. As of January 1999,
EPA and the States have made the following ``controlled''
determinations: 299 facilities (18 percent of 1700) win human exposures
controlled, and 244 (14 percent) with groundwater migration controlled.
Question 3e. What types of activities did EPA undertake at these
sites?
Response. EPA and the States issue orders and permits to compel
owners or operators to begin corrective action then oversee the
facility cleanups. EPA and State oversight is focused on directing the
cleanup toward the greatest risks and assuring the appropriateness of
remedial actions and making sure the public is involved in key
decisions. The cleanup activities undertaken by owners and operators
are a wide range of actions that primarily address contaminant source
control and groundwater plume migration (e.g., ``hot spot'' removal,
groundwater withdrawal systems to pull back plumes) and human exposure
through all pathways of exposure (e.g., removal actions, capping,
restricting access, providing alternate water supply). EPA is
evaluating owner or operator's activities using EPA's guidelines on
controlling human exposures and groundwater migration. These guidelines
focus on systematically documenting that all routes of contaminant
migration and exposure pathways have been assessed and addressed such
that a determination can be made that the two facility-wide measures
are achieved. Although EPA is focusing on elimination of risk from
human exposures and groundwater releases as its short-term programmatic
goal, many of the high priority facilities are concurrently engaged in
final cleanup activities such as characterizing facility-wide
contamination, selecting remedies and constructing or installing
equipment for the final cleanup. In fact, at many facilities, EPA
believes that eliminating human exposures and controlling groundwater
releases will support the final cleanup objectives. Further, although
final cleanup will ultimately be required by EPA and the States at all
1,700, some facilities are moving ahead on their own for reasons such
as reducing liability, desire to sell portions of a facility or because
of strong public interest in the facility.
Question 3f. Did EPA complete remediation or cleanup at any of
these sites, or did it focus instead on ``controlling human exposures''
and/or ``controlling groundwater releases?''
Response. The Agency's short-term focus is on controlling human
exposures and groundwater contamination at its highest priority
facilities. The Agency's long term goal is to achieve final cleanup of
all facilities under the corrective action program, with an
implementation focus on the 1,700 highest priority facilities first.
Many of the activities that are undertaken to meet the short-term goals
are consistent with final cleanup. Final cleanup activities also
contribute to the maintenance of controls on human exposures and
groundwater contamination. Most cleanups in the RCRA program are
phased, rather than addressing all problems at the facility at one
time. For example, companies may address certain portions of the
facility first, or address a contaminated medium, such as groundwater,
prior to moving to the next most pressing environmental problem. The
flexibility to phase in cleanups reflects the realities of the RCRA
corrective action program in that many of these companies continue to
be active, some have limited resources and, each has unique concerns.
Oversight agencies must work with companies over the long-term to
address cleanup problems. As a result, oversight of these facilities is
site-specific, and facilities are in different stages of investigation,
stabilization and final cleanup activities. Regardless of the specific
path that each facility is taking, and its focus on final cleanup or
attainment of the agencies short-term goals, EPA can measure the
facilities progress against its environmental indicators determination
guidance.
Question 3g. How much additional funding would be needed to
complete remediation or cleanup at the 170 sites that EPA proposes to
``control'' next year?
Response. While complete remediation or cleanup is, of course, the
end requirement at all RCRA facilities undergoing corrective action,
the Agency has established a nearer-term objective of seeing that
facility owner or operators take actions at their facilities now, to
eliminate unacceptable human exposures and further spread of
contaminated groundwater. As the committee notes, the Agency has
established the control of human exposures and groundwater releases at
170 of the 1,700 worst facilities as its fiscal year 2000 milestone
toward the fiscal year 2005 GPRA goals. Current data shows that as of
January 1999, 299 facilities (18 percent of 1,700) have human exposures
controlled, and 244 (14 percent of 1,700) have groundwater releases
controlled. Based on current progress, the Agency believes that the
funding requested in fiscal year 2000 for EPA and the States to oversee
the work on controls at the 170 facilities will be sufficient. Control
of exposures and groundwater releases is an important step in the
ongoing process of a complete cleanup. In fact, actions taken by
facilities to control human exposures and groundwater releases often
involve significant treatment or removal of contamination that
contributes to the final facility cleanup. EPA's current focus on risk
reduction through control of human exposures and groundwater should not
be taken by the committee to mean that companies are not also
proceeding with the complete facility cleanup required under RCRA.
Question 3h. How does EPA plan to proceed to complete cleanup at
these high priority sites where initial action is taken to control
human exposures?
Response. Please see response to part F. above.
Question 3i. At how many sites did EPA complete remediation or
cleanup?
Response. Please see answer to part F. Data as of January 1999,
indicates the completion of the corrective action process, or that
active remedial measures as specified in the RCRA permit or enforcement
order have been completed (for the entire facility or for areas of the
facility) at 61 facilities.
Question 3j. What were the total expenditures associated
respectively with controlling human exposures, controlling groundwater
releases, and completing cleanup?
Response. Actual RCRA cleanup expenditures are borne by facility
owners/operators, not EPA or the States. The Agency has chosen not to
burden industry with requirements to report their expenditures for
cleanup and therefore is unable to provide this number. The Agency has
estimated the economic impact of the RCRA cleanup program which has
been included in the Regulatory Impact Analyses (RIAs) of individual
proposed or final rules. EPA and authorized State oversight of
corrective action cleanups by owner/operators is funded under the RCRA
Corrective Action budget, and by a portion of the Section 3011 RCRA
program grants to the States. These amounts are provided in the answer
to question C. It should be noted that authorized States are required
to match 25 percent of the RCRA Program grant and that many States
provide additional funding to provide oversight of owner/operator
cleanups at RCRA facilities. EPA does not require States to report
these expenditures over and above that provided through the RCRA
Program grant.
Question 3k. Of these costs, what amount was borne by EPA (as
opposed to the States or responsible parties)?
Response. Please see response to question J. above. As noted,
actual cleanup costs at RCRA facilities are borne by the owner or
operator, not EPA or States.
Question 3l. The Annual Performance Plan and Congressional
Justification states that ``the RCRA Corrective Action Program will
actively implement the RCRA Cleanup Initiative.'' Has the Agency in
fact developed a formal RCRA Cleanup Initiative?
Response. The details of the RCRA Cleanup Initiative, which will
formally introduce a number of administrative reforms, are currently in
draft and under discussion with stakeholders. The initiative will
highlight both new and current flexibility in the program and encourage
innovative, practical approaches to cleaning up facilities. Please see
part M. below for additional detail on the RCRA Cleanup Initiative.
Question 3m. What specifically are the projects ``intended to
reduce impediments to achieving the Agency's Objective?''
Response. The RCRA Cleanup Initiative is the Agency's primary
initiative in identifying and reducing impediments in the corrective
action program. It will feature a formal, ongoing process for
stakeholder involvement to identify additional changes needed to
improve the cleanup program. A specific discussion of the projects
appears below.
Corrective Action Training Workshop.--EPA will focus a major
training initiative on effective oversight of cleanups by EPA and State
project managers. This comprehensive 3-day workshop stressing Results-
Based Corrective Action will be offered in all ten EPA Regions
beginning in spring 1999 through 2000. An Internet version of this
training is also being developed for release.
Corrective Action Policy Clarification.--Through an upcoming
Federal Register notice, the Agency will withdraw those provisions of
the July 27, 1990 proposed Subpart S rule that have not been
promulgated to date. Provisions of Subpart S which have been finalized
(e.g., Corrective Action Management Unit--CAMU) will remain in effect.
This notice will greatly reduce uncertainty for States and owner/
operators over the applicability of proposed versus final regulations,
and allow EPA to establish flexible approaches for the Corrective
Action program.
The notice will describe the goals and current direction of the
Corrective Action program and publicly confirm that the 1996 Advanced
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) remains the primary Corrective
Action guidance. EPA will rely on existing regulations, current &
future guidance, and training to implement a results-based corrective
action program rather than promulgate additional regulations at this
time.
New Corrective Action Guidance.--Guidelines for determining that
human exposures and groundwater releases are under control.
Human Exposures Under Control and Migration of
Contaminated Groundwater Under Control--are the short term measures of
program progress and are being used to meet the requirements of the
Government Performance & Result Act. These guidelines, issued February
5, 1999, describe how to determine if these measures have been met.
A series of Corrective Action Training Workshops,
conference calls, meetings with State and Regional regulators, and the
regulated community, will help ensure consistency in the application of
these important measures.
Results-Based Approaches for RCRA Corrective Action.--This
guidance, which should be issued in summer 1999, will stress that
Results-Based approaches, which emphasize outcomes, not process, should
be a significant part of State/Regional Corrective Action programs.
These results-based approaches should be used at many Corrective Action
facilities, including certain high-priority facilities, to meet the
GPRA goals and to move facilities toward the longer-term goal of final
facility cleanup.
Corrective Action Completion.--This guidance, planned for issuance
in late 1999, will show how to document completion of corrective action
at facilities. It will include direction on: termination of permits
where Corrective Action is complete; how to determine that Corrective
Action is complete at part of a facility; and the importance of public
involvement in Corrective Action.
The Role of Groundwater Use in RCRA Corrective Action.--This
guidance, which is expected to be issued in mid-1999, will show how to
account for current and reasonably expected uses of groundwater when
implementing interim and final RCRA Corrective Action remedies. It will
convey that groundwater-use decisions should be based on EPA-endorsed
Comprehensive State Groundwater Protection Programs (CSGWPP). In the
absence of CSGWPPs, groundwater-use decisions can be based on other
EPA-endorsed State classification or use designations.
Aggressive Outreach to EPA Regions and States.--In addition to
emphasizing the importance of environmental results, this outreach
includes getting additional States authorized to implement the
Corrective Action program. EPA will also be strongly encouraging the
States to incorporate the Hazardous Remediation Waste Management
Requirements (HWIR-Media) Regulation and Post-Closure Regulation into
their programs. This outreach will also place a renewed emphasis on the
importance of early and meaningful public involvement.
Publicly Accessible Information on Cleanup Progress.--Detailed
progress information such as the human exposures or groundwater
releases controlled results for individual facilities will be posted on
the Corrective Action Website. This will allow stakeholders, including
affected community, to monitor progress at facilities in their area as
well as the overall Corrective Action Program progress. Until this more
detailed information is available, the website will show progress for
each EPA Region and state.
Question 3n. What specifically are the projects to ``enhance State
and stakeholder involvement?''
Response. Please see response to question M. Detailed progress
information such as the human exposures or groundwater releases
controlled results for individual facilities will be posted on an
Agency website. This will allow stakeholders, including the affected
community, to monitor progress at facilities in their area as well as
the overall Corrective Action Program progress. Until this more
detailed information is available, the website will show progress for
each EPA Region and state. By providing cleanup progress information
for individual facilities, the Agency will make information on facility
cleanup more readily available to communities. It is hoped that this
additional availability of information will generate greater public
interest and awareness in Corrective Action at individual facilities,
thereby enhancing the ability of the community to become more involved
in decisions about the cleanup.
Question 3o. What specifically are the projects intended to
``promote innovative approaches to cleanup actions?''
Response. The two primary approaches EPA currently plans for
promoting innovative approaches are the Corrective Action Training
Workshop and the Results-Based Approaches for Corrective Action
Guidance. Details on how they will promote innovative approaches is
provided in the response to the previous question.
Question 3p. What other ``long term efforts to enhance the
program'' does EPA intend to undertake?
Response. Please see responses to parts L. M. and N.
Question 4a. RCRA Permitting Process.--EPA's fiscal year 1999
budget request States that the Agency will approve 153 permits or other
controls ``to prevent dangerous releases to air, soil, and
groundwater'' for a cumulative total of 62 percent of hazardous waste
management facilities in the United States. How many permits were
actually issued in fiscal year 1999 to hazardous waste management
facilities?
Response. In fiscal year 1999, EPA estimates that 116 more
facilities will have approved controls to prevent dangerous releases to
air, soil and groundwater. The 116 estimate is based on information
submitted by regional RCRA permitting programs and relies on
information that States supply to the regions.
In fiscal year 2000, EPA indicates that an additional 146
facilities will have approved controls in place to prevent dangerous
releases to air, soil and groundwater for a cumulative total of 65
percent of all the roughly 3,400 hazardous waste management facilities.
Question 4b. Does this goal include facilities in States that have
approved RCRA programs?
Response. The RCRA permitting program is a State delegated program.
Since almost all of the States are authorized to issue RCRA permits,
most RCRA permits are issued by them; therefore, the accomplishments
that are projected for fiscal year 2000 include permitting activities
that are being carried out by EPA's partners. As a point of
clarification, EPA expects that in fiscal year 2000, 65 percent of the
GPRA baseline facilities will be under approved controls. The Agency's
best estimate of number of GPRA baseline facilities was about 3,400
facilities at the time of the fiscal year 2000 budget submittal.
Therefore, in fiscal year 2000 EPA expects to have 65 percent of the
3,400 facilities under approved controls.
Question 4c. EPA's own numbers suggest that there are a total of
5,200 facilities that manage hazardous waste and that even if the
fiscal year 2000 goals are met, there will be 1,820 existing hazardous
waste management facilities that do not have final permits or approved
controls in place. At EPA's current pace of an average of 150
facilities approved per year, it would take over 12 years to complete
the process of approving final permits or controls for existing
hazardous waste management facilities. Given those figures, why hasn't
EPA dedicated more resources to addressing this backlog?
Response. As discussed in the previous response, there appears to
be confusion regarding the fiscal year 2000 goal for hazardous waste
management facilities ``under approved controls.'' EPA expects to have
65 percent of the GPRA baseline facilities under approved controls.
This is estimated to be about 65 percent of the total baseline of
roughly 3,400 facilities. If EPA and the States continue to bring 150
facilities under approved controls per year, Men entire group of 3,400
hazardous waste management facilities should be under approved controls
by fiscal year 2008. Based on current levels of progress the Agency
believes the fiscal year 2000 President's Budget provides EPA, Regions,
and States with sufficient funding to keep the Permit Program on track
to meet the fiscal year 2000 GPRA goal.
Question 4d. What were the total expenditures for fiscal year 1999
for approving permits or other controls at hazardous waste management
facilities?
Response. (Total Federal Dollars in thousands--Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response Permitting Program)
Fiscal Year 1999 Enacted
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dollars FTE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Headquarters...................................... $1,330.9 12.0
Regions........................................... 14,057.7 155.9
States Grants..................................... 22,852.9 N/A
---------------------
Total........................................... $38,241.5 167.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 4e. What are the total expected expenditures to achieve
the goal for fiscal year 2000 of approving permits or other controls at
an additional 146 facilities?
Response. (Total Federal Dollars in thousands--Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response Permitting Program)
Fiscal Year 2000 Requested
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dollars FTE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Headquarters...................................... $1,872.1 12.0
Regions........................................... 14,900.9 155.9
States Grants..................................... 22,852.9 N/A
---------------------
Total........................................... $39,625.9 167.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
superfund
Question 1. There is accumulating evidence that the Superfund
National Priority List cleanup program is ``ramping down,'' or will do
so soon. For example, the General Accounting Office reported in
November that there were 232 sites nationwide that either EPA, the
States or both believed would eventually be listed on the National
Priority List. Over the last 6 years, EPA has added an average of 26
sites per year to the List. Do you concur that the scope of future
additions to the Superfund NPL is likely to be closer to the 232 new
additional site level projected in the November GAO report or will be
much larger than that?
Response. Although the Superfund program has made substantial
progress in the last 6 years, significant work remains at current and
proposed NPL sites. At the end of fiscal year 1999, the Agency will
still be performing work at over 700 sites currently on the final NPL
(an estimated 470 sites will have construction underway). We expect to
complete construction at most of these sites by 2005. Additionally, EPA
will need to invest resources in post-construction activities to ensure
that remedies remain protective into the future. EPA also expects to
continue to have an important role in conducting removal actions to
protect communities across the country.
While we do not know now how many more sites will need to be added
to the NPL, there will be new listings. We list sites on the NPL only
after considering a number of factors. For example, when the sites
present a serious threat to human health and the environment, when a
State asks us to list a site, or when a State is unable or unwilling to
conduct the cleanup. Using these factors and working with State
officials the Agency has listed about 26 sites a year over the past
several years. EPA will continue to use these factors and work with the
States to guide our listing decisions in the future. This year the
Agency expects to list no more than 40 sites on the NPL. Thus we expect
to continue to conduct significant work during the next 5 years at
current and future sites.
Question 2a. If you believe that the new NPL listings are likely to
be closer to the GAO report level, what implications does this raise
for the funding of the Superfund program? In particular, can you
provide an estimate of what you expect the Superfund program will look
like in 5 years? How many sites will be construction complete?
Response. The Agency's Government Performance and Results Act
(GPRA) goal projects the rate of Superfund site construction
completions through 2005. Assuming a steady budget through the next
seven fiscal years (Fiscal Year 1999--Fiscal Year 2005), and assuming,
on average, 85 construction completions per year, we should achieve by
the end of fiscal year 2005 about 1,180 construction completions.
Question 2b. How many sites will be on the NPL but not yet
construction complete?
Response. As of January 1999, there were 1446 total NPL sites.
Assuming that EPA will achieve 85 construction completions through
2005, over 400 sites currently on the NPL will be in remediation in
2003. This estimate does not include any additional sites that may be
added to the NPL during this or subsequent years.
Question 2c. What level of funding and staffing will be needed to
execute Superfund's projected mission in fiscal year 2004 and beyond?
Response. Although the Superfund program has made substantial
progress in the last 6 years, significant work remains at current and
proposed NPL sites. At the end of fiscal year 1999, the Agency will
still be performing work at over 700 sites currently on the final NPL
(an estimated 470 sites will have construction underway). We also
expect to list 40 sites this year on the NPL. Additionally, EPA will
need to invest resources in post-construction activities to ensure that
remedies remain protective into the future. Finally, EPA expects to
continue to have an important role in conducting removal actions to
protect communities across the country.
Although our need for future resources is clear, the Agency has not
completed development of the Superfund budget request for fiscal years
2001 and beyond. However, to continue our current pace of cleanup,
including removals, cleanups of new NPL additions, and post-
construction work, our GPRA goal currently assumes a steady State
budget into the future.
Question 3. Again, assuming that there will be a relatively small
number of new sites added to the Superfund NPL, what do you foresee as
the role and resource requirements of the Superfund program at sites
that will necessarily fall to State cleanup programs for action?
Response. Historically, we have listed an average of 26 sites per
year on the NPL. This year we expect to list roughly 40 sites on the
NPL. We do not know now how many more sites will ultimately need to be
added to the NPL, but we will continue to list sites on the NPL only if
the site presents a serious threat, when a State requests a listing, or
when the State is unable or unwilling to conduct the cleanup. We have
been using and will continue to use these considerations to guide our
listing decisions. States are supporting our NPL listing activities at
this level through our State concurrence policy.
States play a key role, and will continue to play a key role, in
site assessment and site cleanups. State cleanup programs play a vital
role for both NPL and non-NPL sites and it is EPA's hope that this
successful partnership continues within the Superfund program. In fact,
Superfund funding has been a key factor in the growth of State
Superfund programs. EPA's Superfund program has provided major funding
to the States. This past year, 1998, Superfund provided over $140
million to the States. Of that total, approximately $25 million went
toward State voluntary cleanup programs and Core program funding to
States. Another $17 million was provided to States in the form of
cooperative agreements for funding site assessment work (PA/SI
funding), $32 million for NPL site studies, planning, design, and PRP
oversight, and $69 million for Fund-financed NPL remedial actions
managed by States.
Further, EPA plays a significant role in non-NPL cleanups by
conducting removal actions. EPA has also performed approximately 5,500
removals since the beginning of Superfund at a rate of 200-300 per
year. These activities will not decrease if the number of NPL sites
decreases. As a result of these factors, EPA does not foresee a sharp
decline in its need to maintain its current role or resource
requirements through 2005.
Question 4. EPA's fiscal year 2000 budget projects completion of
all remedial construction at 925 sites by the end of fiscal year 2002,
maintaining the pace of 85 construction completions per year attained
in 1997. How long beyond 2002 will EPA maintain an 85 construction
cleanup per year pace before the program starts to run out of non-
Federal sites ready for cleanup.
Response. Due to the success of our Administrative Reforms, we
project that we will achieve, on average, 85 construction completions
through 2005. Projections beyond this year cannot be made with any
certainty due to the changing demands of site-specific work, such as
new information regarding types or amounts of contamination present,
shifts in construction schedules, or PRP takeovers.
Question 5. Over the past 6 years, EPA has added approximately 155
sites to the NPL, an average of 26 per year. GAO says it takes about
10.6 years from site listing to cleanup; EPA would probably say that
administrative reforms have reduced this length of time. Assume that
the true length of time to clean up a site is 8 years. Setting aside
the sites deemed ``construction complete,'' doesn't that imply a
steady-state NPL size of approximately 208 sites--eight times twenty-
six? If you disagree with this analysis, is there some other set of
assumptions that the committee should use for the annual rate of
additions to the NPL, or expectations about the ultimate size of the
Superfund program?
Response. By 2005, EPA will have cleaned up the vast majority of
the sites currently listed on the NPL. However, we expect that more
than 250 of the current NPL sites will be in active remediation at that
time. We do not know now how many more sites will need to be added to
the NPL, but we will focus our NPL listing activities on those sites
that States agree should be added to the NPL and those sites where
States are unable or unwilling to clean up the site. We have been using
and will continue to use these considerations to guide our listing
decisions. This year we expect to list roughly 40 sites on the NPL.
In addition to remedial action costs, the EPA Superfund budget
would need to include site assessment activities, removal program
needs, post-construction activities, other Federal agency costs, and
the other categories displayed, for example, in EPA Superfund
appropriation requests. We will continue to give all these factors
careful consideration as we prepare our budgets in future years.
Question 6. It usually takes a considerable period of time from
when a site is listed until it is ready for the actual cleanup. It is
conceivable that there will be much work for Superfund NPL cleanup
program at a later time because of an unforeseen acceleration in the
rate of NPL additions. However, will not the cleanup program face a
dramatically decreased demand for work in the next few years as work is
completed on sites listed prior to 1993, as there are only 155 or so
sites moving through the pipeline from the listing years of 1993
through 1998? How do you manage a Superfund system staffed to complete
85 sites a year when past listing decisions will only present it with
26 sites for cleanup to begin in any particular year?
Response. The Superfund program has made substantial progress in
the last 6 years, and approximately 89 percent of the NPL sites have
had cleanup activities, are construction complete, or have cleanup
underway. However, these accomplishments cannot overshadow the
significant work remaining at current and proposed NPL sites. At the
end of fiscal year 1999, the Agency will still be working to complete
construction at over 700 sites currently on the final NPL.
We also need resources to clean up newly listed sites as quickly as
possible. We do not know now how many more sites will need to be added
to the NPL, but we will focus our NPL listing activities on those sites
that States agree should be added to the NPL and sites where a State is
unable or unwilling to conduct the cleanup. We have been using and will
continue to use these considerations to guide our listing decisions.
This year we expect to list roughly 40 sites on the NPL.
Furthermore, even as cleanup activities are completed at sites, EPA
will need to invest resources in ensuring that remedies remain
protective into the future. EPA will have responsibilities to conduct
oversight of continuing operations, to review periodically remedies at
which waste remains in place, and to take response actions at sites at
which remedies do not remain protective. Finally, EPA expects to
continue to have an important role in conducting removal actions to
protect communities across the country. The need for EPA involvement in
removals is unlikely to decline, and, as fewer sites are added to the
NPL in the future, removal actions may be more widely used to achieve
necessary cleanups.
Question 7a. Less than 10 months ago, on April 30, 1998, you
testified before Senator Bond's Appropriations Subcommittee that the
Administration needed an extra $1.3 billion, spread over 2 years, to
meet certain objectives. In justifying the request for $2.1 billion in
1999, you stated that the requested funding level would ``ensure'' that
we meet the Administration's commitment to clean up 900 of the nation's
worst toxic waste sites by the end of the year 2001.'' Your fiscal year
2000 budget submission States the Administration plans to complete 925
cleanups by the end of 2002. That will be accomplished while holding
Superfund funding flat at approximately $1.5 billion per year. Based on
your fiscal year 2000 budget, your year end goal for fiscal year 2001
is 840 construction completions. Can I assume that the infusion of an
added $1.3 billion that the Administration requested 10 months ago
would merely have resulted in accelerating the Superfund program by a
net of 60 sites completed 1 year early--the difference between the 900
sites projected for completion by the end of 2001 in last year's budget
request, versus the 840 projected in this year's budget request?
Response. The Superfund program has made substantial progress in
completing construction at NPL sites. EPA expects to achieve completing
construction at 840 sites by the end of 2001. The Administration's
request for additional funding for fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year
1999 provided a window of opportunity to achieve more construction
completions and increase the pace of cleanup through 2001 and beyond,
while permitting the Superfund program to continue critical site
assessment functions and initiate cleanups at other sites. The
additional $1.3 billion requested by the President would have enabled
EPA to complete the construction of cleanup activities in 60 additional
communities by December 2000. With the lack of this funding, nearly 2
additional years will have passed before EPA achieves construction
completions in 925 communities. In addition, the additional funding
would have enabled EPA to initiate cleanups in far more than the 60
communities and achieve construction completions far earlier in many of
these communities than is possible without this infusion of cleanup
funds.
Question 7b. There is no doubt that one reason for the change in
Superfund budget requests is due to administrative improvements which
lower the cost of cleanups. However, based on previous Administration
statements regarding the success of the reforms, it is unlikely that
the cost savings attributable to administrative improvements have only
come to light in the last 10 months. Can you provide the committee with
a detailed analysis of the assumptions on which your 1998 testimony
regarding the fiscal year 1999 budget was based, and further
demonstrate the areas which have improved or changed and form the basis
for your dramatically lower fiscal year 2000 request?
Response. In 1997 as EPA was developing the fiscal year 1999 budget
request, we used site-specific project schedules and budgets based on
the best professional judgment of regional project managers who are
responsible for managing or overseeing site-specific cleanup actions.
However, as investigations and cleanups proceed, time and budget
requirements change, and the Regions change their projections to
reflect such changes. At the time of our budget request in fiscal year
1999, we relied on the best information available. Likewise, our fiscal
year 2000 budget also reflects the best planning projections available
to us at the time we formulated the request.
Question 7c. As you know, I opposed the requested increases as
unjustified. I felt that the request was not based on any firm data or
prioritization of resources. In hindsight, given other priorities for
EPA funds, that was the right course. Can you assure me that this
request will not return in the fiscal year 2001 budget?
Response. The Agency has not yet completed development of its
budget and targets for fiscal year 2001. The budget request will
reflect project needs, and will continue to reflect EPA's commitment to
our ``enforcement first'' policy, support a strong State role in
cleanups, and remain diligent in our efforts to control and reduce
cleanup costs.
Question 8a. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 included a Brownfields
Tax Incentive that allowed immediate expensing, for tax purposes, of
environmental cleanup costs at certain sites. Normally, the cleanup
costs would be added to a property's basis then depreciated over the
life of the property. This tax incentive has been available since
August 1997. Although the Administration had great hopes for it,
anecdotal reports indicate use has not been as great as expected. Do
you have any information--qualitative or quantitative--on the use of
this incentive? Do you expect Better America Bonds to fare better?
Response. The Brownfields Tax Incentive was signed into law on
August 5, 1997. The first filing deadline for corporate returns under
this incentive was September 15, 1998; thus providing a very short
window of 6 months for actual usage of the incentive. Additionally, the
complexity of the projects considered under the incentive and the
geographic eligibility requirements have reduced the active usage of
the incentive in this first year. EPA and its Federal and private
partners are working diligently to provide tools to taxpayers to
facilitate the use of the incentive. In discussions with private sector
developers and legal and financial experts, we have learned that usage
has been further reduced by the inclusion in the legislation of a
sunset date, which removes some certainty that cleanup costs will be
eligible for deduction. Despite these challenges, extensive outreach
and networking on the incentive have been accomplished in order to
increase usage of the incentive.
The Brownfields Tax Incentive did not contain any requirements for
States to report on usage of the incentive. However, as part of EPA's
outreach efforts, case studies were developed to demonstrate the
successful use of the Tax Incentive at two ongoing brownfields
projects.
The Better America Bonds proposal has been received with
considerable enthusiasm by communities and organizations interested in
Brownfields cleanup, green space preservation and water quality
protection. Over the past year, communities across the country signaled
a strong desire for more livable communities in more than 240 State and
local measures on land conservation and growth initiatives. Better
America Bonds would provide the financing necessary to enable
communities to move forward with many of their Brownfields and
Greenspace plans.
Question 8b. Please explain the relationship between Better America
Bonds and the tax incentive--as they appear to be mutually exclusive.
If both are available, please provide the committee with hypothetical
scenarios that demonstrate which incentive would be a ``better deal''
at a typical Brownfields site.
Response. Better America Bonds will further the Brownfields
Initiative by providing much needed flexible funding that communities
can use for Brownfields activities. A recent report by the U.S.
Conference of Mayors pointed to a lack of capital for local governments
as the leading barrier to the cleanup and reuse of Brownfields.
Brownfields cleanup is one of the qualifying purposes for Better
America Bonds. Communities that would like to issue bonds to overcome
the financing gap for Brownfields cleanup would be able to apply for
Better America Bonds issuance authority. The Bonds proposal will enable
states, tribes and local governments to generate $9.5 billion in bonds
over 5 years.
The Better America Bonds proposal will work in conjunction with
other existing tools such as the Brownfields Tax Incentive. It will
supplement, not replace, existing Brownfields funding, thus increasing
the range of tools and funds available for Brownfields cleanup. The Tax
Incentive, for example, is targeted at privately-financed Brownfields
cleanups; the Bonds proposal, in contrast, supports publicly-financed
Brownfields activities.
Question 9a. The Administration Budget assumes reimposition of the
Superfund taxes. Since the taxes expired at the end of 1995, there have
been changes that lower the Alternative Minimum Tax. This is the basis
on which the corporate environmental tax was computed. Does the
President's budget use the reinstated Superfund taxes to offset new,
nonSuperfund spending?
Response. The Budget proposes to reinstate the Superfund excise
taxes and corporate environmental income (CEI) tax. The revenues from
this proposal would continue to be fully dedicated to the Superfund
Trust Fund for the exclusive purposes of Superfund cleanup activities.
In addition to raising revenues, the proposal to reinstate the
Superfund taxes would generate roughly $1.2 billion per year in PAYGO
credits. The Budget proposes to use these PAYGO credits, but not the
tax revenue, as an offset to increase discretionary spending. Even
though the Superfund PAYGO credits would offset increased non-Superfund
spending for scoring purposes, no funds would be diverted from the
Superfund Trust Fund.
Question 9b. Must the Superfund taxes be reinstated in order for
the Congress to continue funding Superfund at its current requested
level of $1.5 billion per year, as the 1997 Balanced Budget Act
assumes?
Response. The 1997 Balance Budget Act assumes the reinstatement of
Superfund taxes. Superfund taxes support national program priorities
such as construction completions. Without the reinstatement of
Superfund taxes, the trust fund unappropriated balance will be depleted
before the end of fiscal year 2001. Superfund tax revenue replenishes
the trust fund balance and provide funds for the program. A lack of
funding will disable the program in achieving its goal of 925
completions by fiscal year 2002.
Question 9c. Is it the Administration's view that reimposition of
its proposed mix of Superfund taxes fairly apportions financial
responsibility for Superfund cleanup activities among the various
categories?
Response. The existing tax structure base is generally realistic
and equitable on the basis that it is aimed at those at the producer/
manufacturer/owner level using the substances found at Superfund sites.
The Superfund tax structure adheres to the ``polluter pays'' principle,
a cornerstone of the Superfund program--that those who are responsible
for the contamination must pay for the cleanup. This tax is imposed on
those hazardous substances most frequently found at Superfund sites and
collected to pay for their clean up and prevention, response, and
reduction of the health and environmental risks posed by them.
The economic impact of Superfund environmental taxes is minimal,
both at the producer/manufacturer/owner level and at the consumer
level. In an analysis completed in 1994 for the Agency, it was found
that the chemical excise tax was generally less than 2 percent of the
chemical prices and likely to be passed through to consumers in the
form of higher prices. The impact of petroleum taxes on petroleum
prices was less than 1 percent. Finally, the environmental tax fell
primarily on larger firms. Eighty-nine percent of the corporate
environmental tax was paid by firms with assets exceeding $250 million.
In essence, the analysis suggested that the amount of taxes relative to
prices was small enough to avoid significant economic impacts (Economic
Impact of Superfund Taxes report to EPA. Prepared by Industrial
Economics, Inc., 1994)
Question 9d. Does the Administration's proposal for the corporate
tax take into account the 1997 reduction in the alternative minimum
tax, or would the environmental tax be a proportionately lower
percentage of the overall mix of Superfund taxes, including excise
taxes, that it was prior to its expiration in 1995?
Response. The Administration proposes the reinstatement of the
Superfund taxes, excise and environmental taxes. The Administration's
estimates take into account the change in the alternative minimum tax
``AMT'' according to the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-
34). According to the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation,
``Congress believed that the alternative minimum tax inhibits capital
formation and business enterprise. Therefore, the Act modified the
depreciation adjustment of the alternative minimum tax (the most
significant business-related adjustment of the alternative minimum tax)
with respect to new investments. In addition, the Congress believed
that the alternative minimum tax is administratively complex.
Therefore, the Act repealed the alternative minimum tax for small
corporations'' by essentially redefining the AMT. For example, a
corporation that had average gross receipts of less that $5 million for
the 3-year period beginning after December 31, 1993 is exempt from the
alternative minimum tax.
The Administration's estimates effectively maintain the excise tax
mix and corporate environmental tax rates at the same levels prior to
1995. This will sustain each tax's percentage of the total tax revenue
to approximately equal to prior 1995 percentages. The corporate
environmental tax will only be affected by the fundamental re-
definition of the AMT on which it is based. Under the new AMT
definition small businesses are excluded, so one might expect the
revenue stream to decrease from the corporate environmental tax. If the
economy were held constant to 1995 conditions and the two tax rates
were applied, there would be a difference in revenue streams. However,
given the excellent economic conditions of recent years, projections
show that the alternative minimum tax and, as a result, the derivative
corporate environmental tax receipts would be relatively higher than
those prior to 1995.
Question 10a. In February 1998, EPA issued guidance regarding
settlements with parties at so-called municipal co-disposal sites. It
appears that the guidance is based on EPA's experience at many such
sites, and assumes that EPA can use formulas and percentages as a
method to accurately estimate the share of liability attributable to
municipal solid waste activity. If that liability can be accurately
approximated, then EPA can quickly settle liability with these parties.
Is it fair to State that EPA issued the guidance because it was
necessary to deal with parties whose liability at Superfund sites is
based on conduct associated with Municipal solid waste (MSW) disposal
at co-disposal sites differently from other parties?
Response. The February 5, 1998 ``Policy for Municipality and
Municipal Solid Waste CERCLA Settlements at NPL Co-Disposal Sites''
(Policy) is intended to reduce the transaction and litigation costs of
contribution claims among responsible parties at co-disposal sites, by
giving guidance on resolving such contribution claims. The Policy
represents an exercise of the Agency's enforcement discretion to enter
into settlements to resolve a party's liability at a Superfund site
and, thereby, provide a settling party with contribution protection for
matters addressed in the settlement pursuant to CERCLA section
113(f)(2). Although MSW may contain hazardous substances, such
substances are generally present in only small concentrations. MSW-only
landfills rarely become Superfund sites, and the cost of remediating
MSW is typically lower than the cost of remediating hazardous waste.
Therefore, EPA has had a long-standing policy of not identifying an MSW
generator/transporter as a potentially liable party unless there is
site-specific evidence that the MSW the party disposed of contained
hazardous substances derived from a commercial, institutional or
industrial process or activity. Despite this long standing policy, the
potential presence of small concentrations of hazardous substances in
MSW has resulted in contribution claims by private parties against MSW
generators and transporters. Although EPA will continue its policy of
not generally identifying MSW generators/transporters as PRPs, the 1998
Policy recognizes the strong public interest in reducing the burden of
contribution litigation at co-disposal landfills and provides for
settlements with the MSW parties. EPA was not required, nor was it
otherwise ``necessary'' for EPA, to issue the Policy.
Question 10b. There were changes to the formulas between the July
1997 proposal and final February 1998 guidance. Do you believe that the
formulas and percentages in the final municipal settlement guidance
accurately approximates the share of liability attributable to solid
waste activities at a co-disposal Superfund site?
Response. The formulas and percentages in the Policy that provide
guidance on settlement terms with MSW parties represent the Agency's
best approximation of fair settlement terms based on its experience in
implementing and enforcing both the Superfund and RCRA programs. For
settlements with MSW generators and transporters, EPA estimated the
cost of remediating MSW at a representative RCRA Subtitle D landfill.
This cost estimate is based on the costs of closure/post closure
activities at such landfills, and is derived from the cost model used
in EPA's ``Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Criteria for
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills'' (PB-92-100-841, September 1991). For
municipal owners and operators of co-disposal sites, the presumptive
settlement percentage was based on several factors, including the
average historical settlement percentages paid by such municipalities
at sites with multiple, viable, non-de minimis, non-MSW generator or
transporter PRPs. The Policy provides that such settlement terms should
be adjusted based onsite-specific factors. EPA believes that the
Policy's settlement formula and percentage for MSW generators and
transporters and municipal owners and operators of co-disposal sites
provides a fair and efficient means by which EPA may settle with such
parties.
Question 10c. Between July 1997 and February 1998 there were
changes in the guidance regarding the treatment of owners and
operators. The changes make it explicit that the guidance should be
applied to municipal owners and operators when there are viable, non-de
minimis, non-MSW transporters and generators. Assuming that there are
two different municipal owners at identical sites, and at one site
DuPont is also a PRP, while at the other all of the non-MSW PRPs are
now defunct or bankrupt, the municipal owner at the former can get
relief under the policy, the municipal owner at the latter probably
cannot. Why is the viability of other parties even relevant? Is not the
purpose of the policy to offer a fair settlement to parties that
engaged in a specific type of conduct?
Response. The Policy was always intended to apply to co-disposal
landfills where there are contribution claims between industrial
parties and MSW generators and transporters, and municipal owners and
operators of such sites, and is meant to provide guidance for resolving
contribution claims among those potentially responsible parties. In the
first example, therefore, the Policy would apply if DuPont brought a
claim for contribution against the municipal owner. In the second
example, the Policy would not apply. Also, the Agency may not exercise
its enforcement discretion as contemplated under the Policy if doing so
would leave only the United States to conduct the cleanup of a site
with little or no possibility of recovering its response costs.
As explained in the Policy, the presumptive settlement percentage
for municipal owners or operators of co-disposal sites was based on
several factors, including the average historical settlement
percentages paid by such municipalities at sites with multiple, viable,
non-de minimis, non-MSW generator or transporter PRPs. If EPA had
included sites where the municipality was the only viable PRP in
reviewing these past settlements, the average settlement amount would
have been a great deal higher because it would have accounted for a
number of settlements where the municipality paid 100 percent of the
cleanup costs. This consideration was present both at the time the
policy was first published for comment and at the time that it was
issued in revised form.
As always, EPA intends to continue to take site specific factors
into account to reach a settlement that is in the public interest.
Question 10d. One reason for differential treatment in the
scenarios noted above could be to protect Superfund from large cleanup
expenditures for orphan shares. Can you estimate how much it would cost
to implement the reform in the same manner for all municipal owners
irrespective of the viability of other responsible parties?
Response. EPA is performing the analysis you have requested and
will provide you with the results as soon as they are available.
Question 11. You have requested $89 million in the fiscal year 2000
budget for a line described as ``Maximizing PRP Involvement (including
reforms).'' Please inform the committee how much is budgeted in fiscal
year 2000 to pay for reimbursement of orphan shares under section
122(b)(1) or any other provisions of CERCLA. Please provide the same
information for fiscal years 1993 through 1998, along with projections
for fiscal year 1999.
Response. As a matter of policy, the Agency has been providing
compensation to settling parties who agree to perform cleanup work by
forgiving portions of past recoverable EPA costs and future oversight
costs pursuant to EPA's June 1996 orphan share policy. Historically,
the Superfund budget has not requested discretionary resources to
compensate PRPs for orphan shares. In recent years and in the fiscal
year 2000 President's Budget, however, the Agency has requested $200
million in mandatory orphan share spending.
Question 12a. EPA's GPRA goal for the RCRA Corrective Action
Program is to control human exposures at 95 percent of the high
priority corrective action sites and control groundwater releases at 70
percent of the high priority corrective action sites by 2005. To meet
that goal, EPA will have to address 1620 high priority sites over the
next 6 years. EPA has requested $22.7 million for fiscal year 2000 for
the RCRA corrective action program to address 170 high priority sites.
Even assuming that many cleanups will be conducted by responsible
parties, in some cases under State supervision, how will this amount be
sufficient to meet the Agency's stated goal of addressing 170 high
priority sites in fiscal year 2000?
Response. Please see response to question 3-G. above. With respect
to the number of facility cleanups under State supervision, 33 States
are authorized for the RCRA Corrective Action Program and a number of
others oversee facility cleanup work under work sharing arrangements
with EPA Regions. The Agency believes that the majority of the cleanups
taking place or planned at the 1,700 high priority facilities are, or
will be, under State supervision.
Question 12b. It appears that even if EPA achieves its exposure
control goals at 170 sites in fiscal year 2000, it will still fall
short of the target number of 242 sites needed to stay on track to meet
the overall GPRA goal by 2005. Is this true? If true, why didn't EPA
request additional funds to address a larger number of high priority
sites, or to complete cleanup at these sites?
Response. The committee's reference to the ``target number of 242
sites needed to stay on track to meet the overall GPRA goal by 2005''
appears to straight line the 1,207 facilities remaining after the
fiscal year 2000 over 5 years assuming an annual target of 242 in each
remaining year to reach the goals by the fiscal year 2005. In fact, EPA
has set yearly goals that vary over the fiscal year 2001--2005 period.
Each EPA region is currently working with its States to develop a plan
for meeting the fiscal year 2005 goal. The agency expects these plans
will reflect increased progress in the later years as the effects of
the many reforms being put into place are felt throughout the program.
As previously discussed the Agency believes the program to be ``on
track'' to meet its annual targets through the fiscal year 2000 and has
not requested funds beyond those in the President's Budget.
Question 12c. How much additional funding would be needed to
address 242 sites in fiscal year 2000?
Response. Please see answer to previous part.
Question 13. OSWER Acting Assistant Administrator Timothy Fields
recently promised in a national RCRA conference that he would work to
``get the regional corrective action budget restored in fiscal year
2000 and hopefully increased in subsequent years.'' What additional
funding would be required to ``restore'' the annual corrective action
budget? What actions, if any, did EPA take to restore the corrective
action budget?
Response 13. The Agency restored resources for the corrective
action program in the fiscal year 2000 request (Fiscal Year 1999 =
$18,167.4; Fiscal Year 2000 = $22,755.5). As already mentioned, current
progress toward the fiscal year 2005 goals does not indicate a need for
additional resources through the year 2000.
Question 14a. The RCRA Corrective Action Program request is for
$22.7 million in order to control human exposures at 170 high priority
sites. This represents \3/10\ of 1 percent of your budget request.
Superfund, by contrast, receives 20 percent of your budget for 1,260
listed sites, plus removal actions and other activities. There are over
1,700 high priority RCRA sites, the vast majority of which have had
neither human exposures nor groundwater releases controlled. Is it your
view that RCRA Corrective Action is relatively under-funded as compared
to Superfund?
Response. The Agency believes there are fundamental differences
between the RCRA Corrective Action and Superfund programs that do not
support resource comparisons. Unlike Superfund where roughly 25 percent
of cleanups are funded through the Trust Fund, RCRA cleanups are 100
percent owner/operator funded. EPA and State RCRA Program grant
resources fund oversight by EPA and State regulators but no actual
cleanup. In addition, while Superfund is primarily a Federal program
wherein EPA maintains overall responsibility for cleanups (even where
States manage cleanups under cooperative agreements with EPA), the RCRA
cleanup program is formally delegated to, and run by 33 of the States
in lieu of EPA. In fact, it is likely that the majority of both short
and long-term cleanup work at the 1,700 high priority facilities will
be overseen by State, rather than EPA project managers.
Question 14b. How many more RCRA Corrective Action sites could have
their human health or groundwater releases controlled if you shifted
just 1 or 2 percent of your Superfund request--an additional $15 or $30
million--into RCRA Corrective Action?
Response. The Agency believes that resources requested for EPA and
State oversight in the fiscal year 2000 President's Budget are adequate
to keep the program on track to meet the fiscal year 2005 goals. Such a
shift would, however impact the Superfund Program causing a significant
decrease in cleanups conducted by that program.
national environmental performance partnership system
Question 1a. EPA, in collaboration with the states, began
implementing the National Environmental Performance Partnership System
(NEPPS) in fiscal year 1997. As articulated by EPA, this policy is
intended to give States a stronger role in priority setting, focusing
scarce resources on the highest priorities, and tailoring the amount
and type of EPA oversight to an individual State's performance. To
implement this policy, EPA stated that it would negotiate performance
partnerships agreements with States to define the respective roles and
responsibilities of EPA and the states. How many of these performance
partnership agreements did EPA negotiate with the States in fiscal year
1997, 1998, and 1999?
Response. In fiscal year 1997, EPA's Regional Offices negotiated 33
Performance Partnership Agreements (PPAs) in 30 states. As illustrated
in Attachment 1, ``Summary of Participating States, Final fiscal year
1997 Report,'' some States choose to set up more than one agreement
when more than one State agency implements environmental programs.
In fiscal year 1998, 39 PPAs were negotiated in 33 States. These
agreements are listed by State and agency in Attachment 2.
The current count, as of February 1999, is that 39 PPAs are in
place in 33 States (no change from fiscal year 1998). These agreements
are listed by State and agency in Attachment 3.
Question 1b. What criteria does EPA use to approve performance
partnership agreements?
Response. The objective of the May 17, 1995 agreement was to strive
for joint State/EPA priority-setting, increased use of environmental
indicators and other outcome data, use of this data in State self-
assessments, and development of strategies which made best use of
available resources to meet State sad Federal objectives. State
participation in NEPPS is voluntary. Once a State expresses an interest
in developing a Performance Partnership Agreement, EPA works with that
State to establish a process and an agreement appropriate to the scope
and depth of the specific State's interest.
The principal components of the May 17 Agreement suggest that a
strong agreement would involve a State's environmental and programmatic
self-assessment, a joint EPA/state priority-setting process, the use of
environmental and program outcome measures, public involvement, and a
clear statement of the oversight process to be used between EPA and the
State. Whenever a PPA serves as the workplan for a Performance
Partnership Grant, the agreement must meet the requirements for Parts
31 and 35 of the U.S. Code of Regulations, showing how Federal grant
funds will be used and accounted for, and how program progress will be
measured.
Regional Administrators have the authority to approve PPAs with
their respective states. The Regions typically work together with any
State wishing to develop a PPA, even if it falls short on some of the
objectives in the May 1995 agreement, as long as they believe that the
State will strive to meet those goals over the longer term. The RA's
decision is based initially on a judgment of whether the agreement
ensures that statutory requirements, commitments in delegation
agreements, the spirit of the May 17 NEPPS Agreement, and basic
accountability requirements will be met.
Other than baseline statutory requirements, delegation agreements,
basic accountability requirements, and the May 17, 1995 Agreement,
there are no hard and fast criteria for approval of Performance
Partnership Agreements. This is based on a joint EPA/state decision to
not specify what Performance Partnership agreements should contain, or
how they should be organized, at least until we had more experience
with this new system.
During the early phases of NEPPS implementation, the EPA Office of
the Inspector General (OIG) reviewed each PPA and commented on how well
it appeared to meet the basic expectations in the May 1995 Agreement.
These OIG comments were conveyed by letter to the respective Regional
Administrators and State Environmental Officials and are published on
the EPA website.
Question 1c. How long does the negotiation and approval process
take?
Response. There is no set schedule for negotiation and approval,
other than the objective of having the agreement ready at the beginning
of the fiscal year. EPA Regions work with each individual State's
fiscal and planning needs to set up an appropriate process. On average,
it is very common for these agreements to take 4-6 months (elapsed
time) to bring to closure. This allows the necessary collaboration
across program lines within the State and EPA.
Some of the first Performance Partnership Agreements took longer
(up to 10 months), in part because there were no models or guidelines
to follow. The negotiation time tends to decrease as staff gain
experience with this new approach. In some cases, only 2-3 months are
needed. Several regions assert that PPAs take about as much time as
traditional grant agreements took, even though the new process and
outcome is more complex. Some regions note that the new process is more
integrated and streamlined than before.
Question 2a. In EPA's September 1997 Strategic Plan, the Agency
commits to evaluating and reporting nationally on progress in meeting
the goals and objectives of performance partnerships. Has EPA issued
such an evaluation or report?
Response. EPA has not issued a formal evaluation or report on
performance partnerships at this time. Our commitment in the Agency
Strategic Plan refers to our intention to evaluate and report on NEPPS
over the longer term. EPA sponsors and conducts studies and workshops
designed to identify components of PPAs or approaches which are
successful, and might have relevance in another State or region.
Examples can be found in recent publications of the Environmental Law
Institute and the National Academy of Public Administration. EPA is
currently working with the Environmental Council of the States to
initiate the Joint System Review envisioned In the May 1995 agreement.
In addition to the evaluation efforts sponsored by EPA, several
other government agencies are currently studying different aspects of
Performance Partnerships. A partial list includes a new study by the
National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA), a series of
management system reviews add audits conducted by the Office of the
Inspector General, and the U.S. General Accounting Office. The NAPA
report is scheduled to be completed in May 2000.
Question 2b. How would EPA evaluate the progress to date of the
performance partnership agreements?
Response. The NEPPS process is showing signs of meaningful progress
in improving the management of environmental programs by EPA and the
States, such as:
Improved focus on long-term outcomes;
Agreement on, and early use of, Core Performance Measures
which emphasize environmental and programmatic outcomes;
Clear articulation of the level and type of oversight to
be expected during the life of the agreement;
Enabling States to use the same document for their state/
specific program plan, grant agreement with EPA, and work-sharing
agreement with EPA;
Producing agreements which are more streamlined and
integrated than the grant agreements and State/EPA agreements of the
past.
More openness of the process and the agreements to public
scrutiny and involvement;
High-level negotiations which have helped resolve several
EPA/State issues--including enforcement issues;
The OIG report on Colorado and Texas showed greater focus on
environmental outcomes, use of resources for complementary, cross-
program objectives; and some evidence of burden reduction.
Several States have used funding flexibility to support cross-media
initiatives such as pollution prevention and compliance assistance; to
emphasize particular problem areas, and to reduce the administrative
costs of managing multiple EPA grants.
Question 2c. What criteria will EPA use to evaluate the success of
performance partnership agreements?
Response. The formal criteria for the EPA/State Joint System
Evaluation will be developed jointly by EPA and State representatives,
but they will consider criteria such as:
Whether environmental conditions and trends are being
assessed, and this information is actively used as part of the program
planning and priority-setting process;
Whether basic program objectives are being met or
exceeded;
Whether the programmatic and funding flexibility provided
through PPAs and PPGs is increasing the use of new approaches to
solving environmental problems;
Whether adequate levels of program accountability are
maintained; and
Whether the process clarifies EPA and State expectations
as to resources, oversight, and the relative State and Federal roles in
carrying out environmental programs.
We will avoid using the numbers of States or numbers of agreements
as a measure of success in NEPPS, since they don't show the quality of
thinking and joint effort embodied in an agreement.
Question 3. What level of resources has EPA dedicated to the
negotiation, approval, and oversight of performance partnership
agreements?
Response. The level of resources dedicated to PPAs varies from
region to region and across HQ program offices. Headquarters dedicates
approximately 10-12 FTE across all of the National Program Offices and
the Office of the Administrator to developing policy and coordinating
implementation of NEPPS agencywide.
The Regional Offices average about 4 FTE dedicated to negotiation
and approval of performance partnership agreements. Thus the total
estimate for the Regional investment is about 40 FTE. There is
considerable variation across Regions, since the number of
participating States varies widely, and agreements with States spanning
more programs or multiple agencies tend to require a bigger investment.
The reference to ``oversight of Performance Partnership
Agreements'' in the question requires clarification. The Regions
develop these agreements in a collaborative mode with the States. The
negotiation process is built upon a foundation of self-assessment,
joint priority-setting, and routine State/EPA interactions during
program implementation. There is no distinct ``oversight'' process for
PPAs other than the normal mid-year and end of year reviews, and the
policy coordination and monitoring functions in Headquarters. At the
Regional level, oversight activities are conducted as appropriate
within each program area. The resource estimate provided above does not
include the time invested in program implementation or oversight across
all the relevant programs.
Performance Partnerships for Fiscal Year 1997.--Summary of Participating
States
[Final Fiscal Year 1997 Report]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
States with Signed States with Signed
Fiscal Year 1997 Fiscal Year 1997
Region Performance Performance
Partnership Partnership Grants
Agreements (PPAs) (PPGs)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................... CT/e, MA/e, ME/e, CT/e, MA/e, ME/e,
NH/e, RI/eh, VT/e. NH/e, RI/e, VT/e
2............................... NJ/e, NY/eh....... NJ/e, NY/e, VI/e
3............................... DE/e.............. DE/ea, DC/e, MD/a,
PA/a, WV/a
4............................... FL/e, GA/e, NC/e.. AL/a, FL/a, GA/ea,
KY/a, MS/a, NC/a,
SC/a, TN/a
5............................... IL/e, IN/e, MN/e, IL/e, IN/e
OH/e, WI/e.
6............................... OK/e, TX/e........ OK/e, TX/e
7............................... IA/a, KS/a, MO/e, IA/a, KS/a, MO/e,
NB/a. NB/ea
8............................... CO/e, ND/h, UT/ea. CO/e, MT/e, ND/h,
SD/e, UT/ea, WY/e
9............................... (none)............ (none)
10.............................. ID/e, OR/e, WA/e.. (none)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency/Department Key: e=environmental; h=health; a=agriculture.
Fiscal Year Performance Partnership Agreements (PPAs): Number of States
with signed Fiscal Year 1997 PPAs: 29; Total number of PPAs: 32.
Number of Individual State agencies with signed Fiscal Year 1998 PPAs:
Environmental: 25; Health: 3; Agriculture: 1.
Fiscal Year 1997 Performance Partnership Grants (PPGs): Number of States
with signed Fiscal Year 1997 PPGs: 36; Number of individual State
agencies with signed Fiscal Year 1997 PPGs: 40; Environmental: 23;
Health: 1; Agriculture: 16.
Performance Partnerships.--Summary of Participating States*
[Status as of 7/1/98]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State agencies
PPAs Currently in State agencies PPGs Currently in expected to
Region Effect (includes expected to sign No PPA Effect (includes receive first PPG No PPG
continuing and new first PPA in continuing and new in Fiscal Year
PPAs) Fiscal Year 1998 PPGs) 1998
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................... CT/eh, MA/e, ME/e, .................. .................. CT/e, MA/e, ME/e, .................. ..................
NH/e, RI/eh, VT/e. NH/e, RI/e, VT/e.
2............................... NJ/e, NY/eh....... .................. PR, VI............ NJ/e, NY/e, VI/e.. .................. PR
3............................... MD/e, DE/e........ WV/e.............. DC, PA, VA,....... DE/ea, DC/h, MD/a, .................. ..................
PA/a, VA/a, WV/a.
4............................... FL/e, GA/e, NC/e.. .................. AL, KY, MS, SC, TN AL/a, FL/a, GA/ea, .................. ..................
KY/a, MS/ea, NC/
a, SC/ea, TN/a.
5............................... IL/e, IN/e MN/e, .................. MI................ IL/e, IN/e, MN/e, MI/a.............. WI
OH/e, WI/e. OH/e.
6............................... OK/e, TX/e........ AR/e, LA/e........ NM................ OK/e, TX/e........ .................. AR, LA, NM
7............................... IA/a, KS/ea, MO/ .................. .................. IA/a, KS/a, MO/ea, KS/e.............. ..................
ea, NE/ea. NE/ea.
8............................... CO/e, MT/e, ND/e, .................. WY................ CO/eh, MT/e, ND/e, .................. ..................
SD/e, UT/e. SD/ea, UT/ea, WY/
e.
9............................... .................. .................. AZ, CA, HI, NV.... AZ/e, HI/e........ .................. CA, NV
10.............................. AK/e, ID/e, OR/e, .................. .................. AK/e, WA/e........ .................. ID, OR
WA/e.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Performance Partnership Agreements (PPAs): Current PPAs: 33 States (39 PPAs); First PPA in Fiscal Year 1998: 3 additional States (3 PPAs); No. PPA: 17
States.
Performance Partnership Grants (PPGs): Current PPGs: 43 States (52 PPGs); First PPG in Fiscal Year 1998: 2 additional States (2 PPGs); No PPG: 9 States.
Key: e=environmental agency; a=agriculture department; h=health agency.
*Includes DC, PR, and VI
Performance Partnership--Summary of Participating States* (Status as of 2/1/99)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State agencies
PPAs Currently in State agencies PPGs Currently in expected to
Region Effect (includes expected to sign No PPA Effect (includes receive first PPG No PPG
continuing and new first PPA in continuing and new in fiscal year
PPAs) fiscal year 1999 PPGs) 1999
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................... CT/eh, MA/e, ME/e, .................. .................. CT/e, MA/e, ME/e, .................. ..................
NH/e, RI/eh, VT/e. NH/e, RI/e, VT/e.
2............................... NJ/e, NY/eh....... .................. PR, VI............ NJ/e, NY/e, VI/e.. .................. PR
3............................... MD/e, DE/e........ WV/e.............. DC, PA, VA,....... DE/ea, DC/h, MD/a, .................. ..................
PA/a, VA/a, WV/a.
4............................... FL/e, GA/e, NC/e.. .................. AL, KY, MS, SC, TN AL/a, FL/a, GA/ea, .................. ..................
KY/a, MS/ea, NC/
a, SC/ea, TN/a.
5............................... IL/e, IN/e MN/e, .................. MI................ IL/e, IN/e, MN/e, MI/a.............. WI/a
OH/e, WI/e. OH/ea.
6............................... OK/e, TX/e........ AR/e, LA/e........ NM................ OK/e, TX/e........ .................. AR, LA, NM
7............................... IA/a, KS/a, MO/ea, .................. .................. IA/a, KS/ea, MO/ KS/e.............. ..................
NB/ea NE/ea. ea, NE/ea.
8............................... CO/e, MT/e, ND/e, .................. WY................ CO/eh, MT/e, ND/e, .................. ..................
SD/e, UT/e. SD/ea, UT/ea, WY/
e.
9............................... .................. .................. AZ, CA, HI, NV.... AZ/e, HI/e........ .................. CA, NV
10.............................. AK/e, ID/e, OR/e, .................. .................. AK/e, WA/e........ .................. ID, OR
WA/e.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Performance Partnership Agreements (PPAs): Current PPAs: 33 States (39 PPAs); First PPA in Fiscal Year 1998: 3 additional States (3 PPAs); No. PPA: 17
States.
Performance Partnership Grants (PPGs): Current PPGs: 45 States (54 PPGs); First PPG in Fiscal Year 1998: 2 additional States (2 PPGs); No PPG: 9 States.
Key: e=environmental agency; a=agriculture department; h=health agency.
*Includes DC, PR, and VI
pesticides/toxic substances
Question 1. As you know, the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) and
the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) of 1996 established a set of
deadlines for implementation of the Endocrine Disrupter Screening
Program. By August 1998, EPA was to have developed the screening
program, followed by program implementation in August 1999 and a report
to Congress by August 2000. Is EPA going to implement the screening
program recommended by the Endocrine Disrupter Screening and Testing
Advisory Committee (EDSTAC) by August 1999, thus meeting the statutory
deadline set by FQPA and SDWA?
Response. EPA is already implementing aspects of the Endocrine
Disruptor Screening Program in anticipation of its 1999 and 2000
deadline dates. Implementation is focused in developing, standardizing
and validating methods and procedures for sorting, prioritizing,
screening and testing endocrine disruptors. The Agency anticipates that
it will conduct initial rapid screens on up to 5,000 pesticides and
commodity chemicals by 2000. Additional screens and tests will be
phased in as the methods are validated.
Question 2. Is the amount of money requested for fiscal year 2000
sufficient to meet the August 1999 deadline for implementation of the
EDSTAC report and the August 2000 deadline for reporting to Congress?
Response. Current funds will allow implementation of the FQPA
mandated screening assays for estrogenic effects on humans. We have
increased our budgeted level for endocrine disruptors Agency-wide by
over $4 million in fiscal year 2000. Costs in 2001 and beyond will
increase as we complete the development of screening and testing
methods and procedures, develop and begin androgen and thyroid hormone
screening, and as the actual testing of chemicals accelerates.
Question 3. Might there be other obstacles to meeting the statutory
deadline?
Response. We are employing a phased implementation strategy that
emphasizes the development and use of automated robotic screening
assays, followed by conventional screens and tests. The automated
assays represent a new application of an emerging technology. Initial
demonstration efforts are promising, but require more development than
originally anticipated. Should the automated assays prove to be an
untenable option, we will be forced to rely on conventional methods
which will increase the time necessary to screen large numbers of
pesticides and chemicals.
Question 4. What specific deadline has the Agency set for itself in
order to ensure compliance with the statutory deadline?
Response. To ensure the Agency meets its deadline we are entering
final development of tests, testing protocols, validation trials, and
hazard assessment methods in fiscal year fiscal year 1999 in
anticipation of screening 5,000 chemicals in Fe to determine their
endocrine disrupting potential.
Question 5. If the Agency is not going to meet these deadlines, can
you demonstrate how EPA intends to move progress forward in
implementation of the Endocrine Disrupter Screening Program as soon as
possible?
Response. The Agency anticipates meeting the statutory deadlines.
We have increased our budgeted level for endocrine disrupters Agency-
wide by over $4 million in fiscal year 2000. Current funds will allow
implementation of the FQPA mandated screening assays for estrogenic
effects on humans.
Question 6. What portion of the money EPA spends on endocrine
disruptor research in OPPTS, ORD, and the Office of Water is spent on
implementation of the EDSTAC protocol?
Response. EPA has a total Endocrine Disruptor budget of $16.6
million in fiscal year 1999 and is requesting $21.4 million in the
fiscal year 2000 President's Budget. From these respective totals, EPA
plans to expend 32 percent ($5.3 million) and 47 percent ($10 million)
in direct support of implementing the EDSTAC protocol. These funds will
be used to help determine estrogenic effects on humans, to support a
workshop and produce a report on the EDSTAC screening process for
endocrine disruptors, and determine application of the EDSTAC testing
program for chemical hazard and risk assessment.
Question 7. What additional money will be needed to implement the
EDSTAC protocol in upcoming years and to which divisions will the money
be allocated?
Response. The Agency estimates fiscal year 1999 spending of $5.3
million (OPPTS $4.1 million, ORD $1.2 million, and OW $0.0 million),
and fiscal year 2000 spending of $10 million (OPPTS $7.7 million, ORD
$1.3 million and OW $1.0 million), in direct support of the EDSTAC
protocol. Out-year estimates at the requested level of organizational
detail will depend on the Agency's future capacity to research and
screen suspected endocrine disruptors and will be fully addressed
during the Agency's annual planning and budgeting processes for 2001,
and beyond.
commuter choice
Question 1. I understand EPA's Office of Mobile Sources has taken
Federal leadership in educating the public about Commuter Choice
programs that rely on recently enacted Federal tax incentives for
commute alternatives. I commend EPA for its leadership role in
supporting Commuter Choice because I believe it can make a significant
impact on reducing pollution, congestion, and lowering the public tax
burden. What specifically is EPA spending in fiscal year 1999 to
support this effort for Commuter Choice?
Response. In fiscal year 1999 the Agency is targeting roughly a
half million dollars toward Commuter Choice programs. The bulk of the
resources will go toward cooperative agreements with business and
environmental groups to develop public/private partnerships to deliver
public education materials and establish a national coalition of
organizations to educate and promote commuter choice. In addition,
funds would go to the development of emission benefit quantification
tools for Commuter Choice programs.
Question 2. What amount of funding does EPA think is necessary to
conduct a successful public education commuter Choice program in fiscal
year 2000 and subsequent years?
Response. A multi-agency, public/private partnership to deliver a
national education program will require substantial financial
resources. In fiscal year 1999 EPA is developing the infrastructure
that will make a multi-year national program possible. We believe a
national level campaign will require at least $5 million in fiscal year
2000 from all funding sources including those outside of EPA; we expect
similar funding levels would need to be sustained for several
additional years. The goal of this effort is to make Commuter Choice
benefits a standard benefits package available to employees just like
401 K plans and health care benefits.
Question 3. Does the President's budget include funding for this
effort?
Response. We expect that through the recently enacted
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, States and localities
will provide funding for many projects related to commuter choice.
Also, part of EPA's portion of the Climate Change Technology Initiative
in the President's Budget includes $3.7 million targeted for
transportation programs focused on reducing vehicle miles traveled
(VMT). The Commuter Choice program is one element of the VMT reduction
strategy and funding for the program is $500,000. The money will
provide continued support for the multi-year partnerships which we
began in fiscal year 1999.
______
Responses by Administrator Browner to Additional Questions From
Senator Bob Smith
Question 1. General.--The Administration has proposed a number of
new initiatives and modifications to existing programs in this year's
budget request. Could you tell us which items will require new
statutory authority to implement and which ones will not (i.e.,
proposals that you intend to implement administratively)?
Response. New initiatives and their statutory authorities are
listed in the table below.
______
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initiative Statutory Authority
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initiatives with existing statutory
authority:
Clean Air Partnership Fund.............. Section 103 of the Clean Air
Act.
Childhood Asthma Initiative............. Title IV (relating to indoor
air quality) of the
Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986
(SARA); Monitoring: Section
103 of the Clean Air Act.
Initiatives requiring new statutory
authority:
Better America Bonds.................... Amendments through the Ways
and Means and Finance
Committees; no further EPA
authority needed.
Clean Water State Revolving Fund 20 Proposed language is
percent Set Aside to provides States with included in the State and
flexibility to address nonpoint source Tribal Assistance Grants
pollution. Account in the fiscal year
2000 President's Budget.
Raise cap on tribal 319 grants to better Proposed language is
address nonpoint source pollution on included in the State and
tribal lands. Tribal Assistance Grants
Account in the fiscal year
2000 President's Budget.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
superfund
Question 2a. Past Requests for an Additional $1.3 Billion for
Superfund.--Less than 10 months ago, on April 30, 1998, Administrator
Browner testified before Senator Bond's Appropriations Subcommittee
that the Administration needed an extra $1.3 billion, spread over 2
years, to keep Superfund on track. In justifying the request for $2.1
billion in 1999, Ms. Browner stated that the requested funding level
would ``ensure that we meet the Administration's commitment to clean up
900 of the nation's worst toxic waste sites by the end of the year
2001.''
EPA's fiscal year 2000 budget submission states the Administration
plans to complete 925 cleanups by the end of 2002. Yet the request
represents a 30 percent reduction from the fiscal year 1999 budget
request and would hold Superfund funding flat at approximately $1.5
billion per year. Based on the fiscal year 2000 budget, EPA's year end
goal for fiscal year 2001 is 840 construction completions. It therefore
stands to reason that the infusion of an added $1.3 billion that the
Administration requested 10 months ago would merely have resulted in a
net of 60 sites completed 1 year early--the difference between the 900
sites projected for completion by the end of 2001 in last year's budget
request, versus the 840 projected in this year's budget. Is that
correct? If not, why not?
Response. The Superfund program has made substantial progress in
completing construction at NPL sites. EPA expects to achieve completing
construction at 840 sites by the end of 2001. The Administration's
request for additional funding for fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year
1999 provided a window of opportunity to achieve more construction
completions and increase the pace of cleanup through 2001 and beyond,
while permitting the Superfund program to continue critical site
assessment functions and initiate cleanups at other sites. The
additional $1.3 billion requested by the President would have enabled
EPA to complete the construction of cleanup activities in 60 additional
communities by December 2000. With the lack of this funding, nearly 2
additional years will have passed before EPA achieves construction
completions in 925 communities. In addition, the additional funding
would have enabled EPA to initiate cleanups in many more than
communities and achieve construction completions far earlier in many of
these communities than is possible without this infusion of cleanup
funds.
Question 2b. Please provide the committee with a detailed analysis
of the assumptions on which EPA's 1998 testimony regarding the fiscal
year 1999 budget was based, and further demonstrate the areas which
have improved and form the basis for your dramatically lower fiscal
year 2000 request?
Response. In 1997 as EPA was developing the fiscal year 1999 budget
request, we used site-specific project schedules and budgets based on
the best professional judgment of regional project managers who are
responsible for managing or overseeing site-specific cleanup actions.
However, as investigations and cleanups proceed, time and budget
requirements change, and the Regions change their projections to
reflect such changes. At the time of our budget request in fiscal year
1999, we relied on the best information available. Likewise, our fiscal
year 2000 budget also reflects the best planning projections available
to us at the time we formulated the request.
Question 2c. Several Senators opposed the requested increases as
unjustified, believing that the request was politically motivated, not
based on any firm data or prioritization of resources. I and many of my
colleagues were harshly criticized for opposing the requested
increases. In hindsight, given other priorities for EPA funds, our
opposition was the right course. Can you assure me that this issue will
not return in the fiscal year 2001 budget?
Response. The Agency has not yet completed development of its
budget and targets for fiscal year 2001. The budget request will
reflect project needs, and will continue to reflect EPA's commitment to
our ``enforcement first'' policy, support a strong State role in
cleanups, and remain diligent in our efforts to control and reduce
cleanup costs.
Question 3a. Fate of the Superfund Program.--Administrator Browner
has recently been quoted in the press acknowledging that the part of
the Superfund program that addresses National Priority List sites is
``ramping down.'' There is much evidence to support this premise.
The General Accounting Office reported in November that
there were only about 232 sites remaining nationwide that either EPA,
the States or both believed would eventually be listed on the National
Priority List. EPA agreed ``with the basic findings'' of this report.
Over the last 6 years, EPA has added an average of 26
sites per year to the List.
Superfund site assessments, the first screening activity
at the beginning of the process that may end in listing, decreased from
an annual average of 1,768 from 1990 to 1992 to an average of 318 in
the last 3 years.
Since EPA concurs that the new NPL listings are likely to be close
to the GAO report level of 232, this raises significant implications
for funding the program in future years. In particular, please provide
an estimate of what EPA expects the Superfund program to look like in 5
years.
How many sites will be construction complete?
Response. The Agency's Government Performance and Results Act
(GPRA) goal projects the rate of Superfund site construction
completions through 2005. Assuming a steady budget through the next
seven fiscal years (Fiscal Year 1999--Fiscal Year 2005), and assuming,
on average, 85 construction completions per year, we should achieve by
the end of fiscal year 2005 about 1,180 construction completions.
How many sites will be on the NPL but not yet construction
complete?
As of January 1999, there were 1446 total NPL sites. Assuming that
EPA will achieve 85 construction completions through 2005, over 400
sites currently on the NPL will be in remediation in 2003. This
estimate does not include any additional sites that may be added to the
NPL during this or subsequent years.
What level of funding and staffing will be needed to
execute Superfund's remaining mission in fiscal year 2004 and beyond?
Although the Superfund program has made substantial progress in the
last 6 years, significant work remains at current and proposed NPL
sites. At the end of fiscal year 1999, the Agency will still be working
to complete construction at over 700 sites currently on the final NPL.
We also expect to list 40 sites this year on the NPL. Additionally, EPA
will need to invest resources in post-construction activities to ensure
that remedies remain protective into the future. Finally, EPA expects
to continue to have an important role in conducting removal actions to
protect communities across the country.
Although our need for future resources is clear, the Agency has not
completed development of the Superfund budget request for fiscal years
and beyond. However, to continue our current pace of cleanup, including
removals, cleanups of new NPL additions, and post-construction work,
our GPRA goal currently assume a steady State budget into the future.
Question 3b. Again, assuming that there will be a relatively small
number of new sites added to the Superfund NPL, what does EPA foresee
as the role and resource requirements of the Superfund program at sites
that will necessarily fall to State cleanup programs for action?
Response. Historically, we have listed an average of 26 sites per
year on the NPL. This year we expect to list roughly 40 sites on the
NPL. We do not know now how many more sites will ultimately need to be
added to the NPL, but we will focus our NPL listing activities on those
sites that States agree should be added to the NPL and those sites
where States are unable or unwilling to clean up the site. We have been
using and will continue to use these considerations to guide our
listing decisions. States are supporting our NPL listing activities at
this level through our State concurrence policy.
States play a key role, and will continue to play a key role, in
site assessment and site cleanups. State cleanup programs play a vital
role for both NPL and non-NPL sites and it is EPA's hope that this
successful partnership continues within the Superfund program. In fact,
Superfund funding has been a key factor in the growth of State
Superfund programs. EPA's Superfund program has provided major funding
to the States. This past year, 1998, Superfund provided over $140
million to the States. Of that total, approximately $25 million went
toward State voluntary cleanup programs and Core program funding to
States. Another $17 million was provided to States in the form of
cooperative agreements for funding site assessment work (PA/SI
funding), $32 million for NPL site studies, planning, design, and PRP
oversight, and $69 million for Fund-financed NPL remedial actions
managed by States.
Further, EPA plays a significant role in non-NPL cleanups by
conducting removal actions. EPA has also performed approximately 5,500
removals since the beginning of Superfund at a rate of 200-300 per
year. These activities will not decrease if the number of NPL sites
decreases. As a result of these factors, EPA does not foresee a sharp
decline in its need to maintain its current role or resource
requirements through 2005.
Question 4a. Many observers believe the Superfund program is
ramping down now, and we need to start planning for the post-Superfund
world right now. These next questions are based on EPA data from you
fiscal year 1999 and 2000 budget submittals, and EPA data provided to
GAO and CRS. The fiscal year 2000 budget projects that all remedial
construction will be completed at 925 sites by the end of 2002,
maintaining the pace of 85 construction completions per year attained
in 1997. How long beyond 2002 will EPA maintain an 85 construction
cleanup per year pace before the program starts to run out of non-
Federal sites ready for cleanup?
Response. Due to the success of our Administrative Reforms, we
project that we will achieve, on average, 85 construction completions
through 2005. Projections beyond this year cannot be made with any
certainty due to the changing demands of site-specific work, such as
new information regarding types or amounts of contamination present,
shifts in construction schedules, or PRP takeovers.
Question 4b. Over the past 6 years, EPA has added approximately 155
sites to the NPL, an average of 26 per year. GAO says it takes about
10.6 years from site listing to cleanup; EPA's position is that
administrative reforms have reduced this length of time. Using the
figure of 8 years and setting aside the sites deemed ``construction
complete,'' doesn't that imply that we are headed towards a steady-
state NPL size of approximately 208 sites--eight times twenty-six?
Response. By 2005, EPA will have cleaned up the vast majority of
the sites currently listed on the NPL. However, we expect that more
than 250 of the current NPL sites will be in active remediation at that
time. We do not know now how many more sites will need to be added to
the NPL, but we will focus our NPL listing activities on those sites
that States agree should be added to the NPL and those sites where
States are unable or unwilling to clean up the site. We have been using
and will continue to use these considerations to guide our listing
decisions. This year we expect to list roughly 40 sites on the NPL.
Question 4c. If the fiscal year 2004 NPL list is then roughly one-
sixth the size of the current NPL, that leads to the conclusion that
the 2004 budgetary requirements for the program would be roughly $250
million per year. Do you agree? If not, why not?
Response. Historically, we have listed an average of 26 sites per
year on the NPL. We do not know now how many more sites will need to be
added to the NPL, but we will focus our NPL listing activities on those
sites that States agree should be added to the NPL and those sites
where States are unable or unwilling to clean up the site. We have been
using and will continue to use these considerations to guide our
listing decisions. This year we expect to list roughly 40 sites on the
NPL.
A budget of $250 million per year would appear to be far too small
to address this current and any future additions to the NPL remediation
workload as well as the rest of the Superfund program funding needs. In
addition to remedial action costs, the EPA Superfund budget would need
to include site assessment activities, removal program needs, post-
construction activities, other Federal agency costs, and the other
categories displayed, for example, in EPA Superfund appropriation
requests. We will continue to give all these factors careful
consideration as we prepare our budgets in future years.
Question 4d. If you disagree with this analysis, is there some
other set of assumptions that the committee should be using for the
annual rate of additions to the NPL, or expectations about the ultimate
size of the Superfund program?
Response. As described previously, we do not know now how many more
sites will need to be added to the NPL, but we will focus our NPL
listing activities on those sites that States agree should be added to
the NPL--sites such as those that have recalcitrant PRPs or where
cleanup is needed and is not occurring. This year we expect to list
roughly 40 sites on the NPL.
A budget of $250 million per year would appear to be far too small
to address this current and any future additions to the NPL remediation
workload as well as the rest of the Superfund program funding needs. In
addition to remedial action costs, the EPA Superfund budget would need
to include site assessment activities, removal program needs, post-
construction activities, other Federal agency costs, and the other
categories displayed, for example, in EPA Superfund appropriation
requests. We will continue to give all these factors careful
consideration as we prepare our budgets in future years.
Question 4e. It takes considerable time from when a site is listed
until it is ready for the actual cleanup. Even if you listed 500 sites
today they would not be ready for cleanup for some time.
Will not the cleanup program face a dramatically decreased demand
for work in the next few years as work is completed on older sites, as
there are only 155 or so sites moving through the pipeline from the
listing years of 1993 through 1998?
How do you manage a system staffed to complete 85 sites a year when
past listing decisions will only present it with 26 sites ripe for
cleanup to begin in any particular year?
Response. The Superfund program has made substantial progress in
the last 7 years, and approximately 89 percent of the NPL sites have
had cleanup activities, are construction complete, or have cleanup
underway. However, these accomplishments cannot overshadow the
significant work remaining at current and proposed NPL sites. At the
end of fiscal year 1999, the Agency will still be performing work at
over 700 sites currently on the final NPL (an estimated 470 sites will
have construction underway).
We also need resources to clean up newly listed sites as quickly as
possible. We do not know now how many more sites will need to be added
to the NPL, but we will focus our NPL listing activities on those sites
that States agree should be added to the NPL and sites where States are
unable or unwilling to clean up the site. We have been using and will
continue to use these considerations to guide our listing decisions.
This year we expect to list roughly 40 sites on the NPL.
Furthermore, even as cleanup activities are completed at sites, EPA
will need to invest resources in ensuring that remedies remain
protective into the future. EPA will have responsibilities to conduct
oversight of continuing operations, to review periodically remedies at
which waste remains in place, and to take response actions at sites at
which remedies do not remain protective. Finally, EPA expects to
continue to have an important role in conducting removal actions to
protect communities across the country. The need for EPA involvement in
removals is unlikely to decline, and, as fewer sites are added to the
NPL in the future, removal actions may be more widely used to achieve
necessary cleanups.
______
Responses by Administrator Browner to Additional Questions From
Senator Jim Inhofe
sulfur
Question 1. In February 1993, and subsequently in December 1995,
the State of Alaska petitioned the EPA for an exemption from the sulfur
requirements of the Clean Air Act that apply to diesel fuel used for
transportation. During that time, the Agency provided a temporary
exemption to give time for a task force to thoroughly study the low-
sulfur diesel issue. That task force recommended that the State seek a
permanent exemption, and on April 28 of last year, the EPA agreed and
proposed to grant the request, characterizing compliance in Alaska as
``unreasonable.'' What action does the EPA plan to take when the
current temporary exemption expires?
Response. We intend to publish a final rule prior to July, when the
current exemption expires. Although no decisions have been made, our
current thinking is that an appropriate course of action would be to
grant Alaska another temporary exemption, most likely through 2003.
The Agency received significant adverse comments on its proposal of
a permanent exemption for Alaska from the Engine Manufacturer's
Association (EMA) and from environmental groups in Alaska. The EMA is
very concerned about the impact of high sulfur levels on new heavy-duty
diesel technology (referred to as ``2004 technology'') that will be
introduced as early as 2002. The Alaska environmental groups are
concerned about the health effects of particulate matter and toxic
emissions from trucks fueled with high sulfur diesel fuel.
Upon considering these issues, we now believe that a permanent
exemption for Alaska may not be appropriate.
Question 2a. Regarding the Tier Two Automotive standards which are
expected to be proposed shortly: How will EPA accommodate the special
supply and air quality concerns of westerns and rural areas?
Response. EPA understands that the oil supply in certain western
areas depends to some degree on gasoline from small refiners and EPA
has worked closely with refiners located in western States to
understand the capabilities and limitations of these refineries. Many
refiners in the West and across the country meet the Small Business
Administration's definition of a small gasoline producer. The Agency
convened a Small Business Advocacy panel to collect information about
these companies and has taken the panel's recommendations into
consideration in its proposal. In addition, EPA is taking comment on
the appropriate criteria for determining whether a refinery would
qualify for small refinery provisions. The Agency is considering the
air quality needs of areas projected to be out of compliance with the
ozone and PM NAAQS, as well as those areas which need visibility
improvements.
Question 2b. How would a national rule, modeled on the California
standard be justified, on a public health, environmental, and/or cost
basis?
Response. The overall level of the Tier 2 vehicle standards in the
United States will be based on air quality need, technical feasibility
and cost, and cost effectiveness, and may not necessarily be the same
as those recently adopted in California. The Agency is evaluating
program design options where there would be some overlap between the
programs applicable in California and the rest of the U.S. These
options would reduce design and certification costs for manufacturers,
as much as possible, by harmonizing test procedures and allowing
vehicles certified in California to be directly certifiable in the rest
of the U.S. The gasoline sulfur levels for the Federal program will be
based on the air quality impacts of sulfur in gasoline and on the
technological needs anticipated for Tier 2 vehicles, and the combined
costs of the vehicle standards and gasoline sulfur requirements will be
used to assess the cost-effectiveness of the proposal.
Question 2c. If new standards are proposed for sulfur, what are the
Agency's long term resource plans to handle the surge in permit
applications to comply with the new requirements?
Response. EPA intends to take comment on various approaches to
streamline the permitting process to address issues raised by the
refinery industry regarding the Tier 2 rule. EPA will solicit input
from the oil industry and State and local permitting authorities on
these issues.
naaqs
Question 1. Please provide a detailed breakdown on the
PM2.5 research plan, including the research topics
recommended by the National Academy of Sciences. Please include for
each research topic a breakdown on: (1) How much NAS recommends to
complete the topic, (2) How long NAS believes the research will take,
(3) The amount of resources EPA proposes to spend on each research
topic by fiscal year, (4) The EPA projected completion date for each
research topic, and (5) Identify which research topics will be
completed in time for use in the next 5-year review period. In addition
please include the major milestones for the next 5-year review
(including the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee of EPA's Science
Advisory (CASAC) Board reviews and the timing for the EPA staff work).
Response. In their March 1998 report, the National Academy of
Sciences (NAS) Committee on Research Priorities for Airborne
Particulate Matter provided initial recommendations for particulate
matter (PM) research activities spanning the period from 1998 through
2010. Ten research topics were identified as highest priority. The NAS
also commented that other important research, such as emissions
characterization and other research affecting standards implementation,
should be supported but did not provide a resource estimate for these
additional topics. The second NAS report on research priorities is
imminent (now expected to be received in March or April, 1999). During
a public presentation in January, 1999, NAS staff indicated that while
this second report will clarify and elaborate on the March 1998 report
(particularly regarding atmospheric sciences research), and describe
the NAS plans for monitoring implementation of the PM research program,
substantial changes are not expected to the research priorities
presented in the first NAS report.
Question 1a. How much NAS recommends to complete the topic?
Response. The ten research topics identified in the March 1998
report, the amount and duration of funding recommended by NAS for each
topic, and the estimated EPA fiscal year 1998 through fiscal year 2000
funding levels are shown in the table attached. Although funding levels
for fiscal year 2001 and beyond have not been determined, EPA will
continue to incorporate the NAS recommendations into our PM research
program.
Question 1b. How long NAS believes the research will take?
Response. The ten research topics identified in the March 1998
report, the amount and duration of funding recommended by NAS for each
topic, and the estimated EPA fiscal year 1998 through fiscal year 2000
funding levels are shown in the table attached. Although funding levels
for fiscal year 2001 and beyond have not been determined, EPA will
continue to incorporate the NAS recommendations into our PM research
program.
Question 1c. The amount of resources EPA proposes to spend on each
research topic by fiscal year?
Response. The ten research topics identified in the March 1998
report, the amount and duration of funding recommended by NAS for each
topic, and the estimated EPA fiscal year 1998 through fiscal year 2000
funding levels are shown in the table attached. Although funding levels
for fiscal year 2001 and beyond have not been determined, EPA will
continue to incorporate the NAS recommendations into our PM research
program.
Question 1d. The EPA projected completion date for each research
topic?
Response. The research topics recommended by the NAS represent
research directions that are in most cases closely related. Thus, there
is an evolution of research activities such that as knowledge is gained
in one topic area it helps inform research directions and activities
conducted under other topics. For example, results of studies on
factors affecting the relationship of PM levels measured using outdoor
monitors to actual human exposures to PM (topic #1), and of the nature
of specific components of PM in producing toxicity (topic #5), lead to
more informed study of human exposures to hazardous PM components
(topic #2). The evolving nature of research makes it difficult to State
when research categorized under an NAS topic will be ``completed'', but
in a general way it is anticipated the research will evolve in a manner
consistent with the NAS timeline, shown in the table below. In the same
manner, it is difficult to define which research topics will be
``completed'' in time for the next 5-year review period (interpreted to
mean the review planned for completion in 2002). In general, we observe
that research results typically flow from any specific research project
over a several year period. Typically, 1 to 2 years after funding,
research results are evident from abstracts submitted for poster or
oral presentation in conjunction with scientific conferences. Then,
several months to perhaps 2 years after conference presentation,
results are presented in the peer reviewed scientific literature. The
consequence of this typical stream of information from research
activities is that, for the 2002 NAAQS review, we have been observing a
large number of PM-related presentations at scientific conferences and
peer reviewed journal articles published in scientific journals. The
results from peer reviewed research will be evaluated in the PM Air
Quality Criteria Document (AQCD) which is now under development as
follows:
1998--Plan AQCD and CASAC review of Plan.
1999--Develop AQCD and complete External Review Draft.
2000--CASAC review and completion of second External
Review Draft AQCD; Develop Staff Paper and hold CASAC review of Staff
Paper.
2001--Final Staff Paper, proposal and public comment of
NAAQS Decision.
2002--Promulgation of Final Decision on NAAQS.
Question 1e. Identify which research topics will be completed in
time for use in the next 5-year review period. In addition please
include the major milestones for the next 5-year review (including the
Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee of EPA's Science Advisory Board
(CASAC) reviews and the timing for the EPA staff work).
Response. The research topics recommended by the NAS represent
research directions that are in most cases closely related. Thus, there
is an evolution of research activities such that as knowledge is gained
in one topic area it helps inform research directions and activities
conducted under other topics. For example, results of studies on
factors affecting the relationship of PM levels measured using outdoor
monitors to actual human exposures to PM (topic #1), and of the nature
of specific components of PM in producing toxicity (topic #5), lead to
more informed study of human exposures to hazardous PM components
(topic #2). The evolving nature of research makes it difficult to State
when research categorized under an NAS topic will be ``completed'', but
in a general way it is anticipated the research will evolve in a manner
consistent with the NAS timeline, shown in the table below. In the same
manner, it is difficult to define which research topics will be
``completed'' in time for the next 5-year review period (interpreted to
mean the review planned for completion in 2002). In general, we observe
that research results typically flow from any specific research project
over a several year period. Typically, 1 to 2 years after funding,
research results are evident from abstracts submitted for poster or
oral presentation in conjunction with scientific conferences. Then,
several months to perhaps 2 years after conference presentation,
results are presented in the peer reviewed scientific literature. The
consequence of this typical stream of information from research
activities is that, for the 2002 NAAQS review, we have been observing a
large number of PM-related presentations at scientific conferences and
peer reviewed journal articles published in scientific journals. The
results from peer reviewed research will be evaluated in the PM Air
Quality Criteria Document (AQCD) which is now under development as
follows:
1998--Plan AQCD and CASAC review of Plan.
1999--Develop AQCD and complete External Review Draft.
2000--CASAC review and completion of second External
Review Draft AQCD; Develop Staff Paper and hold CASAC review of Staff
Paper.
2001--Final Staff Paper, proposal and public comment of
NAAQS Decision.
2002--Promulgation of Final Decision on NAAQS.
Table.--NAS Recommended Research Topics, NAS Funding Level and Duration, and EPA Fiscal Year 1998-2000 Resource
Estimates1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
President's
Budget
Recommended EPA Enacted EPA Enacted Request
NAS Topic Total NAS Funding Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
Funding (in Years 1998 (in 1999 (in 2000 (in
millions) millions) millions) millions)
(estimates)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Outdoor vs human exposures.................. 2$9+ 1998-2000 $6.8 $8.2 $9.1
2. Exposure to toxic PM components............. 20 2001-2005 0.5 0.0 0.7
3. Source-receptor measurement tools........... 12 1998-2003 5.9 7.0 6.8
4. Application of methods and models........... 26 1998-2005 0.7 0.4 1.7
5. Assessment of hazardous PM components....... 102 1998-2010 7.3 7.9 7.1
6. Dosimetry................................... 7.5 1998-2001 1.2 0.6 1.0
7. Effects of PM and copollutants.............. 125 1998-2010 1.9 7.4 8.3
8. Susceptible subpopulations.................. 22 1998-2005 8.3 2.7 2.8
9. Toxicity mechanisms......................... 57 1998-2003 6.0 8.3 7.1
10. Statistical analysis and measurement error. 12 1998-2003 1.7 1.2 1.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1The original fiscal year 1999 President's Budget reflected Operating Expenses and Working Capital Fund
resources consolidated in a single Goal and Objective. For the fiscal year 1999 Pending Enacted Operating and
the fiscal year 2000 President's Budget, these resources were allocated across Goals and Objectives. The
fiscal year 1999 President's Budget figures shown in this table have been revised to reflect the allocation of
Operating Expenses and Working Capital Fund resources across all Goals and Objectives. Also, additional funds
are allocated to AQCD development, source characterization and similar research, and management.
2The NAS recommended a minimum of three exposure studies for 3 years would cost about $9 million overall.
Further, NAS pointed out that adding studies of susceptible populations would increase the required funding by
approximately a factor of three or more; thus we indicate this potential funding level by listing $9 million+
in this table. The EPA is including susceptible subpopulations in studies currently underway.
Question 2. Please provide a list of all requests for waivers (both
formal or informal from any municipality or State) from the ozone
standard for 1998. Include the date received by the EPA and the date of
the Agency decision. Please identify any extenuating circumstances
regarding decision delays and whether the waiver requests were formal
or informal. Please quantify the Agency resources, both fiscal and FTE,
used to respond to the requests.
Response. To date, 9 requests for excluding ozone data from
compliance calculations due to impacts from Mexican/Central American
fires have been received by the Agency. All requests have been formally
submitted. These requests are summarized in the table below.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Date of
Source of Request Received Response Comments/Status
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chattanooga, Tennessee 12/8/98 ......... Technical
justification
not yet
submitted.
Kentucky 1/7/99 2/1/99 Request approved.
Oklahoma 1/8/99 ......... Request does not
follow Agency's
guidance; Agency
performing
additional
analysis before
decision.
Louisiana 1/20/99 ......... Request does not
follow Agency's
guidance; Agency
performing
additional
analysis before
decision.
Minnesota 2/4/99 3/1/99 Request approved.
Florida 2/17/99 ......... Request does not
follow Agency's
guidance;
additional
justification
requested from
State.
Texas 2/18/99 ......... Request does not
follow Agency's
guidance; Agency
performing
additional
analysis before
decision.
Jefferson County, Alabama 2/19/99 ......... Approval
anticipated
early April.
North Carolina 2/26/99 ......... Approval
anticipated
early April.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Agency is working to respond to these requests as rapidly as
possible. The Agency has the equivalent of 2.0 FTE technical staff
reviewing and developing responses to these requests. No contract funds
are being used to facilitate the review of these requests. Since
several of the requests have not followed the Agency's guidance, review
(for those) has involved significant time and effort on the Agency's
part in gathering additional data and re-analyzing those data.
Nonetheless, the Agency remains committed to responding to these
requests with speed and with scientific credibility.
clean air partnership
Question 1. Please provide a statutory justification for the use of
section 103 of the Clean Air Act to fund this program. Include detailed
past examples of the use of this section.
Response. Section 103 of the Clean Air Act would provide the
statutory authority necessary for the award of financial assistance to
support activities undertaken as part of the Clean Air Partnership Fund
program. Section 103 requires the Administrator to establish a
``national research and development program for the prevention and
control of air pollution.'' As part of this program, Section 103(a)(1)
requires the Administrator to ``conduct, and promote the coordination
and acceleration of, research, investigations, experiments,
demonstrations, surveys, and studies relating to the causes, effects
(including health and welfare effects), extent, prevention and control
of air pollution.'' Section 103(b)(3) authorizes the Administrator to
make grants to support the activities listed in Section 103(a)(1). The
Section 103(b)(3) grant authority thus includes the authority to fund
demonstration projects, as well as related studies and investigations,
such as those that would be supported through the Clean Air Partnership
Fund program.
Past examples of the use of Section 103 include:
A grant to the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) to
help fund a coordinated transit system intended to reduce air pollution
from mobile sources in the Lake Tahoe, Nevada region.
A grant to the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use
Management for a heavy-duty diesel retrofit implementation planning and
in-use testing project.
A grant to the Consumer Research Council for a radon and
indoor air quality education prevention and mitigation project.
A grant to the Association of Small Business Development
Centers for an energy efficiency education and outreach program for
small business.
A grant to the American Public Power Association for
investigating the marketing of landfill gas energy.
Question 2. Please provide examples of the projects that are
envisioned for this program.
Response. The Clean Air Partnership Fund will be used to provide
grants to local and State governments, tribes and multi-state
organizations. The Clean Air Partnership Fund will support
demonstration projects that: (1) control multiple air pollution
problems simultaneously; (2) leverage the original Federal funds; (3)
facilitate meaningful public involvement; and (4) provide innovative
approaches to air pollution control that could be replicated in other
cities and states. For example grants could be awarded for
demonstration projects in the following areas:
Partnership Funds could help provide startup capital for
municipalities to establish programs to convert existing diesel fleets
of school and transport buses to cleaner fuels.
Partnership Funds could help establish home energy
efficiency investment loan funds. Reducing energy use in homes will
reduce local soot, smog and air toxics and greenhouse gas emissions.
Partnership Funds could be used to create incentives for
cleaner electricity generation at utilities. Increased use of combined
heat and power and natural gas combined-cycle electricity generation
will yield criteria pollutant, air toxic and greenhouse gas emission
reductions.
Partnership Funds could support local revolving loan funds
to finance energy efficient retrofits for local and State agency
buildings, public schools, hospitals and private industry. The cost
savings realized from lower energy bills would allow borrowers to repay
the loans and provide an ongoing source of funding for future
innovative investments.
Partnership Funds could help support tax credits for
innovative air pollution control technology investments.
Partnership Funds could be used to help stimulate demand
for renewable sources of energy. Renewable energy sources such as fuel
cells, photovoltaics, wind and geothermal provide ideal integrated air
pollution control technologies.
Question 3. Please provide a list of all types of groups or
organizations which would qualify for funds under this program.
Response. Entities eligible for grants through the Partnership Fund
include local and State governments, tribes and multi-state
organizations. Specific eligibility criteria will be included as part
of the Solicitation of Proposals which will be issued by EPA after
Congressional appropriation of the fiscal year 2000 budget. Section 103
grant recipients can in turn use funds to support activities of other
public or nonprofit agencies, institutions, and organizations, as well
as private sector entities. Through this mechanism, the Fund will
support Partnerships between governmental recipients and non-
governmental organizations as well as industry.
superfund
Question 1. At how many sites have potentially responsible parties
incurred response costs to date?
Response. Using EPA's CERCLIS data base, EPA identified 1,823 sites
(NPL and non-NPL) where PRPs have initiated all or a portion of any
response action at the site. The response actions considered were
removals, remedial investigation/feasibility studies, remedial design,
remedial action, long-term response action (e.g. groundwater pump and
treat) or operation and maintenance. It should be made clear that
because EPA routinely conducts oversight of PRP-lead response
activities, most, if not all, of these sites will appear in the counts
for question 2 since EPA would have incurred response costs from the
Fund to oversee these response actions.
Question 2. At how many sites have EPA and/or the States incurred
response costs to date?
Response. According to the Agency's Integrated Financial Management
System (IFMS), EPA has incurred response costs (disbursements) at more
than 2,670 sites at costs of $200,000 or more per site as of 09/30/98.
Question 3. At how many sites where EPA has incurred response costs
has it initiated cost recover actions?
Response. Using EPA's CERCLIS data base, EPA identified 1,117 sites
(NPL and non-NPL) where EPA has initiated a cost recovery action
against and/or obtained a cost recovery settlement for all or a portion
of any EPA response costs at the site.
Question 4. Does EPA intend to seek cost recovery at the remaining
sites where it has incurred response costs?
Response. To ensure effective use of resources, it is EPA's policy
to, at a minimum, seek recovery of its response costs at all sites
where liable and financially viable responsible parties have been
identified and EPA's total unrecovered response costs (including
indirect costs) exceed $200,000. Due to resource limitations, Regions
do not have to vigorously pursue cost recovery at sites with total
response costs less than $200,000, because it is likely that the costs
of collection will exceed the amount recovered.
Question 5. Are there sites where EPA has incurred response costs
for which it does not intend to seek cost recover? Why not?
Response. EPA does not seek recovery of its response cost at sites
where there are no liable or financially viable potentially responsible
parties, so called ``orphan'' sites. In addition, as noted above, EPA
Regions have the discretion not to pursue response costs at sites where
total EPA response costs are less than $200,000. In addition, there are
some sites where EPA may chose to pursue some but not all of its
response costs due to issues such as significant ``orphan shares'',
litigation risk/lack of evidence, divisibility of harm, and other
instances where EPA chooses to exercise its enforcement discretion.
Question 6. Then, is it correct to say that for every site at which
EPA (or state?) has or will incur response costs that it will seek
recover from potentially responsible parties?
Response. While EPA cannot speak for the recovery of State costs,
as stated in response to question 4, at a minimum EPA intends to seek
recovery of its response cost at all sites where there are liable and
financially viable potentially responsible parties and total EPA
response costs exceed $200,000 and in appropriate situations seek
recovery at sites with total costs less than $200,000.
Question 7. What is the estimated cost to clean up the remaining
NPL sites? Just direct contractor costs, not EPA administrative and
other costs.
Response. EPA projections do not separately model contractor costs
to cleanup Superfine sites. EPA conservatively estimates cleanup
response to comprise numerous activities, described under the response
to Question 8, that include contractor and non-contractor costs. Of the
$17.4 billion projected to complete the Superfund program in the most
recently released Superfund Annual Report to Congress EPA estimates
that approximately 70 percent of this will be used for cleanup
response.
Question 8. I am bothered that with all of the administrative
reforms you claim to have made, a report last year by the GAO indicates
that more than half of the costs of the Superfund program still go to
EPA's program administration and support, with only 46 percent of the
funds going to contractors for direct cleanup. And, GAO says that's an
increase of 3 percent over the previous year to EPA administration.
What is the reason for the high administrative costs? Is it possible
for you to identify some areas in which administrative cost could be
reduced to provide more money to direct cleanup?
Response. EPA conservatively estimates cleanup response to comprise
numerous activities that directly support cleanup responses. EPA
estimates that approximately 70 percent of its budget will be used for
cleanup response. GAO's definition of ``cleanup'' does not include many
key components of the cleanup process. GAO omitted functions such as
lab analysis, engineering and technical analyses, project manager
salaries, State/Tribal activities, community involvement activities,
and oversight of responsible parties and many other activities
necessary to achieve cleanups. GAO's contractor cost computation also
fails to recognize the $175 million in annual Superfund appropriations
used by other Federal agencies (e.g., ATSDR, USCG, NIEHS, FEMA, NOAA)
for cleanup, testing and assessment, and the approximately $30 million
in annual appropriations to DOJ which has resulted in settlements with
private parties for more than $15 billion in cleanup or reimbursements
to the Federal Government. Without these resources, the response
cleanup process could not proceed.
For example, at the Red Wing Trucking/Saraland Apartments Site in
Saraland, AL, the site was contaminated by years of washing out
chemical trucks in the area on which apartments were subsequently
built. The responsible party (RP) took over management of the site
study and remedial investigation/feasibility study (RIFS) functions to
characterize the contamination onsite in order to determine the remedy
requirements. EPA samples taken at the site showed that the RP-lead RI/
FS had missed a large portion of the contamination, necessitating the
relocation of the residents of the apartments and assumption of cleanup
responsibilities by EPA. The RPM's salary, site travel, and oversight
costs were vital to ensuring the safety of the residents. Without these
costs, not included in GAO's definition of cleanup, millions of dollars
could have been spent implementing an inadequate and nonprotective
remedy.
Question 9. In the Budget you make the claim that one of your goals
is to ``pursue greater recovery of EPA's cleanup costs.'' This is
welcome news, especially in light of GAO's recent report that indicates
that historically EPA has not charged responsible parties for certain
portions of its costs, resulting in the exclusion of approximately $3
billion from final settlements. That's \1/5\ of the $15 billion spent
to date on Superfund that EPA has failed to recover.
Response. In 1982, before there was any substantial judicial
precedent on which it could rely, the agency established a very
conservative methodology for charging indirect costs to sites for
possible cost recovery. In fiscal year 1992 the agency proposed revised
indirect cost methodology to address this issue. Public comments were
overwhelmingly opposed to the revisions and the rule has not been
finalized. The agency is currently in the process of revising its cost
accounting system pursuant to the recent statutory requirement based on
OMB's Federal Cost Accounting Standards (FASAB #4, July). That revised
methodology should be operational in early fiscal year 2000. In
accordance with the FASAB statement, the new methodology will roll
virtually all of Superfund's indirect costs into the new rates, and
that will make them eligible for cost recovery. The agency considers
Superfund cost recovery as an integral part of the overall enforcement
effort rather than an independent initiative. The agency's success in
persuading potentially responsible parties (PRPs) to conduct
approximately 70 percent of new remedial work at NPL sites means that
Trust fund moneys are available for cleanups at orphan sites, sites
with recalcitrant PRPs, sites with ability to pay issues, sites with
orphan share and sites with other legal or evidence issues. Our success
in getting the best cases to settle has significantly reduced the
amount of costs the agency needs to recover. The agency estimates that
approximately $500 million of the $3 billion referenced above would be
made available for recovery through the application of the new indirect
rates.
Question 10. Your plan to pursue greater recovery is welcome news.
Why, then do your estimates of recoveries far fiscal year 1998, 1999
and 2000 actually go down from $320 million in fiscal year 1998 to $250
million in 1999 and $225 million in fiscal year 2000? One would think
it would increase if one of your goals is ``pursuit of greater recovery
of EPA's cleanup costs.'' Can you explain this apparent discrepancy?
Response. [No response was provided by EPA.]
Question 11. I also note that EPA did not request the $650 million
in additional appropriations for fiscal year 2000 conditioned on
passage of Superfund reform legislation as you have in the past several
years. I conclude from this change in policy that cleanups are
proceeding at such a pace that the Superfund program is winding down--
and so is the need for funding. Would this be an accurate statement?
Why or why not?
Response. The Superfund program has made substantial progress in
the last 6 years, and approximately 89 percent of the NPL sites have
had cleanup activities, are construction complete, or have cleanup
underway. However, these accomplishments cannot overshadow the
significant work remaining at current and proposed NPL sites. At the
end of fiscal year 1999, the Agency will still be working to complete
construction at over 700 sites currently on the final NPL.
We also need resources to clean up newly listed sites as quickly as
possible. Historically, we have listed an average of 26 sites per year
on the NPL. We do not know now how many more sites will need to be
added to the NPL, but we will focus our NPL listing activities on those
sites that States agree should be added to the NPL and sites where
States are unable or unwilling to clean up the site. We have been using
and will continue to use these considerations to guide our listing
decisions. This year we expect to list roughly 40 sites on the NPL.
Furthermore, even as cleanup activities are completed at sites, EPA
will need to invest resources in ensuring that remedies remain
protective into the future. EPA will have responsibilities to conduct
oversight of continuing operations, to review periodically remedies at
which waste remains in place, and to take response actions at sites at
which remedies do not remain protective. Finally, EPA expects to
continue to have an important role in conducting removal actions to
protect communities across the country. The need for EPA involvement in
removals is unlikely to decline, and, as fewer sites are added to the
NPL in the future, removal actions may be more widely used to achieve
necessary cleanups.
Question 12. There is some talk of ``sun setting'' the current
Superfund program in the year 2000 because of the great strides your
Agency claims to have made through ``administrative reforms.'' I assume
EPA would retain some semblance of 106 authority to handle emergencies
in such a new program as well as assure that any new Superfund program
restores the rights normally guaranteed under our legal system. That
means restoring judicial review, financing Superfund with congressional
appropriations rather than special taxes not based on pollution, and
revising EPA's risk assessment and remediation procedures while
allowing affected parties the right to judicial review of those
procedures. Such changes are necessary if a new or reauthorized
Superfund is to be effective, fair and perceived to be fair is that
what you envision as a new Superfund framework beyond your
``administrative reforms'' of the last 6 years?
Response. The Superfund program today is operating faster, fairer,
and more efficiently to achieve greater environmental results. In
fiscal year 2000 and beyond, the Agency will build on successful
administrative reforms to address the Superfund work that remains to be
done in hundreds of communities across America. Through administrative
reforms, almost three times as many Superfund sites have had
construction completed in the last 6 years that in all the prior years
combined. As of September 30, 1998, more than 89 percent of non-Federal
sites on the final NPL are either undergoing cleanup construction or
are completed. In addition, over 5,500 removal actions have been taken
at hazardous waste sites to immediately reduce the threat to public
health and the environment. However, a great deal of work remains to be
done. At the end of fiscal year 1999, the Agency will still be working
to bring more than 700 sites on the final NPL to construction
completion. The Agency will continue to employ Superfund administrative
reforms to quickly and efficiently complete these sites in the years
ahead.
nox sip call
Question 1. I understand that EPA has requested information from
various industries to assure that EPA's emissions inventory that is
being used for the NOx SIP Call is correct. I also
understand that the affected States have already received their budgets
for required reductions. If you find that you have errors in your
inventory, is it your intent to send new budgets to each of the States
to make the correction? Do you also intend to inform the States where
the inventory was incorrect so that they can make the appropriate
adjustments regarding the affected industries?
Response. At the request of numerous States and industries, EPA
reopened the emission inventory comment period, in the final
NOx SIP Call budget rule, until February 22, 1999. The EPA
now expects to calculate new budgets for each State in the affected
domain by late April.
After careful review of all of the emission inventory comments, EPA
will make appropriate changes to each State's NOx emission
budget and revise the NOx SIP Call to reflect the revised
budgets. These revised budgets will then be formally communicated to
the respective States so that they may use them in their SIP planning
processes. Our response to comments (RTC) documentation, that will
accompany the rule revision, will explain EPA's response to the
comments and how they were addressed in the inventories and budget
calculation.
Question 2a. Regarding the NOx SIP process, I understand
that as many as half the States may not have time or inclination to do
their State Implementation Plans, (SIPs) which means that EPA will have
to do a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for each of these states. Can
you tell how many and which States will be subject to a FIP? How does
EPA propose to handle this situation?
Response. As required by the CAA, EPA will complete a FIP for any
State that fails to meet a SIP Call requirement. Most of the States
affected by EPA's September 24, 1998 SIP Call are working toward
meeting the September 30, 1999 due date. It is not clear at this time
which of these States, if any, will miss the date. Finally, even if EPA
were to promulgate a FIP, a State can replace the FIP with an
appropriate SIP at anytime. Thus, the FIP would not preclude States
from pursuing their own approach to compliance with the SIP Call.
With respect to all of the States affected by the SIP Call, EPA
notes that it has consistently offered assistance and support in
understanding the rule's requirements and developing and adopting State
rules within the timeframes set forth in the final SIP Call. (In fact,
EPA has already provided model trading regulations for use by the
States.) EPA remains committed to providing States with any technical
or policy assistance that would enable the States to submit their SIPs
by September 30, 1999.
Question 2b. It is my understanding that several States have
requested an extension for submitting their SIPs (not an extension of
the implementation date). However, EPA has denied this request. In
light of the number of States that are concerned that they will be
subject to a FIP simply because they do not have enough time to develop
their own SIP, can you explain your position?
Response. EPA established the submittal date of September 30, 1999
in the final NOx SIP Call in order to protect public health
by providing for expeditious reductions in NOx emissions
that significantly contribute to ozone transport. As explained in EPA's
response to the request for a stay submitted by eight states, delaying
the SIP submittal data could jeopardize the expeditious achievement of
those reductions. Also as explained in that response, EPA believes the
States have sufficient time to develop their SIPs in response to the
SIP Call. In fact, the majority of States covered by the SIP Call are
moving forward to adopt SIPs in a timely manner. The States have had
ample opportunity to analyze approaches to reducing ozone transport
including their 2-year participation, along with EPA, in the Ozone
Transport Assessment Group (OTAG). In addition, in our final
NOx SIP Call rule, EPA provided a model trading rule which
States could adopt to achieve the vast majority of the reductions
called for by the SIP Call. Finally, even if EPA were to promulgate a
FIP, a State can replace the FIP with an appropriate SIP at anytime.
Thus, the FIP would not preclude States from pursuing their own
approach to compliance with the SIP Call. (A copy of EPA's response to
the stay request is attached).
______
letter submitted for the record
Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC., February 5, 1999.
Mr. Russel J. Harding,
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality,
Lancing, MI.
Dear Mr. Harding: This letter is in response to the request for an
administrative stay filed on January 13, 1999, by Michigan and seven
other States. On September 24, 1998, the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) issued a final rule requiring 22 States and the District
of Columbia to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx)
that are transported to other States (``SIP Call''). In the SIP Call,
EPA provided States with 12 months from its promulgation--until
September 30, 1999--to submit plans to reduce NOx emissions.
Michigan, along with seven other States, has requested EPA to delay for
7 months--from September 30, 1999 to April 27, 2000--the time for
States to submit these SIPs. For the reasons provided in the enclosure
to this letter, EPA is denying the request for an administrative stay
of the SIP submission date established in the final SIP Call. While the
enclosure details EPA's analysis supporting this denial, I want to
reiterate EPA's continued commitment to working with all of the States
to implement the SIP Call in a timely fashion.
Sincerely,
Robert Perciasepe,
Assistant Administrator.
______
denial of request for a stay of the sip submission deadline
In support of a stay of the SIP submission deadline established in
the rural SIP Call rule, the States rely on four assertions: (1) that
the States should not have to choose between submitting rules and
``harsh sanctions'' before the Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit (``D.C. Circuit'') has had an opportunity to rule on
challenges to the SIP Call; (2) that EPA's continued review of the
emission inventories has '`exacerbated'' the States' difficulties in
meeting the 12-month submission timeframe; (3) that an extension of the
deadline will not affect public health or the environment because it
will not affect the remainder of the SIP Call rule; and (4) that the
Clean Air Act provides up to 18 months for a State to submit a plan in
response to a SIP Call and that the 12-month period provided in EPA's
final rule did not provide an adequate time for thorough, thoughtful
rulemaking. These reasons, considered separately or collectively, do
not provide a sufficient rationale for EPA to extend the promulgated
SIP submission deadline.
The States claim that a stay is necessary because the States should
not be required to submit plans prior to the time the court has had an
opportunity to rule on their challenge to the SIP Call. Such an
approach is contrary to the general presumption in litigation that a
promulgated rule remains in effect pending judicial review. However, a
court or an agency may decide to stay the effectiveness of a rule
``where justice so requires.'' 5 U.S.C. Sec. 705. In determining
whether justice requires a stay of an effective date, four factors are
typically considered: (1) the petitioners' likelihood of success on the
merits; (2) whether there is irreparable harm to the petitioners if the
regulation takes effect; (3) the degree of harm that would occur if the
regulation were stayed; and (4) whether the public interest would be
served by a stay.
EPA believes that there is strong support for the general
presumption that the effectiveness of rules should not be delayed
pending judicial resolution. Many of EPA's regulations are challenged.
Establishing a presumption that compliance is not necessary until after
judicial review could result in lengthy delays of many important health
protection programs. Therefore, EPA does not believe that it is
appropriate to stay the SIP submission deadline solely on the basis
that the D.C. Circuit should first rule on the validity of EPA's rule.
Several of the States' claims ostensibly fit within the test
established for granting a judicial stay.\1\ The States allege harm to
themselves due to EPA's reassessment of the inventories and the specter
of sanctions should the States fail to make the submissions. In
addition, they allege that the public will not be harmed by a stay
since EPA has stated the view that sources may be expected to control
emissions by the compliance date even if they do not initiate control
efforts until April 2000. For the reasons provided below, EPA does not
believe that the States have made a case of either harm to themselves
or of no harm to the public if the submission date is delayed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The States' request does not address the issue of likelihood of
success on the meets. EPA believes that the Clean Air Act legally
supports EPA's issuance of the final Sop Call rule and that the rule is
based on a sound technical analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to harm to themselves, the States claim that EPA's
decision to give States a further opportunity to review source data and
provide corrections to emission inventories has resulted in less time
for SIP development for the States and, thus, requires EPA to provide
additional time for the States to submit their SIPs. Though it is not
clear, the States appear to claim that they cannot begin State planning
efforts based on inventories that EPA has ``acknowledged'' are flawed.
The States overstate the implications of EPA's decision to offer an
opportunity for the public to request changes to the inventories.\2\
While EPA does not dispute that the current inventories may not be
perfect, EPA's decision to accept submissions aimed at further refining
the inventories was not intended to mean that the refinements would be
so significant as to require additional time for State SIP submission.
In fact, EPA believed and continues to believe that the refinements
will be relatively minor and should not affect the timetable for State
planning. EPA's decision to provide one last opportunity for the
inventories to be refined should not be interpreted as an admission of
a substantial flaw in the inventories but rather as a decision to
entertain what were expected to be minor adjustments to the inventory
as States move forward to develop regulations to achieve the needed
emission reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ EPA's decision to provide for further review of the inventories
is set forth at 63 Fed. Reg. 57356, 57425-28 (Oct. 27, 1998) and 63
Fed. Reg. 71220, 71221-22 (Dec. 24, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA believes that the inventories as they now exist are or should
be substantially accurate. States and industry have already had
previous opportunities to adjust the inventories. States and industry
first developed the inventories using an iterative process over a 2-
year period from 1995-1997 for purposes of the analyses performed by
the Ozone Transport Assessment Group. In addition, EPA provided an
opportunity to make adjustments to the inventories during the initial
120-day comment period on the SIP Call rule. Specifically, between the
notice of proposed and final rulemakings, numerous comments regarding
revisions to the inventory were received, reviewed and, where
justified, incorporated into the base and budget inventories of EGU and
non-EGU point sources. Because of these opportunities for correction,
it is unlikely that significant flaws have not been previously noted
and addressed. Notably, even with a large number of source additions
revision, and removal requests, the final emission budget estimates for
the sources identified as large increased by only about 4 percent for
the entire regional transport jurisdiction area. The resulting net
change to the budget for all sources was only 3 percent over the entire
23 jurisdiction area. Because States and sources have already had
extended opportunities to raise inventory concerns and because the
changes made during those processes were not substantial, EPA does not
anticipate that at this late date there will be significant changes to
the current inventories.
Moreover, it is important to recognize that even EPA's current
action to refine the inventories will not necessarily cure all possible
defects. Inventories are invariably based on incomplete information
that is subject to a process of continual refinement. As such, they are
subject to frequent revision. For example, States were required to
submit emissions inventories in 1992 based on emissions for calendar
year 1990. CAA Sec. 182(a)(1). Despite submitting these inventories in
1992, and basing many regulations on those inventories, States are
still submitting revisions to these 1990 baseline inventories more than
6 years after they were statutorily required. Thus, if EPA, States and
sources were to delay regulation until inventories were perfect, States
would never develop SIPs, sources would never be regulated, and air
pollution would never be reduced. The exercise EPA is undertaking here
should not be considered any different from the States' continuous
efforts to refine their inventories. Thus, as they do when refining
their own inventories, States simultaneously can and should move
forward to develop regulations as the inventory data is further
refined.
Because the inventory changes are not anticipated to be
substantial, EPA believes that States can and should be moving forward
to address the NOx SIP Call reduction requirements. States
need not await these final determinations before they can make
substantial progress in the development of plans to achieve the
required NOx reductions. Although EPA based the budgets for
each State on presumptive controls for certain source categories,
States are not constrained to regulate those precise categories nor to
impose the same controls presumed by EPA. Therefore, since the
inventories, and the overall budget numbers, are unlikely to change
substantially, States can and should move forward to develop
regulations to achieve most or all of the emissions reductions
represented by the budget while awaiting final adjustments to the
budget numbers For example, to the extent that States are planning to
adopt the emission reduction strategy that EPA relied on, States can
move forward with developing the regulatory language for the control
measures while leaving open the issue of the precise degree of emission
limitation for each covered source. EPA anticipates that the final
inventory and budget numbers will be available in sufficient time for
the States to make any necessary adjustments in a timely manner.
The States allege harm to themselves because they will face a
``Hobson's choice'' of adopting regulations that they believe are
unlawful or, alternatively, facing ``draconian sanctions.'' These
allegations are misdirected. There is no harm to the State, much less
irreparable harm, that occurs at the time a State fails to make a
required SIP submission if a State does not submit a plan by September
30, 1999, EPA would make a finding of failure to submit the plan. CAA
Sec. 179(a). That finding has two implications. First, based on that
finding, EPA would be required to promulgate within 2 years a Federal
implementation plan (``FIP'') that directly regulates sources, but that
imposes no burdens or obligations on States. CAA Sec. 110(c).\3\ Since
a FIP would directly regulate sources, it does not harm the States;
moreover, if a State subsequently submits an approvable SIP, the SIP
would replace the FIP once it was approved by EPA. Thus, even if a FIP
could be considered harmful to a State, it is not irreparable harm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ EPA has indicated that it will promulgate a FIP in the Fall of
1999 and that the FIP will take effect in an area shortly after the
State fails to submit a complete plan or the plan is disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, EPA's finding would start an 18-month period before even
the first of two sanctions would apply.\4\ However, if and when the
State made the submission, an EPA finding that the State had submitted
a complete plan would stop the sanctions from applying. 40 C.F.R.
Sec. 52.31(d). The first sanction would go into effect around April
2001 (if the States still had not submitted the plan) and would
directly apply to certain stationary sources, not States. Those sources
would be required to provide greater offsets for their new emissions
before they could construct. CAA Sec. 179(b)(2); 40 C.F.R.
Sec. 52.31(d) and (e)(1). A second sanction would apply 6 months later
(approximately October 2001) if the State still had not submitted a
plan. That sanction would place limits on the types of transportation
projects for which States could receive Federal funds.\5\ CAA
179(b)(1); 40 C.F.R. Sec. 52.31(d) and (e)(2). Thus, the only harm to
the State, if any, would occur approximately 24 months after September
30, 1999 (i.e., October 2001), well after the court will decide the
challenges to the SIP Call.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Automatic sanctions under section 179(a), with only minor
exception, apply only in areas designated nonattainment. See CAA
Sec. 179(b)(1); 40 C.F.R. Sec. 52.31(b)(3); 59 Fed. Reg. 39832, 398853-
54 (Aug. 4, 1994). Thus, it is likely that at least five of the eight
States that have requested the stay would not be subject to the
automatic offset and transportation funding limitations. West Virginia,
South Carolina and North Carolina currently have no areas designated as
nonattainment for ozone. EPA has proposed to revoke the 1-hour standard
for the remaining nonattainment area in Michigan, 63 Fed. Reg. 69598
(Dec. 17, 1998), and it appears that the remaining nonattainment area
in Ohio has clean air quality and that EPA, therefore, will revoke
shortly the 1-hour standard for that area. Once the 1-hour standard is
revoked for an area, it is no longer designated nonattainment for that
standard.
\5\ Even if the highway sanction were imposed, a State that
subsequently submitted its SIP could receive highway funds that were
previously withheld under certain circumstances. Therefore, imposition
of the highway sanction would not necessarily result in irreparable
harm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The States' past action belies their alleged fear of the threat of
sanctions. With the exception of Alabama, each of the eight States
requesting a stay, at some time, has opted in the past to incur a
finding from EPA rather than to make required SIP submission under the
Act. According to EPA's Findings and Required Elements Data system, the
number of findings for each of the other seven areas ranges from one,
for South Carolina, to 71 for Ohio.\6\ In many of these cases, the
finding was in place for more than 1 year before the State finally
submitted the required plan and, in a number of cases, the State did
not make the required submission until right before the offset sanction
would have been imposed--18 months after the finding was made. These
facts cast doubt on the States' contention that irreparable harm, if
any, results from the finding, rather than from the actual imposition
of sanctions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ According to EPA's Findings and Requirements Data system, the
number of findings made for the remaining five States are Indiana, 32;
Michigan, 22; North Carolina, 17; Virginia, 9; and West Virginia, 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to possible harm to the public if the regulation were
stayed, the States indicate the EPA has stated that sources may
initiate their control efforts as late as April 2000 and still achieve
the necessary emission reductions by May 2003. While EPA has made and
still supports that statement, allowing SIP submissions as late as
April 2000 would interfere with sources' ability to initiate control
efforts by April 2000 and to achieve reductions by May 1, 2003.
As an initial matter, expeditious submission of the SIPs is needed
to provide maximum protection of public health and the environment. The
earlier that States develop rules, the earlier sources will be able to
begin implementing the necessary control measures. Moreover, while May
2003 is the latest date by which compliance may be achieved under the
SIP Call rule, EPA anticipates that some sources will achieve
reductions earlier and thus provide earlier benefits to public health
and the environment. Delaying SIP submission could delay or inhibit
these earlier reductions. And, it is these emission reductions that
will result in reductions of ambient ozone concentrations, which will
provide protection of public health and the environment.
More importantly, allowing States until April 27, 2000 to submit
SIPs allows no lead time for EPA to promulgate and make effective a
FIP, if necessary, that directly regulates sources and requires source
compliance by May 1, 2003. The current schedule of SIP submissions in
September 1999 allows for EPA to approve or disapprove the submissions
by April 30, 2000 and to promulgate FIPs that are effective by that
date where State plans are inadequate. If States are not required to
submit SIPs until April 27, 2000, where a State fails to make the
submission, EPA may not be able to ensure a Federal plan is effective
in time to provide sources with adequate lead time for compliance.
Furthermore, if the States submits a plan in April 2000 that is
disapprovable, EPA would be unable to complete its disapproval
rulemaking before the Fall of 2000 and a FIP could not be effective
until that time. Therefore, an extension of the SIP submission date to
April 2000 could result in sources in some States not knowing whether
they are subject to controls until well after April 30, 2000, thereby
interfering with implementation of controls, and the resultant air
quality benefits, by May 2003.
Finally, at the same time the States contend that there will be no
harm to public health and the environment if a stay is granted, some of
the States requesting the stay indicate that they ``do not believe that
the implementation date is reasonable.'' Currently the rule presumes
sources will have from September 1999, when States submit plans, until
May 2003 to implement measures in the State plans. It is difficult for
EPA to believe that if EPA granted a SIP submission deadline extension
to April 2000, these States, as well as the sources challenging the
rule, would not then seek a further stay of the control measure
compliance dates in the final rule. In fact, on January 28, 1999, the
Midwest Ozone Group, a coalition of midwestern industries that is
challenging the final SIP Call rule, submitted a letter supporting the
States' request for an administrative stay and urging EPA ``to give
consideration to the need to re-evaluate the implementation deadline of
May 1, 2003.'' Granting an extension of the SIP submission deadline
could well lead to a situation where the emission reductions would be
delayed and thus public health and the environment would suffer.
Therefore, EPA believes that an extension of the SIP submission
deadline would adversely affect public health or the environment and
would be contrary to the public interest.
The States' remaining claims do not support an extension of the SIP
submission deadline. First, the States note that at a meeting of the
Ozone Transport Assessment Group on June 2-3, 1997, EPA officials
stated that EPA would ``give affected States up to 18 months in which
to revise their SIPs.'' Any statements that EPA made at a meeting
before it proposed, much less finalized, the final SIP Call have no
binding effect. In its November 7, 1997 proposal, EPA proposed
establishing a 12-month SIP submission deadline. The public had a full
opportunity to comment on that issue and EPA considered the public
comments before it established the 12-month submission timeframe in the
final rule In any event, the statement allegedly made at the June 1997
meeting is fully consistent with the statutory language in sections
110(a)(l) and (k)(5), as is EPA's final rule. The States' last claim is
that the CAA allows EPA to provide States as long as 18 months to
submit their SIPs and that the complexity of the SIP Call rule merits
the full 18 months. These arguments are not new. EPA fully responded to
these concerns in responding to comments on the proposed rule. 63 FR
57356, 57450-51 (Oct. 27, 1998); Responses to Significant Comments at
91-94, Docket A-96-56, VI-C-01. Because EPA fully considered and
responded to these concerns in establishing the September 30, 1999
submission date in the final rule, EPA sees no reason to change its
final decision and extend the date now based on what are essentially
the same arguments.
In addition, EPA recognizes that a number of States have written
EPA, urging the Agency to deny the request for an administrative stay.
Generally, these States believe that an extension of the SIP submittal
date would be counterproductive or even harmful. A number of these
States reiterate and provide additional support for the reasons EPA has
set forth above to deny the request for a stay. For example, the State
of New York provided a detailed discussion of why the opportunity for
States to revise their inventories should not affect the States'
ability to move forward with SIP planning. The Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania presented information regarding how it has already drafted
regulations and is moving forward with presentations to the State
Environmental Quality Board. Each of these States that are required to
submit regulations pursuant to the SIP Call rule have indicated that
they will be able to meet the September 30, 1999 submission date EPA
incorporates these letters as additional support for its denial of the
eight States' request for an administrative stay of the SIP submission
deadline.
Last, with respect to all of the States affected by the SIP Call,
EPA notes that it has consistently offered assistance and support in
understanding the rule's requirements and developing and adopting State
rules within the timeframes set forth in the final SIP Call. (In fact,
EPA has already provided model trading regulations for use by the
States.) EPA remains committed to providing States with any technical
or policy assistance that would enable the States to submit their SIPs
by September 30, 1999.
tri
Question 1. Congress strictly limited EPA's authority to expand the
TRI in Section 313 of EPCRA to the manufacturing sector. TRI concepts
of ``manufacture,'' ``process,'' and ``other use'' do not, and Congress
did not, intend them to apply outside the manufacturing sector (SIC
codes 20-39). Why have you then Ms. Browner added non-manufacturing SIC
codes on the Agency's own volition without statutory authority from
Congress?
Response. EPA believes that in EPCRA section 313(b)(1)(B), Congress
gave EPA the authority to add industry groups to the TRI program, when
the Agency reasonably finds that reporting by facilities within those
groups would be relevant to the purposes of the TRI program. EPCRA
section 313(b)(1)(B) provides that:
The [EPA] may add or delete [SIC] Codes . . . but only to the
extent necessary to provide that each [SIC code] to which
[section 313] applies is relevant to the purposes of [section
313].
The question under section 313(b)(1)(B) is whether potential
reporting by an additional group would be relevant to the purposes of
the TRI program. While the Conference Report did refer to adding SIC
codes for facilities which are ``like facilities within the
manufacturing sector,'' id., EPA believes the relevant similarity is
not the operational nature of the industry group, but in the
informational value of reporting on toxic chemical use, management, and
disposition--i.e., the language in the statute and Conference Report
provides that EPA may expand the SIC code coverage to include other
facilities that will contribute to the TRI data base information on the
use and disposition of toxic chemicals in the United States. By
including SIC Codes 20 through 39, Congress made a judgment that
reporting by those industries would be relevant to the purposes of the
TRI program; the statute then authorized EPA to include additional SIC
codes, where EPA finds that reporting by those industries would also be
relevant to the TRI program. EPA does not believe that the additional
industry groups must be within the traditional manufacturing sector, or
must be like or akin to that sector in the way they ``manufacture,''
``process,'' or ``otherwise use'' toxic chemicals. Even though EPA
believes that EPCRA permits addition of industry groups composed of
facilities that ``manufacture,'' process,'' or ``otherwise use'' toxic
chemicals in a manner different from facilities within the traditional
manufacturing sector, in its recent rulemaking the Agency has limited
the addition to industry groups that have significant ties to the
manufacturing sector.
Question 2. Further, TRI data has nothing to do with ``releases to
the environment.'' The data reported to EPA describes the use of
reportable chemicals but it is not on a release or the risk of a
release. However, EPA allows the confusion of the terms ``report'' vs.
``release'' by special interest groups to create adverse publicity for
reporting companies and facilities. Why does EPA allow U.S. companies
to be unfairly stigmatized by not clarifying the distinct difference
between ``reportable'' chemicals and a chemical ``release?''
Response. The Agency is using language provided in the statute and
does not intend to create confusion. In its ``Data Release'' documents,
which are the Agency's main outreach material for TRI, EPA puts the
release information in perspective by providing a description of the
factors that must be considered when using TRI data. The Agency
explains that the quantity of the toxic chemical released does not
equal the quantity to which one is exposed. EPA provides a list of
factors that the user of the TRI data should consider when determining
potential risks that may result from releases of toxic chemicals. EPA
also provides information on economic information and production
information to put trends in releases into perspective.
The statute directs EPA to publish a ``uniform toxic chemical
release form'' and specifies that the form is to provide for the
submission of, inter alia, ``[t]he annual quantity of the toxic
chemical entering each environmental medium.'' EPCRA section 313(g)(1).
The statute broadly defines both ``release'' to mean ``any spilling,
leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying, discharging, injecting,
escaping, leaching, dumping or disposing into the environment,'' EPCRA
section 329(8); and ``environment'' to ``include water, air and land
and the interrelationship which exists among and between water, air,
and land and all living things.'' Id. section 329(2). Under EPCRA, EPA
interprets annual reportable quantity to include ``releases.''
In addition, the Conference Report emphasized that ``[r]eporting on
releases to each environmental medium under subsection (g)(1)(C)(iv) .
. . shall include, at a minimum, releases to the air, water (surface
water and groundwater), land (surface and subsurface), and waste
treatment and storage facilities. (Conf. Rep. at 298)
The focus of EPCRA section 313 is on the quantity entering each
environmental medium, which includes releases. A lesser focus is on the
use of the toxic chemical at the facility. EPCRA section 313(g)(C)(i)
provides that the'' uniform toxic chemical release form'' shall include
inter alia, the following information `` [w]hether the toxic chemical
at the facility is manufactured, processed, or otherwise used, and the
general category or categories of use of the chemical.''
information management
Question 1. How do any of your expansive regulatory programs at EPA
on TRI, Superfund, RCRA, Air and Water, relate to the Vice President's
initiative on ``Reinventing Environmental Regulations,'' which claimed
as a goal to reduce all environmental reporting requirements by mid-
1996?
Response. [No response was provided by EPA.]
Question 2. Which environmental requirements were reduced by 1996?
1997? 1998? Planned for 1999 or 2000?
Response. [No response was provided by EPA.]
the kyoto treaty
Question. The Administration, through its attempts to force the
implementation of the Kyoto treaty well before any indication of Senate
ratification, is nothing more than participation in a world industrial
policy. Industrial policy developed by the Federal Government assumes
it (the Federal Government) can select industries and firms that
potentially will be the engines of the economy and allow others to
gradually fade out. Industrial policies in the past have had the goal
of improving a Nation's economic well-being and has been practiced in
France, Japan and to a lesser extent in the United States. Such
attempts have never been effective over the long run other than to
create opportunities for favor seeking and giving some industries
advantages over others. The Kyoto agreement is setting up a system of
world industrial policy, whose purpose has nothing to do with economic
growth or the well-being of U.S. citizens. Why does the EPA and the
Administration want to participate in a world system which does nothing
but create a system of global winners and losers over which developed
nations will bear the greater pain of cutting back carbon dioxide
emissions, without any parallel ``reductions'' expected or required by
underdeveloped nations?
Response. The Administration has been working and will continue to
work bilaterally, regionally, and multilaterally to promote more active
efforts by developing countries to limit their emissions of greenhouse
gases. The term ``developing country'' encompasses a wide range of
nations which are at various states of industrialization and make
varied contributions to global emissions. The President has made clear
that the participation of key developing countries, whose emissions
will surpass those of the industrialized nations within several
decades, is an essential part of a global solution to climate change.
The Administration will not submit the Kyoto Protocol to the Senate for
its advice and consent to ratification until there is meaningful
participation from key developing countries.
energy policy
Question 1. Please provide a list of all pending proposed and final
regulations, and regulations in the developmental stage, which would
impact the oil and gas sector.
Response. The following is a list of pending proposed and final
regulations, and regulations in the developmental stage, which may
affect the oil and gas sector:
Air
Mobile Sources
Phase 2 of the reformulated gasoline program, based on a
rule finalized in February 16, 1994, will begin in January 2000
More stringent ``Tier 2'' light-duty vehicle and light-
duty truck emission standards and sulfur levels in gasoline (upcoming
NPRM)
Potential control of sulfur levels in diesel fuel
(upcoming ANPRM)
Request to exempt Alaska from current low sulfur diesel
requirements (upcoming final decision)
Health effects testing requirements for gasoline and
gasoline additives
Revision to reformulated gasoline regulations to remove
counties in Maine from the program
Revision to the reformulated gasoline regulations to
include St. Louis, MO, in the program (already completed)
Monitoring Flexibility.--EPA plans to issue a final rulemaking
within the next several weeks to revise Part 75 monitoring regulations
(proposed May 21, 1998). These revisions add flexibility in emissions
monitoring techniques for oil and gas burning emits. The greater
flexibility should reduce the costs of monitoring at oil and gas fired
units.
Ozone Transport--3 related rulemakings.--The ozone transport State
Implementation Plan (SIP) Call (finalized October 27, 1998) requires 22
States in the eastern part of U.S. and the District of Columbia to
significantly reduce nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions which
help to create unhealthy levels of urban smog. EPA determined the
amount of reductions based upon application of reasonably available
control technologies. States are free to obtain the reductions however
they wish. A Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) rulemaking (proposed
October 27, 1998) would be finalized in the event that a State fails to
submit a SIP or submits a SIP that is unapprovable. The FIP would
provide the same level of reductions required by the SIP Call.
A Section 126 rulemaking (proposed October 27, 1998) resulted from
petitions by eight Northeastern States requesting that EPA control
large sources of NOx from 31 upwind'' States, that create
unhealthy levels of smog in the petitioning States. EPA proposed to
accept some portions of those petitions while rejecting other portions.
If finalized as proposed, the Section 126 action would impose the same
limits on large combustion sources as the above referenced FIP in 19 of
the 22 States affected by the SIP Call. EPA has proposed that this
action only be implemented if a State does not have an approvable SIP
or EPA did not implement a FIP.
The affect or the SIP Call, FIP and Section 126 regulations will be
to make ``clean'' combustion sources, such as those using gas, more
economically competitive with coal-fired boilers since gas units
typically emit at a lower NOx emission rate than coal-fired
boilers.
Air Toxics
EPA has proposed a National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air
Pollutant (NESHAP) that will affect the oil and gas sector:
Petroleum Refinery NESHAP (catalytic cracking units, catalytic
reforming units and sulfur plant units), Subpart HH [proposed 9/11/98]
Oil and Natural Gas Production and Natural Gas Transmission and
Storage NESHAP, Subpart HH [proposed 11/23/98--will be finalized by May
1999]
Waste
Oil Pollution Prevention Regulation: Revisions Final Rule (RIN
2050-AC62, SAN 2634)
Accidental Release Prevention Requirements: Risk Management
Programs Under CAA, Section 112(r); Amendments to the Worst-Case
Release Scenario Analysis for Regulated Flammable Substances Direct
Final and Proposed Rule (SAN 4279)
List of Regulated Substances and Thresholds for Accidental Release
Prevention; Proposed Amendment; Flammable Hydrocarbon Fuel Exemption
Proposed Rule and Administrative Stay (SAN 4291)
Recycled Used Oil Containing PCBs Final Rule (RIN 2050-AE47, SAN
4088)
Hazardous Waste Identification; Recycled Used Oil Management
Standards Proposed Rule (RIN 2050-AE58, SAN 3668)
Reinventing the Land Disposal Restrictions Program Advanced Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (RIN 2050-AE53, SAN 4093) Effects Petroleum
Refineries sector among various manufacturing and mining sectors. This
rule will effect more oil and gas sectors indirectly when petroleum-
related listed or characteristic wastes are subject to the LDRs.
Hazardous Waste Identification Rule (HWIR): Identification and
Listing of Hazardous Wastes Reproposal (RIN 2050-AE07, SAN 3328)
Effects Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing sector among other
manufacturing sectors.
Revised Standards for Hazardous Waste Combustors Final Rule (RIN
2050-AE01, SAN 3333). Regulatory effort that could indirectly effect
industry sources that utilize hazardous waste incineration in the
destruction of wastes from the processing of petroleum products.
Standardized Permit for RCRA Hazardous Waste Management Facilities
Proposed Rule (RIN 2050-AE44, SAN 4028) A revision to our current
permitting requirements that will afford facilities that treat or store
hazardous waste in tanks or containment buildings faster permitting
under a self implementing approach.
RCRA Subtitle C Financial Test Criteria (Revision) Notice of Data
Availability (RIN 2050-AC71, SAN 2647) Effects all industries with
hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal facilities.
RCRA Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden Reduction Notice of Data
Availability (RIN 2050-AE50, SAN 4084) Deregulatory effort that could
indirectly effect the sector. Potentially reducing the reporting burden
by 40 percent for sources subject to RCRA subtitle C requirements.
Chlorinated Aliphatic Manufacturing Industry RCRA Listing Proposed
Rule (RIN 2050-AD85, SAN 3151) Two of the 16 potentially affected
parent companies are registered with the U.S. Securities & Exchange
Commission, as having primary 4-digit Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) codes related to the petroleum industry:
SIC 1311 = Crude petroleum & natural gas (Occidental Petroleum Corp
headquartered in Los Angeles CA; three potentially affected chemical
manufacturing facilities in the United States.).
SIC 2911 = Petroleum refining (Shell Petroleum Company
headquartered in Houston TX; one potentially affected chemical
manufacturing facility in the United States.).
non-regulatory efforts
Regulatory Determination on Remaining Waste From the Combustion of
Fossil Fuels (RIN 2050-AD91, SAN 3201).
This is not a regulatory effort but, depending upon the
decisions to be made for this determination on oil combustion
wastes, burners of oil and, indirectly, their oil suppliers
could be affected. The Agency will decide whether any of the
wastes should be subject to hazardous waste regulations.
Depending on the decisions yet to be made, action could be
taken that indirectly impacts the oil industry. At this point
it is too early to say if we will proceed with proposing
regulations, or whether such regulations would have any impact
on the oil and gas producers.
Related Effort: Fossil Fuel Combustion Report to Congress
This effort does address units generating power by burning
Oil (we also take a look at gas, but the burning of gas
produces little to no waste and therefore there is little to no
expectation that we will regulate wastes from burning gas).
Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic (PBT) Chemicals and Chemical
Categories List.--Non-regulatory effort to identify PET chemicals to
focus our waste minimization effort. This list is scheduled to be
released soon and will include 53 chemicals.
Working with DOE and States.--EPA (and DOE) are working with the
States (Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission), the industry, and
environmental groups to provide voluntary State oil and gas program
reviews for the protection of public health and the environment.
Water
Revisions to Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards
for Synthetic-Based and Other Non-Aqueous Drilling Fluids in the Oil
and Gas Extraction Point Source Category.
Rule Minimizing Adverse Environmental Impact from Cooling
Water Intake structures Under Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act.
Rule Establishing Electronic Reporting for NPDES
Permittees.
Revisions to the Underground Injection Control Regulations
for Class V Injection Wells.
Toxic Release Inventory (TRI)
Potential Addition of Oil and Gas Exploration and Production to the
Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) (EPCRA Section 313) (RIN 2070-AD19)--EPA
has indicated that it may consider whether to propose adding facilities
which perform exploration and production of oil and gas to the list of
facilities reporting under the TRI. This action is still in the pre-
proposal stage.
Question 2. Please identify any line item budget programs which
will aid and assist the oil and gas sector during the current Oil
Crisis.
Response. The Agency currently has no specific line item budget
programs or activities which will provide direct aid or assistance to
the oil and gas industry. There are, however, two programs that offer
the opportunity for the oil and gas sector to design creative new
approaches to environmental protection that could be more in line with
their own unique economic situation. First, Project XL, which stands
for excellence and leadership, is an experimental pilot program that
offers chances to test new ideas as long as they produce superior
environmental performance and have the support of stakeholders. Second,
the Agency's sector-based approach, an outgrowth of the Common Sense
Initiative, offers the opportunity to work with EPA to resolve issues
and develop innovative solutions with stakeholder input. The Petroleum
Refining Sector is still continuing its work initiated under CSI and
could be a venue for a larger dialog with EPA.
Question 3. The Energy Information Agency estimates that demand for
natural gas will increase from 22 Tcf per year today to 30 Tcf by
approximately 2010. In order for this demand to he met, existing
interstate natural gas pipelines will have to be expanded and new
natural gas pipelines will have to be built. The Federal Energy
[Regulatory] Commission and the Council on Environmental Quality are
beginning to work to establish a Memorandum of Understanding among the
key Federal Departments and agencies responsible for NEPA review of
natural gas pipelines. Currently, it takes at least 2 years for a
proposed interstate natural gas pipeline to complete the NEPA and
regulatory review process at FERC in order to obtain a certificate to
build. The intent of this Memorandum of Understanding is to have the
relevant agencies meet at the beginning of the review process to
determine the scope of each agency's review so that the agencies can do
their reviews simultaneously to expedite the NEPA review process. They
can also then coordinate the information requested of the applicant to
eliminate duplication of effort. Are you aware of this effort? Is EPA
committed to working to make this Memorandum of Understanding happen?
Response. EPA is aware of the effort by CEQ and the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission to establish a Memorandum of Understanding among
Federal agencies responsible for NEPA review of natural gas pipelines
to facilitate NEPA reviews of pipeline proposals. EPA supports this
effort to coordinate the NEPA process and looks forward to working with
CEQ and the other agencies to develop the MOU.
hydraulic fracturing
Question 1. Based on your archives and discussions with your
regional administrators over the past few months, has the EPA ever
encountered a documented case of groundwater contamination associated
with hydraulic fracturing?
Response. In June 1998, EPA investigated and prepared background
information on the practice of hydraulic fracturing, with a primary
focus on coal bed methane (CBM) wells and CBM reserves. This
information was disseminated internally, especially to the underground
injection control program staff in each Regional office. In November
1998, EPA expanded its efforts beyond CBM wells when the Office of
Ground Water and Drinking Water asked the Regions to provide all
information pertaining to contamination incidents from hydraulic
fracturing operations in general. To date, we have not received any
confirmed reports of contamination. However, in compliance with the
11th Circuit's decision, the Administrator stated that the Agency would
undertake a review to determine if environmental threats exist. We are
working with the States and fully evaluating contamination incidents.
The Agency's primary stakeholder on underground injection wells
issues, the Ground Water Protection Council (GWPC), provided EPA with a
December 1998 survey of hydraulic fracturing of CBM wells in producing
States. As part of the survey, GWPC reported only one alleged
contamination incident. Responses to the questions posed in the survey
indicated that there were two other States (Virginia and New Mexico)
where a complaint was investigated and dismissed.
Question 2. Didn't the EPA attempt to defend its position of not
regulating hydraulic fracturing as underground injection in the LEAF
case in Alabama citing the lack of public health threat and lack of
environmental concern? Do you still believe that to be true?
Response. In the LEAF v. EPA case, EPA asserted that hydraulic
fracturing was not an underground injection as defined in the
regulations and based on its interpretation of the Safe Drinking Water
Act. In taking this position, the Agency relied on the decisions made
during the promulgation of final UIC regulations in the early 1980's.
At that time, there was no documented evidence of contamination
incidents and no party raised concerns regarding public health or
suggested that the practice posed any threats to the environment.
However, the practice of hydraulic fracturing for coal bed methane
recovery became widely used only after the promulgation of these
regulations so potential impacts in such cases were not and could not
be considered. Moreover, EPA's primary concern in defending against the
lawsuit was the effect that reopening long-established regulations,
contrary to the statutory cutoff date for judicial review, would have.
When the 11th Circuit decided the case, and all avenues of appeal were
exhausted, the Administrator stated that the Agency would review
subsequent developments to determine if threats exist. During the
course of this review, three environmental groups (one in Alabama, two
in Virginia) asserted that their drinking water wells have been
adversely effected by CBM well operations. We are working with the
States and are fully evaluating these claims.
Question 3. Based on the constraints of the EPA budget, if a
technical solution could be offered that would protect the Agency's
ability to regulate activities but allow hydraulic fracturing to return
to unregulated status, as argued by the EPA in the LEAF case, would EPA
be willing to work with Congress to draft this fix?
Response. We are committed to increasing flexibility in our Federal
regulatory approach and being sensitive to the needs of the primacy
States as our partners in underground injection control (UIC). We are
working closely with the State of Alabama in order to ensure that a
resolution satisfying the 11th Circuit's decision regarding hydraulic
fracturing is achieved. Alabama has recently held a public hearing on a
new State rule that regulates the practice of hydraulic fracturing for
coal bed methane wells. More steps still need to be taken by the State
to bring the regulation of this activity under Alabama's UIC program.
The Agency plans to keep Alabama's Congressional delegation informed of
the progress pertaining to this issue.
EPA believes that an appropriate course of action for dealing with
the issue of hydraulic fracturing is to proceed with our efforts to
gather and analyze information on any potential environmental and
public health effects of the practice, working with the States,
industry, and interested stakeholders, and clearly communicating with
affected parties and interests on the State of our information and
analysis. While this process is still ongoing, the Administration is
not recommending changes to EPA's existing authority to protect ground
water under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Nonetheless, we are ready to
provide technical views and information to the committee on this or any
other legislative matter affecting EPA authorities.
______
Responses by Administrator Browner to Additional Questions From
Senator Craig Thomas
risk management program
Question 1. I, and presumably other members of this committee, have
received letters over the past 8 months from our constituents angry
with the Risk Management Program rules that apply to propane. In light
of the significant controversy around this program, including a pending
lawsuit that will not be heard in court until October at the earliest,
as we draw closer to the June 21, 1999 deadline, what are your plans,
if any to extend this compliance date?
Response. EPA shares the concern that you and others have raised
that the RMP rule may cover facilities too small to pose a significant
risk to the surrounding community. We are actively exploring ways of
revising the rule to draw a more appropriate line between those
facilities that warrant Federal regulation and those that do not. We
expect to finish soon the technical and legal work necessary to
arriving at an appropriate resolution of this issue. We will then issue
a notice of proposed rulemaking to revise the rule and a stay of the
rule for those facilities that would be affected by the proposed rule
revision. We understand the urgency of this issue and will keep you
informed of our progress.
With regard to the legal challenge to the rule, the Agency does not
customarily stay its regulations in order to allow litigants time to
pursue legal challenges. Such a practice would provide litigants the de
facto power to delay implementation of virtually any Agency regulation,
regardless of the legal merits of a lawsuit, and the Agency cannot
voluntarily take actions it believes run counter to its own mission and
the interests of the public. EPA rules are routinely promulgated with
immediate or very short compliance dates. In this case, the Clean Air
Act provides that regulated entities be given an additional 3 years
from the date of promulgation to comply. The RMP rule was promulgated
on June 20, 1996 and since that time the National Propane Gas
Association (NPGA) has been free to activate its litigation at any
time, as well as prepare its members to meet their compliance
obligations. The D.C. Circuit is unable to hear this case until at
least October, 1999 because NPGA failed to ask for such a hearing in
time to have it scheduled prior to June 21, 1999. The main purpose of
the RMP rule is to prevent accidents. Delaying RMP implementation means
that accidents could continue to occur where they might have been
prevented.
Question 2. I am troubled by what I'm hearing from many of my
constituents, that the Risk Management Program rules are causing
propane customers to switch to fuels that are less clean than propane.
How do you reconcile the facts that EPA is working to address the
global climate issue on the one hand, while on the other hand is busily
erecting disincentives to the continued use of a congressionally-
approved alternative fuel?
Response. EPA recognizes that whenever the Agency regulates a
substance and sets threshold quantities, there is some incentive for
certain facilities to consider alternatives to those substances.
Therefore, EPA believes that a small amount of fuel switching may
occur, but it is unlikely to be significant, for several reasons.
First, most propane distributors generally sell propane to customers
who won't be covered by this rule at all (because they don't have
10,000 pounds of propane in a process). These facilities will have no
possible incentive to reduce inventories or switch fuels. Second,
startup costs for alternative fuel systems are likely to be much more
expensive than the cost to implement the RMP regulation (EPA expects
that preparation and submission of an RMP for a small propane supplier/
user would cost on the order of $200; new storage tanks and piping for
a different fuel is likely to cost far more than $200). Third,
alternative fuels, such as diesel fuel and fuel oil, are regulated by
EPA and other Federal agencies under other statutes (e.g., under the
Clean Water Act, any facility holding more than 1320 gallons of fuel
oil in above ground storage must prepare a spill prevention plan).
Fourth, the RMP regulation doesn't require fuel switching for any
facility, no matter how much propane they store.
EPA does not believe that regulation of propane and other clean-
burning fuels in the RMP conflicts or interferes with other Clean Air
Act or Agency goals. Under CAA 112(r), EPA is obligated to issue
regulations to prevent accidental releases of hazardous substances that
could cause acute harm to the offsite public and to mitigate the
severity of those releases that do occur. EPA has identified flammable
substances, including those used as fuels, as chemicals that may pose a
significant hazard to the community, and therefore should be subject to
accident prevention regulations. Since nothing in the RMP requires
facilities to stop or limit their use of propane (or any other
chemical), EPA does not believe the RMP's goal of preventing accidents
is inconsistent with the goal of achieving clean air; efforts in both
areas should enhance public safety and health. In short, EPA does
encourage use of clean burning fuels like propane, yet also recognizes
that they may present hazards that should be addressed.
Question 3. EPA has reportedly offered to respond to the
agriculture community's problems with the Risk Management Program rules
by issuing revised guidance documents. Why should they place any stock
in this approach when EPA includes a clear disclaimer that the guidance
does not supersede regulatory language and that it can be changed at
any time in the future?
Response. EPA has issued guidance for propane facilities which
specifies separation distances for propane tanks which, if met, allow a
facility to consider the separate tanks as separate processes. This
would allow a facility to apply the 10,000 pound propane threshold to
each individual tank, so that a tank smaller than 10,000 pounds
capacity would not be covered by the rule. The guidance is based on the
best available data and EPA has no reason to think that the separation
distances it provides will require changing. In any case, the guidance
simply helps facilities make a determination that they could have made
on their own. The Agency believes that a very large number of farms
using propane will be exempt from the rule either because they are
below the threshold quantity established for propane or because they
will be able to use the separation distance guidance to determine that
they are not covered by the RMP rule.
Question 4. EPA stated during the RMP rulemaking in 1996 that
propane-specific guidance would be published. How do you expect the
industry and its customers to comply by June 21, 1999 when propane-
specific guidance was published 2\1/2\ years late in November 1998,
right at the beginning of the busy winter heating season?
Response. EPA met its statutory requirement to provide guidance at
the time it promulgated the RMP rule when it issued a document that
helps all covered facilities conduct offsite consequence analyses
(OCA). Such analyses require application of expertise that many covered
facilities are unlikely to have, so provision of that guidance was key
to allowing facilities to determine whether they are covered by the
rule. Compliance with the rule itself generally does not require such
specialized expertise; instead it calls for facility operators to
identify the ways in which an accident might occur and develop a
program to prevent such accidents from occurring.
Since promulgating the rule and issuing the OCA guidance, EPA has
also developed industry specific and general guidance to provide
further help in complying with the rule along with free software for
offsite consequence calculations and preparing the risk management
plan.
In any event, the RMP regulation was published nearly 3 years ago,
and propane facilities were notified of their coverage under the RMP
regulations more than 5 years ago, when propane was included in the
list of regulated substances that EPA published in 1994. Nothing in any
Agency guidance document has altered the basic compliance requirements
put forth in the original RMP rule as they apply to propane facilities.
Guidance documents are a useful tool to assist facilities in regulatory
compliance, but that compliance is expected and required regardless of
whether or not a facility happens to be in one of the particular
industry sectors for which the Agency has published specific guidance.
We believe that we published the propane guidance in sufficient time
for all covered propane facilities to comply with the rule. As evidence
of this fact, we note that a number of propane facilities have already
submitted RMPs to EPA. In fact, of the 48 early submission RMPs we have
received (as of March 2, 1999), 34 are from propane facilities. The
fact that these facilities (which include the full range of propane
users and distributors) submitted their RMPs over 3 months early
indicates that propane facilities already have had more than enough
time to comply with the regulation. Since facilities in compliance with
NFPA-58 have already implemented some of the accident prevention and
emergency response elements required by the RMP rule, and since propane
facilities in general are among the least complex of facilities covered
by the regulation, these early submissions indicate that they are
finding it relatively easy to comply.
Question 5. I understand that EPA did not implement a fuel use
exemption for propane within the Risk Management Program rules in the
same way OSHA did within the Process Safety Management regulations. How
can the Agency justify such a decision, when the clear language of the
Clean Air Act requires the EPA to coordinate its requirements with
those established by OSHA for comparable purposes?
Response. Since OSHA provided a fuel-use exemption under its
Process Safety Management standard (29 CFR 1910.120), the Agency
examined this issue in detail. When publishing the list of CAA 112(r)
regulated substances in 1994, EPA also published a supplemental notice
to seek public comment on whether flammable substances when used as
fuels posed a lesser intrinsic hazard than the same substances handled
otherwise. However, no data were submitted to EPA to justify this
position. Further, EPA collected data on a number of accidental
releases of flammable substances which indicated that these substances
have caused deaths, injuries, evacuations and extensive property
damage. Therefore, EPA determined that the hazard posed by flammable
substances is inherent and does not vary with use. In other words,
propane is propane, regardless if it is used as a fuel or if it is used
as a chemical feedstock in a manufacturing plant. EPA published this
analysis and decision in the final RMP rule, 61 FR 31702 (3rd column)
(June 20, 1996), which was submitted to Congress for review under the
Congressional Review Act. Congress did not act in response to that
submission. It should also be noted that a fuel use exemption would not
necessarily have included propane dealers and distributors.
tier 2 rulemaking
Question 1. Has EPA looked at the implications on the refining
industry of the Tier 2 Rulemaking considering factors such as: (1)
Industry's ability to supply low sulfur gasoline at levels prescribed
by EPA to all sectors during this timeframe; (2) Timing requirements
for permitting, capital expenditures and actual construction of new or
upgraded facilities; (3) Feasibility of current and future technologies
and the timeframe for their development and utilization; (4) Pressures
on the use of MTBE in fuels; (5) Probable reformulation of diesel; and
(6) Industry's current profitability.
Response. EPA has considered all these factors in preparing the
proposed Tier 2 rulemaking. In an effort to fully understand these
issues the Agency has had numerous meetings with representatives of the
oil industry. Administrator Carol Browner, Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation Robert Perciasepe, and Acting General Counsel Gary
Guzy, have all participated in these meetings. In addition, we have
consulted with policy and technical experts at the Department of
Energy.
In developing our proposed regulations on reducing sulfur levels in
gasoline and our advance notice of proposed rulemaking on sulfur levels
in diesel fuel, we are carefully considering the availability of sulfur
reduction technology, cost, and time needed for refinery modifications,
permitting and other critical factors. After the proposal is published
in the Federal Register there will be ample opportunity for all
interested parties to review and comment on all aspects of the
proposal. EPA will conduct several public hearings around the country
and will accept written comments as well.
Question 2. I am concerned that the National Environmental
Laboratory Accreditation Program (NELAP) budget could be a casualty of
budget cuts and agency reorganization. Laboratory data is the very
basis of nearly every environmental decision. However, current Federal
and State accreditation programs that assess laboratory competency vary
in both scope and stringency. This inconsistency allows less than
competent laboratories, both public and private, to generate
environmental data. NELAP rectified this problem by establishing a
single set of rigorous standards. The result will be a better
confidence in data used to make cleanup and compliance decisions. Does
the Agency plan to fully fund this program?
Response. EPA will meet its commitments to support the National
Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program. For fiscal year 1999,
$500,000 has been provided to cover NELAP costs. The fiscal year 2000
President's Budget provides $500,000 for NELAP.
The National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program
(NELAP), managed by Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), implements
environmental laboratory accreditation standards developed through a
voluntary association of State and Federal agencies known as the
National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Conference (NELAC). The
oversight role of NELAP is clearly defined in the NELAC standards.
EPA's NELAP ensures the NELAC standards are applied consistently across
State accreditation programs and that a high degree of standardization
and uniformity exists among the States.
The development of the national system of environmental laboratory
accreditation spans back to the early 1990's when a Federal advisory
committee was convened to study the need for a national system of
environmental laboratory accreditation. EPA, the States and the private
laboratory community agreed that a national, uniform system for
accrediting environmental laboratories would benefit the generation of
laboratory data and improve the existing, diverse systems in place at
that time. Over the past 9 years, EPA, the States, and the private
sector have worked to develop the NELAC system by establishing
consensus and cooperation among the States through the adoption of
uniform standards.
Currently, NELAP is in the midst of completing reviews of the first
15 State applicants for recognition as NELAP Accrediting Authorities.
When recognized, these States will be authorized to begin accreditation
proceedings for private laboratories in the United States under the
NELAC standards. This will be the first time that a national system of
accreditation of NELAC's scope will exist.
______
Responses by Administrator Browner to Additional Questions From Senator
George V. Voinovich
clean air (otag)
Question 1a. As I mentioned in my opening statement, I believe that
EPA's policies often run counter to the efforts of other Federal
agencies and even EPA's own mission. For instance, the Administration
is interested in preventing urban sprawl and cleaning up abandoned
industrial sites. However, EPA has set inflexible NOx and
NAAQS standards that many areas in this country will be unable to
attain. Hence, there will be few incentives to re-use abandoned sites
and industry will look toward greenspaces, ultimately undermining
efforts to prevent urban sprawl and re-use Brownfields sites. First,
why should Congress approve a program to prevent urban sprawl when you
are implementing other policies and regulations to do the opposite?
Response. Congress should approve the Better America Bonds program
and the rest of the Administration's Livability Agenda because
communities have overwhelmingly expressed their desire for more livable
communities. In November 1998, more than 220 communities proposed--and
the vast majority adopted--measures to manage sprawl and enhance local
livability. Measures adopted include those that preserve green space,
reduce traffic congestion and offer more transportation choices,
improve regional cooperation and enhance quality of life.
Better America Bonds.--A critical element of the Livability Agenda
is the Better America Bonds program that will allow communities to
decide for themselves how they will preserve their open spaces, protect
their water, clean up brownfields, and improve their quality of life.
The Administration's proposed Better America Bonds Program will
enable State, tribal and local governments to issue $9.5 billion in
bonds over 5 years through approximately $700 million in Federal tax
credits. Communities will have access to low-cost financing and
investors who buy these 15 year bonds will receive Federal tax credits
in lieu of interest.
Better America Bonds can be used in a number of ways.
Better America Bonds will further the Brownfields by providing much
needed flexible funding that communities can use for Brownfields
cleanups. Our Brownfields program is already cleaning up and
revitalizing abandoned industrial properties in 227 communities around
the country. This program has leveraged $1 billion in public and
private funds, created thousands of new jobs and turned idle land back
to productive and profitable use. And it has helped spare green spaces
in nearby suburbs the kind of development that swallowed up 4.3 million
acres of our nation's prime and unique farmland in one 10-year span.
Communities have identified lack of funding for cleanup and other
Brownfields activities as the greatest barrier to Brownfields
redevelopment. For example, the U.S. Conference of Mayors pointed to a
lack of capital for local governments as the leading barrier to the
clean-up and re-use of Brownfields. Better America Bonds will help
bridge the funding gap by supplementing existing Brownfields funding
with bond proceeds, thus increasing the funds available for Brownfields
and providing financing necessary to enable communities to move forward
with their Brownfields plans.
In addition, State, Tribal and local governments, working alone or
in partnership with land trusts and other nonprofit organizations, can
create or restore urban parks, preserve suburban green spaces, and
protect threatened farmland and wetlands by acquiring title or
purchasing conservation easements using these new bonds.
Rivers, lakes, coastal waters, and wetlands can be restored or
protected, streamside zones can be repaired and land can be acquired to
reduce polluted runoff.
To ensure that communities can grow according to their own values,
the Administration's Agenda observes these key principles:
Communities know best. Land use decisions are--and will
continue to be--made by local entities.
The Federal Government should inform, not dictate,
patterns of future growth. Government can supply information, tools and
resources to empower citizens and communities by helping them envision
different strategies. Government can also provide incentives for
communities to work together to address challenges of growth and
development.
The Livability Agenda also includes: transportation enhancements;
regional smart growth partnerships; schools as community centers;
community-Federal information partnerships; and regional crime-data
sharing. It focuses broadly on a range of issues to improve the quality
of life in a community and touches on important parts of our daily
lives--the safety of our homes and streets, our commute to work, the
schools where our children learn to read, and the parks where we relax.
EPA's efforts to Encourage Investment In Existing Communities.--
EPA's efforts to improve environmental quality are intended to provide
the health and livability benefits of a clean environment to all
Americans--in cities, suburbs, towns, and rural communities. While
certain Clean Air Act provisions, for instance, have sometime been
criticized because they may encourage development in greenfields,
rather than in existing cities and suburbs, research has shown that the
location decisions of private firms are not influenced to any
significant extent by environmental regulations. Studies of how
environmental regulations affect competitiveness or location decisions
concluded that environmental regulations have not been shown to be a
barrier to either business location or economic competitiveness. On the
contrary, organizations as diverse as real estate researcher Price
Waterhouse Coopers/Lend Lease, the grass roots/business/government
partnership Envision Utah, Sierra Business Council, and Bank of
America, have cited clean air, clean water, access to nature,
transportation choices such as transit, livability and quality of life
as positive attributes companies do and should seek in making location
or investment decisions.
At the same time, we are continuing to create new incentives in our
regulatory programs that encourage more investment in existing
communities. For instance, our Clean Air-Brownfields Partnerships Pilot
projects are designed to quantify the air quality benefits of infill
redevelopment. We are working with three cities--Dallas, Baltimore and
Chicago--to analyze their infill redevelopment programs and incentives
and their potential air quality impacts. In these pilots, EPA and the
cities are exploring how the Clean Air Act can become a better tool for
encouraging investment in existing cities and suburbs, rather than a
potential disincentive and that might otherwise encourage new
development to the undeveloped fringes of communities.
EPA's Brownfields Initiative has empowered States, communities, and
other stakeholders in economic development to work together to prevent,
assess, safely clean up, and sustainably reuse brownfields. EPA
provides communities with grants for assessing and cleaning up
brownfields. These grants are designed as ``seed money'' to help
communities begin to deal with their brownfields problems. Since fiscal
year 1995, EPA has provided funding to 250 States, cities, towns,
counties, and tribes for Brownfields Assessment Demonstration Pilots.
The Pilots, each funded at up to $200,000 over 2 years, will test
redevelopment models, direct special efforts toward removing regulatory
barriers without sacrificing protectiveness, and facilitate coordinated
site assessment, environmental cleanup and redevelopment efforts at the
Federal, State, and local levels.
Question 1b. Second, why should we support Better America Bonds
when EPA has consistently tried to micromanage State efforts to clean
up Brownfield sites?
Response. EPA has worked closely with States to provide financial
and technical support to local Brownfields efforts. EPA's State
partners have applied for and been awarded assessment and cleanup
revolving loan fund grants to further brownfields cleanup in their
States. EPA has collaborated with States on implementing the Targeted
Brownfields Assessment program and the Brownfields Tax Incentive,
providing further encouragement for locally directed Brownfields
activities. States are the lead regulator at Brownfields sites, often
through State Voluntary Cleanup Programs. Over the past 3 years, EPA
will have provided $30 million to support State Voluntary Cleanup
programs. EPA has signed Memoranda of Agreement with 12 States to help
clarify Federal and State roles. Further, the EPA Brownfield program
has been developed without EPA issuing any regulations or rules that
direct anyone, including States, on how Brownfield cleanups will be
conducted. The success of the Brownfield program is that it is
responsive to State, local, and tribal governments to meet their needs
to return property back to productive use.
Better America Bonds will further the Brownfields Initiative by
providing much needed flexible funding that States and communities can
use for Brownfields activities, greenspace acquisition and water
quality protection. A recent report by the U.S. Conference of Mayors
pointed to a lack of capital for local governments as the leading
barrier to the cleanup and reuse of brownfields. The Administration's
proposed Better America Bonds Program will enable State, tribal and
local governments to issue $9.5 billion in bonds over 5 years through
approximately $700 million in Federal tax credits. Better America Bonds
are not limited to Brownfields. Eligible projects include open space
acquisition and improvements in water quality. Communities will have
access to low cost financing and investors who buy these 15 year bonds
will receive tax credits in lieu of interest. Working in conjunction
with other Brownfields tools such as the assessment grants and the
Brownfields Tax Incentive, the Better America Bonds will supplement,
not replace, existing brownfields funding, thus increasing the range of
tools and funds available for brownfields cleanup and redevelopment.
Question 2a. You are requesting $200 million for the Clean air
Partnership Fund for projects that achieve innovative and early air
pollution and greenhouse gas emission reductions. Your premise is to
allow State and local governments to partner with other parties and the
Federal Government to demonstrate creative ideas for cleaning the air.
I am curious that if you are interested in achieving early air
pollution reductions why you did not accept the Midwest and Southern
Governors' proposal for the NOx SIP Call, which would have
achieved the 8-hour ozone standard 1 year earlier--in 2009--than the
ozone rule allows for in 2010?
Response. Attainment deadlines have not yet been set for the 8-hour
ozone standard. EPA expects these deadlines to range between 2005 and
2010. EPA's NOx SIP Call required States to reduce
``transported'' air pollution in order to help provide for expeditious
attainment of both the 1- and 8-hour ozone air quality standards.
Implementation of the NOx reductions called for by this
action is projected to enable most of the new nonattainment areas to
achieve these standards by 2005. As a result, most of these new areas
should need few, if any, additional local measures to attain.
Question 2b. How is human health and the environment protected
under a model that would achieve the standards a year later than the
Governors' proposal?
Response. Thus we believe that compliance will provide cleaner air
substantially faster than the 2009 date connected with the Governors'
proposal.
Question 3. In your budget proposal, you encourage the use of
multi-state groups to help resolve current air problems. What
assurances do States have that if they enter into such groups, like
OTAG, that EPA will take their recommendations into consideration? For
instance, OTAG recommended NOx reductions in amounts up to
85 percent along with the completion of subregional modeling under the
NOx SIP Call. Ohio concurred in this recommendation.
However, your Agency chose to impose an across-the-board, uniform 85
percent reduction notwithstanding real environmental data demonstrating
little or no impact from the many States in OTAG. And, you rejected the
use of subregional control strategies. Why should States invest the
time to enter groups when they have no assurance that you will take
their recommendations into account?
Response. The technical efforts by multi-state groups to develop
technical data and submit at least a range of recommendations are
extremely important. With respect to the work of the OTAG, EPA depended
extensively upon the technical data, modeling, and control technology
and cost information developed in that process. OTAG's efforts served
as a major part of the technical foundation for EPA's NOx
SIP Call. In its recommendations, OTAG was not able to agree on a
specific control level, and instead recommended a range of controls
from no controls beyond existing Clean Air Act requirements to the 85-
percent level of controls. EPA considered the range presented by OTAG,
and ultimately employed ``highly cost-effective'' control measures to
calculate State NOx reductions. We believe that this is the
most appropriate way to proceed. Thus, EPA chose to use the level of
0.15 pounds of NOx per million British Thermal Units. EPA
also chose to strongly recommend that States employ an ``emissions
trading'' program to further lower overall compliance costs. Thus,
although the OTAG States were not able to reach consensus on one
control level, the OTAG efforts were important in developing technical
information and a range of control levels which EPA carefully
considered in its rulemaking. The Agency wants to continue efforts to
partner with multi-state groups to find solutions to some of the
complex issues we face.
Question 4. In your budget, you include $62 million--$6 million
more than 1999--for PM2.5 research so you can provide
Regions, States and tribes with new information and tools they need to
characterize the PM2.5 problem.
In the late 1970's, EPA sought the removal of asbestos from schools
without knowing a lot of information about asbestos. Asbestos removal
has cost about $50 billion over the last 20 years. However, a recent
study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that EPA
grossly overestimated the cancer risk from asbestos in buildings by
about 10 times. This is money that could have been better spent on
books and more teachers. However, EPA has never made an announcement or
effort to reverse the multi-billion dollar asbestos removal effort that
your early pronouncement sparked.
Can you assure me that you aren't making the same mistake with
PM2.5? You are requesting $62 million for a program that you
admit you don't have adequate information about. Yet you are willing to
move forward with costly regulations without knowing what the benefits
will be. What you have basically said is ``whether we are right or
wrong, we are moving ahead.'' We need to ensure that money is not being
spent on a largely fruitless endeavor.
Response. EPA is not moving forward with ``costly regulations'' for
PM2.5 without an estimate of the potential benefits. Current
scientific knowledge demonstrates that the PM2.5 standard is
necessary to protect the public health. To determine how best to
protect public health, EPA, in partnership with State and local
governments, is now collecting additional information that can be used
to inform future regulatory decisions regarding PM2.5. As
noted in the question, the $62 million is for research--not for
imposition of ``costly regulations.'' EPA is following the July 16,
1997 memorandum from President Clinton to Administrator Browner,
``Implementation of Revised Air Quality Standards for Ozone and
Particulate Matter,'' which lays out a phased, common sense approach to
protecting the public from the health hazards of PM2.5.
Specifically, the memorandum stated that: ``Implementation shall ensure
that the Environmental Protection Agency (``Agency'') completes its
next periodic review of particulate matter, including review by the
Clean Air Act Scientific Advisory Committee, within 5 years of issuance
of the new standards, as contemplated by the Clean Air Act. Thus, by
July 2002, the Agency will have determined, based on data available
from its review, whether to revise or maintain the standards. This
determination will have been made before any areas have been designated
as ``nonattainment'' under the PM2.5 standards and before
imposition of any new controls related to the PM2.5
standards.'' This point was further supported by Congressional action
in the TEA-21 legislation, which clarified the time schedule for
PM2.5 data collection and designations to ensure that no
designation from PM2.5 would be made without 3 years of
Federal references method air quality data. Both of these actions were
designed to ensure that new controls for PM2.5 are not
implemented before EPA has adequate information to support their
imposition. At the same time, the Agency believes that it is prudent to
use the available time between now and nonattainment/attainment
designations to support the development of new tools and techniques to
aid the implementation of the PM2.5 NAAQS.
Question 5. As a followup to my last question, last year $56
million was appropriated to study PM2.5. How was this money
spent and has EPA identified any findings?
Response. The distribution of funds to the research topics
recommended by the National Academy of Sciences Research Committee on
Particulate Matter for fiscal year 1999 is shown in the table below.
Using these funds, the Agency is continuing its implementation of a
very strong program of particulate matter research. The program is
based on a philosophy of working closely with the National Academy of
Sciences for strategic research planning, with the Clean Air Scientific
Advisory Committee for scientific peer review of specific activities,
and with ORD's Board of Scientific Counselors for program management
review. With this strong foundation of extramural strategic, technical
and management support, the Agency is planning and implementing a
comprehensive program coupling research and ambient monitoring to
address the NAS recommendations for particulate matter research. The
research is focused on understanding human exposure to PM, including
exposure to sensitive subpopulations, on identifying the components and
mechanisms by which PM produces effects, on the development of source--
to--receptor methods and tools, and on the role of PM and copollutants
such as ozone on human health, among other efforts.
For research activities in general, we observe that research
results typically flow from any specific research project over a
several year period. Typically, 1 to 2 years after funding, research
results are evident from abstracts submitted for poster or oral
presentation in conjunction with scientific conferences. Then, several
months to perhaps 2 years after conference presentation, results are
presented in the peer reviewed scientific literature. The consequence
of this typical stream of information from research activities is that,
for the fiscal year 1999 budget year, the research is now underway and
findings cannot be expected yet. However, extensive research
coordination among EPA and other public and private sector research
organizations is assuring that the NAS research priorities are being
addressed and the fiscal year 1999 resources are being applied and
leveraged effectively in the context of other research and monitoring
efforts.
The EPA is continuing, with fiscal year 1999 funding, many
activities begun in fiscal year 1998 or earlier that are producing
important findings. For example, key components of PM, such as
transition metals, have been shown to produce enhanced toxicity in
animal studies and in humans. Several hypotheses as to the mechanisms
by which metals and other PM components may produce toxicity are being
evaluated, including direct inflammatory processes and indirect stress
upon the cardiopulmonary system. In addition, we are finding through
study of potentially susceptible subpopulations, such as the elderly
with existing heart disease, that ambient levels of PM2.5
are associated with changes in important cardiac measures. In fiscal
year 1999, we are continuing to analyze these results and collect
additional toxicological, epidemiological, and exposure data to address
the research priorities identified by the NAS.
______
Responses by Administrator Browner to Additional Questions From Senator
Michael D. Crapo
food quality protection act
Question 1. How much importance has the EPA given to the impact on
minor crops as it develops pesticide rules?
Response. EPA puts special emphasis on promoting and maintaining
pesticides for minor use crops. Pesticides for minor uses are worth
preserving because they are of major significance in agricultural
production. Without these small-scale, but vital pesticide uses, many
of the fruits and vegetables grown in the United States could not be
produced successfully. However, since many of these uses produce
smaller revenues for pesticide registrants than do major use products,
companies are sometimes reluctant to support and maintain registrations
and associated tolerances for these low-market products. Unfortunately,
a minor crop farmer is usually dependent on only a small arsenal of
pest control products, and the loss of any of them could drastically
affect their ability to farm.
The Agency has long recognized the potential impacts of its
decisions on minor crop growers and has taken numerous steps to
alleviate some of the problems. Congress also realized the need to
focus on minor use pesticides by putting EPA's minor use policy into
law. Among other things, FQPA calls for coordinated action between EPA
and USDA on minor use issues and requires both Agencies to establish
programs to integrate the needs of minor uses in all regulatory
actions. The new law gives registrants a variety of incentives to
develop new minor use pesticides and help preserve the availability of
existing ones. These incentives include expediting the review of data
submitted in support of a minor use, granting time extensions for
generating data, and giving those who invest in data development for
minor uses extended exclusive rights to the data. Careful consideration
is given to the data requirements needed to support minor uses to
minimize the burden of performing studies. EPA is acutely aware of the
uncertainties faced by minor crop growers, and will continue to work
with growers and registrants to focus attention on those situations
where limited crop protection alternatives exist.
Question 2. Has a monetary and crop impact study been done by the
EPA for the minor crop pesticides most likely to be eliminated? If not,
why not?
Response. The Agency has been working very closely with the USDA to
help identify use patterns for many pesticides that are currently under
review--not just those used on minor crops. Through the Tolerance
Reassessment Advisory Committee (TRAC) process, EPA has engaged crop
growers and their representatives regarding the importance of these
pesticides in production of their crops. We have made progress in
identifying minor use crops which are most reliant upon these
pesticides through these and other processes.
Where possible, the Agency prefers not to conduct complete impact
assessments for every minor crop pesticide as they are costly to
generate. Therefore, rather than generate impact assessments in all
instances, the Agency, while employing uniform criteria in its
decisionmaking, considers each potential assessment on a case-by-case
basis.
Question 3. Can products be left on the market until there are
adequate, acceptable, and cost-effective alternatives available to
growers?
Response. [No response provided by EPA.]
Question 4. Can the EPA take into consideration the discrepancies
between United States and Canadian pesticide regulations when
determining the policy on a particular pesticide?
Response. EPA's goal is to ensure that pesticide issues and
policies are negotiated and implemented to protect domestic interests,
and are, to the extent possible, compatible with its neighboring
countries. There are, however, growing trade concerns between United
States and Canadian farmers, some of which involve pesticides issues.
EPA is working to do all it can under current U.S. law to level the
playing field between farmers in the two countries. The Agency already
has underway a number of activities and projects, directed by the NAFTA
Technical Working Group (TWG) on pesticides, that foster pesticide
harmonization with Canada, including joint data reviews, development of
uniform protocols for data development, cooperative review of
chemicals, and extensive information sharing and consultation on trade
issues. EPA will also continue to accelerate ongoing efforts to
harmonize regulatory requirements and processes and to advance the
level of work sharing between the two countries.
Under the December 2, 1998 Record of Understanding between the
governments of the United States and Canada, the two countries have
committed to accelerate bilateral harmonization of pest control
products building on existing TWG work. As a result of these efforts,
there will be greater potential for faster and simultaneous access to a
wider range of pest control products for both major and minor crops in
both countries. The Agency is ready to work with USDA in the design and
to conduct a study on the extent and impact of pricing differentials
for pesticide products between the United States and Canada and
possible reasons for the differences.
Several bills have been drafted at the national (HR 4814 Canola
Pesticide Registration Harmonization Act) and State levels (North
Dakota House Bills No. 1335, 1252, 1360) which attempt to resolve
`level playing field' issues by making Canadian pesticides more
accessible to U.S. growers. EPA is reviewing the legislation with
particular attention to assuring that the bills do not conflict with
the requirement that all pesticides used and marketed in the United
States be fully registered under FIFRA.
Question 5. Do seed crops need to meet the same regulations as
crops used for food?
Response. This question can be read in several different ways and
depends on whether the Senator is referring to seeds that have been
treated with a pesticide prior to planting, or pesticide residues that
may occur in the seed from an earlier application of a pesticide to the
growing plant. In either case, if the seed will in any way be used for
food or feed, then it is considered a raw agricultural commodity and
any pesticide present must be within legal limits, that is, at or below
the established tolerance.
EPA is assuming that the question stems from the issue surrounding
the difficulty of U.S. canola growers who have acquired or ordered seed
from Canada treated with lindane, thiram and thiabendazole, pesticides
that are not registered in the United States. Under FIFRA, treated seed
may not be imported into the United States, unless either the treating
pesticide or the treated seed itself is registered in the United States
and appropriate tolerances (maximum legal pesticide residue limits) are
in place. Otherwise, EPA cannot be guaranteed that the treated seed
will not be used as food or feed, or once grown and the crop harvested,
unsafe levels of residues may otherwise be present in food for human
consumption. The answer to the above question is yes because the same
scenario and rationale applies to other food/feed commodities that have
been treated after harvest with a pesticide entering the country.
Without acceptable toxicology and dietary exposure data, and subsequent
U.S. registration, EPA cannot assure adequate protection for people
from potential exposure.
EPA is, however, taking steps to ensure that treated seed will not
continue to be an issue between the United States and Canada. The
Agency is accelerating the review and decisionmaking on pending
applications for new canola pesticides which should provide more pest
control tools for U.S. canola growers in the short term. A notice has
also been sent out to affected parties that informs everyone concerned
of our requirements, so that growers will be able to factor EPA
requirements into their purchase decisions for this upcoming growing
season. The Agency and Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency are
committed to work together to develop a harmonized policy for movement
of treated seeds by December 1999.
better america bonds initiative
Question 1. What specific criteria will be used to judge the plans
submitted by State and local governments? Will these criteria be
developed by the EPA or by State and localities?
Response. The three broad uses eligible for funding are open space
preservation, water quality improvements, and Brownfields assessments
and cleanups. Beyond that, no formal criteria have yet been developed.
Once Congress enacts the Better America Bonds portion of the
Administration's budget, EPA will work with the Federal agencies to
solicit suggestions for criteria from States, local government, land
trusts, conservation organizations, community development groups and
other stakeholders. EPA will develop the criteria in cooperation with
the other Federal agencies and in consultation with Congress.
Question 2. What type of compliance monitoring will be used by EPA?
For how long? What repercussions would there be for plans/projects
deemed out of compliance?
Response. Neither compliance monitoring procedures nor other
administrative components of the Better America Bonds have yet been
developed, pending Congressional action on the President's budget
However, we anticipate, as proposed in the Department of Treasury's
Greenbook, that the Internal Revenue Service would audit Better America
Bonds in a manner similar to their audits of tax-exempt bonds. If 95
percent of proceeds failed to be used for qualifying purpose or the use
of qualifying facilities changed to a disqualified use during the 15-
year period from time of issuance to final maturity, no further credits
would accrue and issuers would be obligated to reimburse the Federal
Government for any credits accruing prior to that date. If a settlement
cannot be reached with the issuer, the Federal Government would have
the right to recover past credits from bond holders. Problems like this
are very rare with respect to tax-exempt bonds and we expect that to be
the case with Better America Bonds.
Question 3. For lands purchased using Better America Bonds (BAB),
is public access to those lands ensured? Are such lands purchased
exclusively in willing-buyer, willing-seller situations?
Response. With two exceptions noted below, property acquired with
the proceeds of Better America Bonds could not be used privately.
Public access to lands acquired, for example, to preserve open space or
establish a public park would be controlled by State or local
governments in a manner consistent with the environmental objectives of
the project. Public access to some open spaces might be restricted to
wilderness camping while public parks might be open from dawn to dusk.
In general, however, bond proceeds cannot be used for property where
access is limited to a select portion of the public, for example, a
golf course open only to dub members. The exceptions to the general
rule that property financed with bond proceeds is not to be privately
used are: (1) Cases where proceeds are used to secure an easement on
open space that permits continuing private, but limited, use. For
example, bond proceeds might be used to secure an easement preventing
the commercial or residential development of farm or ranch land under
terms that allowed continued private farm or ranch use. (2) Where bond
proceeds are used to remediate brownfields owned by State or local
governments, subsequent private use of the site is permitted. For
example, an abandoned industrial facility acquired by a city because
the prior owner failed to pay property taxes could be remediated with
the use of bond proceeds, the property sold to a private developer for
commercial use under an arrangement that deposited installment payments
of the purchase price in a sinking fund to be used to retire the bond
at the end of 15 years.
Question 4. One of the open space priorities is stated as
preserving farmland. As a condition, the ``property must remain an open
space.'' Does this mean that land is taken out of agricultural
production?
Response. On page 3 of the Treasury Greenbook section entitled: Tax
Credits for Holders of Better America Bonds, the qualifying purposes
for BABs are defined as:
``(a) Acquisition of land for open space, wetlands, public
parks or greenways to be owned by an eligible issuer or by a
501(c)(3) entity whose exempt purpose includes environmental
preservation.
(b) Construction of visitor facilities, such as camp grounds
and hiking or biking trails, in connection with such acquired
land or other open space, wetlands, or parks that are owned by
an eligible issuer or by a 501(c)(3) entity whose exempt
purpose includes environmental preservation.
(c) Remediation of land acquired under (a above or of
publicly-owned land, wetlands, or parks (for example, for
enhancing water quality) by planting trees or other vegetation,
creating settling ponds to control runoff, undertaking
reasonable measures to control erosion or protect endangered
species, and remediating conditions caused by the prior
disposal of toxic or other waste.
(d) Acquisition of permanent easements on privately-owned open
land that prevents commercial development and any substantial
change in the use or character of the land. Such easements must
be in a form which, if contributed by the owner of the open
land, would qualify under section 170(h).
(e) Environmental assessment and remediation of contaminated
property--brownfields--owned by State or local governments
because it was abandoned by the prior owner, e.g., for non-
payment of taxes. The property would have to be an area at or
on which there has been a release (or threat of release) or
disposal of any hazardous substance within the meaning of
section 198. For this use and this use only, private use (by an
entity which is not a 501(c)(3) entity of proceeds as well as
private payment of bond principal is permitted. For example,
the cost of environmental remediation of such property could be
refinanced with BABs and the land subsequently sold to a
private entity with the proceed of the sale used to repay
principle through the use of a sinking fund. The Federal
Government would not be a qualifying private entity. No
expenditures financed with BAB proceeds would be eligible for
expensing under section 198.''
Using Better America Bond proceeds to acquire an easement on
farmland does not mean that the land would have to be taken out of use
for farming purposes. However, if open land were acquired outright with
bond proceeds, leasing that land for farming or other private purposes
would constitute an impermissible private use.
Question 5. The application process for bonds is described as
``open competitive'' with preference given to ``regional proposals
reflecting partnerships and comprehensive planning among local
governments.'' To what extent might this disadvantage applicants from
small, rural towns who do not have existing, developed planning and
zoning or any experience with this type of project? The award criteria
also emphasize partnerships between adjacent rural and urban
communities. Does this place isolated communities at a disadvantage?
Response. As mentioned above, the guidelines for evaluation have
not yet been developed. However we intend to encourage and facilitate
applications from all types of communities, including small, isolated,
and rural communities. We do not intend for this program to favor one
type of community over another. We will seek advice from these kinds of
communities as we further develop this program, and we welcome the
input of our colleagues on the Hill to address these issues.
Question 6. There are a great number of private landowners
struggling to meet ESA requirements on their land. Would they qualify
for any assistance under the Better America Bonds program?
Response. The qualifying purposes of the Better American Bonds are
defined above. The use of qualifying purpose `d' seems relevant--
[``Acquisition of permanent easements on privately-owned open land that
prevent commercial development and any substantial change in the use or
character of the land. Such easements must be in a form which, if
contributed by the owner of the open land, would qualify under section
I70(h).'']. This implies that Better America Bonds could help
landowners if the easements that resulted from the Better America Bonds
purchase would contribute to meeting requirements established under the
Endangered Species Act, in addition to meeting a purpose of the broad
program Again, however, no specific criteria have yet been developed,
do we do not have a definite answer yet.
______
Responses by Administrator Browner to Additional Questions From
Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
proposed storm water phase ii regulations
Question 1. The proposed Phase II storm water regulations will
bring under their coverage thousands of counties and cities which
handle runoff rainwater through above-ground vegetated drainage
ditches. These open ditches, under the proposed regulations, will be
categorized as ``municipal separate Storm water systems,'' even though
in States like Texas and the arid West, the ditches are usually dry.
Why are dry ditches to be defined as municipal separate Storm water
systems, and why are their local governments to be brought into the net
of coverage under proposed Storm water regulation?
Response. EPA designated municipal separate storm sewer systems as
sources needing regulation based on the demonstrated water quality
impairments associated with population densities and urbanized areas.
As discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule, urban storm water is
identified as a major source of water quality impairment in streams,
rivers, lakes, and estuaries because it may contain or mobilize high
levels of contaminants such as sediment, suspended soils, nutrients,
heavy metals, pathogens, toxins, and floatables. Although many of the
municipal separate storm sewer systems covered under Phase II may have
vegetated ditches as part of their systems, such ditches are typically
part of a complex arrangement of conveyances designed to collect and
transport storm water. Even ditches that remain dry for a significant
portion of the year will discharge storm water during periods of rain.
The storm water control programs in the proposed rule focus on
pollution prevention rather than end of pipe treatment controls. The
control provisions are more preventative than remedial. Therefore,
prevention of pollution is a year-round activity, including during dry
seasons.
The proposed rule was developed with a Federal advisory committee
(under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA)). Membership included
representatives from Texas, as well as others from Western and
Southwestern States. EPA proposed only to require coverage for those
municipal separate Storm systems located in highly populated urbanized
areas, because the Agency considered them to be among the most
significant sources of Storm water runoff not covered by the Storm
Water Phase I regulations. The proposed regulations were written in
such a way as to allow considerable flexibility on the part of local
governments in determining the specific measures necessary to address
Storm water runoff in their individual communities. Thus, communities
should take into account the design of their Storm sewer systems, as
well as the frequency and intensity of rainfall in their respective
geographic areas, in determining how to implement the Phase II program.
Question 2. The proposed Phase II storm water regulations seem to
be designed for urbanized areas that have a lot of commercial and
residential development, as well as high rainfall. In my State, as well
as the rest of the arid West, we have a lot of low density,
unincorporated suburban fringe areas which receive very low rainfall,
and handle any storms with above-ground vegetated road ditches. The
runoff from these ditches is not noticeably different from background
conditions, yet the local governments in these areas will be required
to undertake a wide variety of mandated activities at great cost.
Why does the proposed regulation treat all parts of the country the
same, regardless of rainfall levels, type of topography and type of
drainage systems?
Response. The rule does not require that all parts of the country
be managed in the same fashion. Although the proposed rule covers
municipal separate Storm sewer systems located in urbanized areas
throughout the country, it is flexible enough to allow local
governments that operate Storm sewer systems to tailor their programs
to local circumstances. The rule would not require coverage for areas
of low density; only those that are designated as within urbanized
areas by the Census Bureau (population density at least 1,000 per
square mile, total population 50,000 or greater).
Even in areas of low rainfall, Storm water runoff can have
significant impacts on water quality as a result of various
constituents in the discharge. Storm water carries with it accumulated
sediment, debris and toxic pollutants that threatens aquatic life even
in water bodies in normally ``dry'' areas of the country. Because local
Storm sewers provide a system for rapid conveyance of pollutants
whenever it rains, the resulting programs are designed to reduce
pollutants to the maximum extent practicable. Control programs are
necessary to reduce and prevent pollution year round. The proposed rule
nevertheless specifically contemplates waivers for construction
activity in areas of low rainfall, including activity that would either
be conducted or regulated by municipalities.
The proposed rule would require municipal separate Storm sewer
systems to conduct or participate in a program that includes public
education and involvement, prohibition of illicit discharges, control
of runoff from construction sites and post-construction phase
development, and pollution prevention measures for municipal operations
that relate to storm water. The proposal allows considerable
flexibility and local determination in the appropriate management
practices to be selected and in determining who may conduct these
activities on behalf of the municipalities. Municipalities should take
into consideration rainfall, topography, and type of drainage system,
as well as other factors, such as service area population, commercial
and industrial activity contributing to their system, and cost
effectiveness of specific best management practices, in developing a
program that best suits their needs.
confined animal feeding operations (cafos)
Question 1. Is there an economically feasible test for these
requirements in the Strategy or, at minimum, a cost analysis looking at
the impact these requirements would have on small, medium and large
operations?
Response. The USDA-EPA Unified National Strategy for Animal Feeding
Operations is not a new regulation nor is it a substitute for existing
Federal regulations and it does not impose any binding requirements on
USDA, EPA, the States, Tribes, localities, or the regulated community.
The Strategy is a framework of actions that USDA and EPA plan to take
over a multi-year timeframe under existing legal authorities and
initially under existing regulatory authorities, to minimize the water
quality and public health impacts of improperly managed animal wastes.
It is targeted at large operations (+ 1,000 animal units) and
facilities either causing water quality or public health problems, or
that pose a significant risk of doing so. The Strategy does indicate
that EPA intends to review and revise, as appropriate, existing
regulations as they pertain to animal feeding operations (AFOs),
consistent with the court-ordered deadlines in its consent decree with
NRDC. EPA will estimate the costs and benefits associated with any
proposed rulemaking consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act,
Regulatory Flexibility Act, Executive Order 12806, and other
appropriate requirements.
We believe that many producers are effectively managing their
animal wastes. For 95 percent of AFOs, a variety of voluntary programs
provide the technical and financial assistance to help producers meet
technical standards and remain economically viable. Animal feeding
operations that do not have good management practices will bear the
greatest costs in developing and implementing comprehensive nutrient
management plans. The Strategy emphasizes that the existing regulatory
program focus permitting and enforcement priorities on large facilities
and high risk operations, estimated to be approximately 5 percent of
AFOs.
Question 2. How has EPA planned on addressing the massive economic
burden these requirements will place on States with delegated
authority? Will EPA be evaluating the States that have delegated
authority to determine whether they have the resources to carry out the
Strategy?
Response. States and Tribes play a critical role in the development
and implementation of national and State and Tribal resource protection
programs. USDA and EPA are committed to working in partnership with
States and Tribes. USDA and EPA believe the need for a national goal
and performance expectation for AFOs can be balanced with the need for
flexibility to address the various needs and priorities of the States
and Tribes, including coordination with other clean water programs.
In the case of the regulatory program for concentrated animal
feeding operations (CAFOs), 44 States are authorized to implement
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting and
enforcement activities. As part of the NPDES authorization process,
States need to demonstrate that they have adequate resources, as well
as appropriate legal and regulatory authorities, to carry out the NPDES
program. In recognition of NPDES-authorized States' differing
circumstances, the Strategy does, however, provide several types of
flexibility.
First, EPA recognizes that some States may be implementing non-
NPDES permitting programs under State laws that meet or exceed the
requirements of, and therefore, are functionally equivalent to the
NPDES program. Where an NPDES-authorized State indicates an interest in
amending its NPDES program authorization to incorporate ongoing or new
regulatory approaches for CAFOs that meet or exceed the NPDES
requirements, EPA is willing to work closely with the State to amend
its authorization.
Second, because of differences in workload and resources among
authorized States, EPA is providing flexibility for States in the
issuance of permits for CAFOs with fewer than 1,000 animal units (AUs).
While NPDES-authorized States are expected to issue general permits to
the largest CAFOs (greater than 1,000 AUs) by January 2000, States will
have until the end of 2002 to issue permits to CAFOs with fewer than
1,000 AUs where the situation warrants. EPA acknowledges that some
States may even need additional time beyond 2002 to issue permits for
smaller CAFOs.
A final area of flexibility relates to the schedule for issuing
individual permits to certain CAFOs. Although these individual permits
should be issued as expeditiously as possible, EPA and States should
consider State-specific circumstances such as the total number of CAFOs
with greater than 1,000 AUs, the need to issue individual permits to
new or exceptionally large facilities, and the availability of
technical assistance for development of comprehensive nutrient
management plans. States may give permitting priority to impaired water
bodies (such as 303(d) listed waters or those identified in State water
quality management plans). In addition, where a State develops an NPDES
program that provides for a comprehensive response to environmental
issues at CAFOs, EPA will defer to an authorized State's judgment with
respect to the use of individual or general permits.
In addition to this flexibility, the Administrator requested and
Congress provided an additional $20 million for Section 106 Grants for
States and Tribes for fiscal year 1999 as part of the Clean Water
Action Plan (CWAP) budget initiative. This funding was requested in
recognition of the extra workload that the CWAP places on States and
Tribes, including that of the AFO Strategy. The President's fiscal year
2000 budget maintains the fiscal year 1999 funding level, for a total
of $115.5 million for Section 106 Grants.
food quality protection act (fqpa)
Question 1. Should the Agency make final decisions on the risks and
continued availability of important crop protection products before the
procedures for establishing the basis for the registration decision
have all been reviewed and commented on by the affected parties?
Shouldn't the Agency consider any decisions made before the procedure
for evaluation, particularly before the science policies are finalized,
as no more than interim if decisions on certain products are made
before the procedures and policies are in at least an interim final
form? How can farmers, registrants and others effectively interact with
the Agency and plan for the future if the registration and evaluation
process is not clearly understood?
Response. Before FQPA, EPA had embarked on a new era of increased
openness and accountability in the way it does business. As it moves
forward with FQPA implementation, EPA is committed to a process
allowing for broad stakeholder input. The Agency wants to make every
effort to see that its policies and decisions are developed in an open
and transparent manner. Immediately after the law was signed, EPA
established the Food Safety Advisory Committee (FSAC) to provide input
on our interim approach to risk assessment and to help us prioritize
implementation activities. This group was comprised of a wide range of
parties representing industry, environmental groups, growers, and
Congress.
The FSAC assisted EPA in initiating an interim decision logic to
ensure continuation of registering and reregistering pesticide
chemicals while science policies were being worked out. The Agency is
currently utilizing its draft science polices in its decisions with the
full knowledge that, as these policies get further refined, some
decisions may need to be revisited. EPA expects to have virtually all
science policies finalized and in place before any risk management
decisions are made.
EPA is working with the Department of Agriculture to ensure that
implementation of FQPA is informed by a sound regulatory approach, by
appropriate input from affected members of the public, and by due
regard for the needs of agricultural producers. The Tolerance
Reassessment Advisory Committee (TRAC), chaired by EPA Acting Deputy
Administrator Peter Robertson and USDA Deputy Secretary Richard
Rominger, seeks advice and consultation from affected user, producer,
consumer, public health, environmental, industry, and other interested
groups. TRAC has been instrumental in opening up the decisionmaking
process.
EPA is very aware that its decisions can have real effects on
farmers and other pesticide users. The final two TRAC meetings
(scheduled for April and June 1999) will focus on ways to get grower
input on practical, feasible, and affordable risk mitigation measures.
EPA's risk assessments will attempt to identify those crops/uses that
are driving the risk, so that the Agency and the growers can work
together to devise realistic solutions. All decisions will be
communicated clearly to Congress, farmers, and other stakeholders. The
challenge everyone faces is in establishing an orderly process that
will allow EPA to meet the mandates of FQPA while ensuring that
producers have access to tools they need to ensure a wholesome,
adequate, and safe food supply. The Agency is actively working with
growers, the Department of Agriculture, registrants, and the research
community to ease this transition so that as older products leave the
marketplace new methods become available.
Question 2. In preparing decisions under FQPA, to what extent is
the Agency relying on worst-case, default assumptions when there are
data-gaps? Is the Agency prepared to issue data call ins or consult
USDA when data gaps exist?
Response. While EPA is always interested in new information that
could help it refine its analyses, the Agency already has a wealth of
reliable data upon which to evaluate these chemicals. In making
decisions on tolerances, EPA relies on actual data generated by the
registrant, other agencies such as USDA, and from the scientific
literature, supplemented with scientifically reviewed models, not on
default values based on worst-case assumptions. For example, EPA's
approach to addressing drinking water exposure uses groundwater and
surface water monitoring data when these are available, reliable and
appropriate for this purpose. When monitoring data are not available,
EPA uses screening procedures using mathematical models and known
properties to identify those pesticides with low or no potential for
contaminating drinking water at levels of concern to human health.
These procedures enable us to identify, with a high degree of
confidence, those pesticides that have a very low likelihood of getting
into drinking water at levels of concern to human health.
EPA has had broad authority to call-in new data under FIFRA for
many years, which FQPA extended to also include data needed under
FFDCA. This authority to call-in needed data has been one of the
Agency's most powerful tools, and we will certainly use it if necessary
to complete tolerance reassessments. Whenever possible, the Agency
makes decisions based on the wealth of reliable data already at its
disposal. As some data may take 2-3 years to gather and review under a
data call-in, EPA believes it would not be in everyone's best interest
to wait for additional data if available data is sufficient to make a
decision. A broad data call-in would force all companies to generate
data whether or not the data would support the retention of their
approved uses.
Question 3. Approximately 7 months remain until the statutory
deadline for the Agency to review \1/3\ of all tolerances. In the
absence of transparent regulatory and science procedures, is it
realistic to expect the Agency to meet the deadline using reliable
data, sound science and appropriate interaction between registrants,
users, consumers and the EPA?
Response. EPA expects to meet the FQPA goal of reassessing 33
percent of all food tolerances by August 1999. To date, of the 9,728
tolerances subject to reassessment, EPA has reassessed 2,308
tolerances, of which 999, or about 43 percent, are for the high
priority chemicals, i.e., the organophosphates (OPs), carbamates,
organochlorines, and probable carcinogens. The Agency expects to
reassess approximately 1,000 more tolerances by August to surpass the
33 percent goal. Given the complexities of refining risk assessments,
not all of the high priority chemicals will be complete by that time
despite the amount of resources spent so far. Instead, this first third
will consist of reassessments from tolerance revocations,
reregistrations, and registration actions. So far, 28 preliminary risk
assessments for organophosphate pesticides have been released for
public comment. The remaining 15 preliminary risk assessments will be
released for comment between now and May 1999.
EPA goes to great lengths to ensure that all of its advisory
committees include a cross-section of viewpoints, including
environmental, public interest groups, registrants, and growers. The
Tolerance Reassessment Advisory Committee (TRAC) provided EPA and USDA
with guidance on an approach for reassessing tolerances, beginning with
the organophosphate pesticides, that allows for much greater
transparency and opportunity to participate in both our risk assessment
and our risk management processes. In many cases, the public comment
process is providing additional health and environmental effects data,
use data, or other relevant information which EPA is using to refine
the risk assessments.
The Agency presents complex scientific issues and risk assessment
approaches to the Science Advisory Panel (SAP), and we will continue to
seek outside peer review of significant science policy issues. These
policies are also presented to the public at numerous forums and have,
or will be, published in the Federal Register and posted on the
Internet to receive public comments. EPA expects to begin a public
comment period on risk management for the first of the organophosphate
pesticides in the spring or early summer of this year. The comment
periods will allow for discussion and examination of both risk
mitigation measures and possible transition processes to alternative
pest control approaches where needed. EPA and USDA are working on the
best ways to start this second phase of organophosphate tolerance
reassessment and will be consulting with the TRAC at its upcoming
meetings.
environmental review for colonia wastewater treatment
assistance program
Question 1. Until recently, the Texas Water Development Board has
conducted all environmental reviews for Colonia Wastewater Treatment
Assistance Program projects. The EPA has now decided that the State
environmental review process would no longer be used for the Colonia
Wastewater Treatment Assistance Program and that EPA's Region 6 office
would retain final authority in approving these projects. This has
resulted in some delays with Colonia projects.
What was the rationale behind this decision and what can be done to
help ensure that timely environmental reviews are done on Colonia
projects to ensure that there are no more delays with these important
projects?
Response. Based upon questions that arose regarding the application
of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to infrastructure
projects funded by the Colonia Wastewater Treatment Assistance Program,
EPA reviewed the matter and determined that NEPA does in fact apply to
almost all of the State and Tribal Assistance Grant (STAG) projects
funded by the various Appropriations Acts, including the colonias
projects. This determination is based upon a January 20, 1995,
memorandum from the Agency's Office of Federal Activities (attached).
While EPA must conduct its own, independent review of these
projects under NEPA, in most cases the work conducted by the State
agency, in this case the Texas Water Development Board, is incorporated
and is a major basis of EPA's NEPA evaluation. While there is currently
no backlog of NEPA reviews, staffing reassignments have been made in an
effort to reduce the current 136 day average review time for a colonia
project to no more than 90 days.
______
Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC, January 20, 1995.
MEMORANDUM:
SUBJECT: NEPA Guidance for Special Wastewater Treatment Projects in the
Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation Bill
FROM: Richard E. Sanderson, Director, Office of Federal Activities
(2252)
TO: NEPA Coordinators
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide guidance on the
requirements for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) for special projects authorized for EPA grant funding by the
Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriations Act (Act). The Act appropriated ``no-
year'' money to fund special wastewater treatment projects identified
by Congress. Each region has projects on this list. The list is
included in the attached copy of the guidance memorandum prepared by
the Office of Water Management (OWM).
The OWM memorandum indicates that NBPA applies to all of these
projects except the three to be funded as Clean Water Act (CWA) section
104(b)(3) demonstration projects. These three are exempted from NEPA
under the CWA section 511(c). The Office of General Counsel (OGC) has
prepared an ``Analysis of NEPA applicability to special grants
authorized by fiscal year 1995 Appropriations Act.'' This analysis is
also attached.
ofa guidance to regional nepa coordinators
An independent EPA NEPA analysis for the non-demonstration projects
is required. In addition, other cross-cutting Federal statutes, such as
the Endangered Species Act and the National Historic Preservation Act,
also apply to these projects. The Council on Environmental Quality's
(CEQ) NEPA regulations do not allow EPA to adopt a State analysis.
However, the NEPA regulations do require agencies to ``cooperate with
State and local agencies to the fullest extent possible to reduce
duplication between NEPA and State and local requirements . . .'' (40
CFR 1506.2). There are several ways the regions can use the existing
information and assessments for these projects as summarized below and
as discussed in greater detail in the attached OGC analysis. In all
cases, EPA must independently evaluate the State documentation and
review process and is responsible for the accuracy of the NEPA
documentation and the adequacy of the process (40 CFR 1506.5).
Where States have performed environmental reviews under
NEPA-like statutes or pursuant to State Revolving Fund regulations, EPA
can incorporate, but not simply adopt, the State analysis into the
Agency's NEPA analysis.
Where State reviews have found no significant impacts and
EPA approves of that finding and the State process, EPA may issue an
environmental assessment (EA) summarizing and reverencing the State
analysis and an accompanying Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).
Where State reviews have found significant impacts or EPA
independently determines that there are significant impacts, EPA must
issue a notice of intent and proceed with an environmental impact
statement (EIS) and record of decision (ROD) in accordance with the
Agency's regulations at 40 CFR Part 6.
Where construction of projects is complete or nearly
completed, a NEPA analysis will not have to be done.
Where construction has started and the project is not
nearly completed, a NEPA analysis is required and a notification of
intent to pursue an independent analysis must be sent to the grantee.
Where projects to be funded have been ongoing for several
years, additional assessment may not be required if prior federal NEPA
documentation has addressed the portions of the project to be funded by
the fiscal year 1995 grant. The region will need to assure that since
the previous assessment: (1) there are no substantial changes in the
proposed action relevant to environmental concerns, or (2) there are no
significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental
concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts.
If the NEPA analysis was carried out under an earlier construction
grant action and is no longer adequate or the project has not
previously been assessed by EPA, it will be necessary to issue either
an EA/FONSI or an EIS/ROD. The regulations applicable to these special
project grants are the CEQ regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508) and
EPA's NEPA regulations (40 CFR Part 6, Subparts A-D). EPA's regulations
at 40 CFR Part 6, Subpart E, while they do not apply to these special
project grants, may provide additional guidance.
We anticipate that additional issues or sub-issues may arise which
are not fully treated in this general guidance memorandum. These should
be brought to our attention as soon as possible. In addition, we have
scheduled a teleconference on Tuesday, January 24, 1995 from 11:00 am.
to 12:00 noon eastern standard time to discuss this guidance and
additional issues or concerns with the process. The call-in number is
(202) 260-4257. We look forward to your participation. Please inform
John Gerba (202/260-5910) if you or your staff will not be on the call.
______
Responses by Administrator Browner to Additional Questions From Senator
Frank R. Lautenberg
superfund
Question 1. Please describe the Superfund program today, as
compared with 6 years ago when Congress began debate on comprehensive
legislation. In your answer, specify progress in the program over the
past 6 years, including progress in getting sites cleaned up and
improvements made in program implementation.
Response. The Superfund program is making significant progress in
cleaning up hazardous waste sites and protecting public health and the
environment to ensure a fairer, more effective, and more efficient
program. Since 1993, the Agency has initiated three rounds of
Administrative Reforms whose major goals have been to make common-
sense, cost-effective cleanup choices; reduce litigation by increasing
fairness; and help governments, communities and industry become more
informed and involved in the decisionmaking process.
Through the Administrative Reforms, EPA has significantly changed
how the Superfund program operates. We have made considerable progress
in cleaning up sites on the National Priorities List (NPL). We have
gone from cleaning up 65 sites per year to cleaning up 85 sites per
year. As of September 30, 1998, approximately 89 percent of the NPL
sites have had cleanup activities, are construction complete, or have
cleanup underway:
585 (41 percent) Superfund sites have reached construction
completion.
457 (32 percent) Superfund sites have cleanup construction
underway;
An additional 209 (15 percent) sites have had or are
undergoing a removal cleanup action.
In addition, approximately 990 NPL sites have final cleanup plans
approved, and approximately 5,500 removal actions have been taken at
hazardous waste sites to immediately reduce the threat to public health
and the environment. Responsible parties continue to perform
approximately 70 percent of new remedial work at NPL sites. More than
30,900 sites have been removed from the Superfund inventory of
potentially hazardous waste sites to help promote the economic
redevelopment of these properties. By the end of fiscal year 1998, EPA
awarded 227 Brownfields Pilot grants to facilitate productive reuse at
sites.
The accelerated pace of cleanup is demonstrable. In only 2 years,
fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998, EPA completed construction at
175 sites----
Which is more than during the entire first 12 years of the
program (149 sites)
One hundred and twenty-eight (73 percent) of these 175
sites are designated enforcement lead, demonstrating the success of
both the ``enforcement first'' policy and the numerous enforcement
reforms.
One hundred and eleven (63 percent) of these 175 sites
were added to the NPL during the 1990's. Completion of these sites in
less than 8 years reflects improvements in the pace of Superfund
cleanups and demonstrates how the reforms have worked together to make
Superfund more efficient.
Remedy reforms have made the Superfund program faster and more
efficient, resulting in EPA completing construction of 87 NPL sites in
fiscal year 1998. Other noteworthy achievements include the 30 site
decisions reviewed by the National Remedy Review Board, resulting in an
estimated savings of $43 million; updating more than 200 remedies over
a 3-year period, based on changes in science and technology resulting
in a projected savings of over $1 billion; evaluating more than 150
projects since the establishment of the Risk-Based Priority Panel, and
establishing Community Advisory Groups at 47 non-Federal sites (more
than 100 already exist at Federal facilities). EPA has worked with
potentially responsible parties to obtain over $15 billion in
commitments to conduct response work and reimburse Agency costs, saving
taxpayers' money.
Liability reforms have made Superfund fairer. EPA has collected
over $399 million, established 115 Special Accounts, and accrued over
$69 million in interest for a total of $468 million. The Agency has
removed 18,000 small contributors from the Superfund liability system.
EPA offered approximately $145 million in orphan share compensation at
72 sites. In addition, EPA has referred close to 100 Prospective
Purchaser Agreements to the Department of Justice; of these, close to
90 are final agreements. These agreements will facilitate the cleanup
and reuse of contaminated properties.
Our accomplishments in protecting human health and the environment
are significant. Environmental indicators show that the Superfund
program continues making progress in hazardous waste cleanup, reducing
both ecological and human health risks posed by dangerous chemicals in
the air, soil, and water. The Superfund program has cleaned over 132
million cubic yards of hazardous soil, solid waste and sediment and
over 341 billion gallons of hazardous liquid-based waste, groundwater,
and surface water. In addition, the program has supplied over 350,000
people at NPL and non-NPL sites with alternative water supplies in
order to protect them from contaminated groundwater and surface water.
Over 14,300 people at NPL and non-NPL sites have been relocated in
instances where contamination posed the most severe immediate threats.
States and Indian tribes are key partners in the cleanup of
Superfund hazardous waste sites. Since 1995, States and Tribes have
submitted letters in support of NPL listings for 123 sites under our
State concurrence policy. In addition, with the May 1998 release of the
``Plan to Enhance the Role of States and Tribes in the Superfund
Program,'' the Superfund program has provided opportunities for
increased State and tribal involvement in the program. As a result, 14
pilot projects with States and tribes have been initiated.
Question 2. Describe projections for future progress under
Superfund, including the number of cleanups expected by the end of this
Congress.
Response. The Superfund program is a fairer, more effective, and
more efficient program as a result of our Administrative Reforms which
will continue in fiscal years 1999 and 2000. The Superfund program will
continue its emphasis on completing construction at sites on the
National Priorities List (NPL) (85 completions per year for a
cumulative total of 755 by the end of fiscal year 2000), and conducting
removal response actions (300). About 60 percent will have construction
completed, almost 30 percent with remediated construction underway, and
an additional 5 percent will have initiated physical cleanup action
(removals) to mitigate threats to human health. The program will
continue to employ Administrative Reforms to ensure a fairer, more
effective, and more efficient program. The program will also work with
the States, tribes, and local governments, the surrounding communities,
and potentially responsible parties, both Federal and private, to
leverage resources and to assure the successful implementation of the
Superfund program.
The Superfund program plans to exceed the Agency target of 650
construction completion sites during fiscal year 1999, 1 year earlier
than originally expected. In addition, the Administration recently
announced our target of 925 NPL sites ``construction completed'' by the
end of 2002. By 2005, EPA expects to complete construction at 1180
sites.
Question 3. Is major reform legislation needed to achieve the above
projections, or to maintain progress and achieve cleanups of the
remaining sites.
Response. Because of the success of our Administrative Reforms,
Superfund cleanups are faster, fairer and more efficient. Our goal
should be to build on this success and complete cleanups as quickly as
we can. We do not need comprehensive legislation to achieve this goal,
although targeted legislative changes may be helpful.
Because of our Administrative Reforms, EPA has accomplished a great
deal of cleanup activities in recent years. By the end of the 106th
Congress, 61 percent of the non-Federal facility sites on the NPL will
be construction complete and fully 90 percent will be construction
complete or have construction underway and another 5 percent will have
had removals to mitigate the threats, to human health. EPA is on track
to finish cleanup at most current NPL sites by 2005. From 1980 to 1993
only 155 sites had been cleaned up; today cleanup construction has been
completed at 585 sites. In the last 6 years EPA has cleaned up three
times as many sites as in the first 12 years of Superfund.
Liability reforms have made Superfund fairer. EPA has settled with
over 18,000 de minimis parties, offered $145 million in orphan share
funding, eliminated open-ended cleanup obligations in model consent
decrees, capped the liability of large municipal waste generators and
signed nearly 100 prospective purchaser agreements to spur
redevelopment.
Remedy reforms have made Superfund faster and more efficient. We
have shortened cleanups by 20 percent, updated remedies to save over $1
billion, required treatment for toxic hot spots (using treatment in
less than 50 percent of remedies in 1997), and used newer phased
approaches for cleaning up groundwater.
Given this progress, legislation should focus on those changes that
could be helpful to continuing our progress. Legislation to support the
President's request is needed to reinstate the Superfund taxes, and
provide EPA with access to mandatory spending. As part of Superfund
reauthorization, the Administration would support targeted liability
relief for qualified parties that build upon the current success of the
Superfund program. The Administration would support provisions that
address:
prospective purchasers of contaminated property
innocent landowners
contiguous property owners, and
small municipal waste generators and transporters
______
Responses by Administrator Browner to Additional Questions From
Senator Bob Graham
methyl bromide
Question 1. How much has the Environmental Protection Agency
budgeted in fiscal year 2000 for programs supporting the USDA work to
identify an alternative for methyl bromide?
Response. About one full-time equivalent, $150,000 in grant funds
to support farmer-led testing of alternatives in a real-world, on-farm
situations, and to support an annual conference for growers on research
into alternatives to methyl bromide, and about $100,000 in contractual
support for background work on alternatives to methyl bromide, use
statistics, and associated information pertaining to the phaseout of
methyl bromide.
Question 2. What changes have been made to the EPA program based on
last year's extension of the production phase-out date from 2000 [2001]
to 2005?
Response. EPA is now formulating the necessary regulations to
implement recent Congressional changes to the Clean Air Act. The main
step in this rulemaking process is the step-wise phase down from the
1991 baseline, 25 percent in 1999, 50 percent in 2001, 70 percent in
2003, and 100 percent in 2005. EPA will also be working with
appropriate stakeholders in the formulation of the necessary exemptions
for quarantine and pre-shipment uses, as well as critical agricultural
uses after 2005. The proposal for the 1999 25 percent phase down was
published in February 1999, and we expect to issue the final regulation
soon. Regulations for the additional phase down steps will be proposed
later in 1999. In addition, EPA is now working with the Department of
Agriculture, Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Trade
Representative in the formulation of the necessary regulations to allow
methyl bromide to be exempted for quarantine and pre-shipment uses.
Question 3. Can you describe the role of the EPA in the new
coordinating committee between EPA and USDA on methyl bromide
alternatives research? How supportive is EPA of this endeavor?
Response. EPA and USDA are now conducting a series of working
meetings to define specific tasks that must be accomplished to assure
that farmers have alternatives to methyl bromide by the final phaseout
date. These meetings examine the specific uses of methyl bromide, what
the best alternatives to those uses are likely to be, and any
regulatory barriers that may exist which need to be overcome to insure
those alternatives are fully available to the U.S. agricultural
community. This committee will look at specific crops in Florida,
California, and other States that currently use methyl bromide as an
integral part of their production system. The committee will produce a
set of action items later this spring that will guide both EPA and USDA
in the overall effort of insuring that American farmers have access to
good alternatives to methyl bromide. EPA is fully supportive of these
efforts, and is providing direct support to assure the goals of the
committee are met.
Question 4. How is EPA working to insure that individual growers
understand the challenges they will face with the production phase-out
of methyl bromide.
Response. Since 1992, EPA has had a comprehensive outreach program
covering the main issues of the methyl bromide phaseout. A five-point
program now provides information on why EPA is phasing out methyl
bromide, when it will no longer be available, what alternatives are
available to replace the use of this pesticide, and how current users
can continue to produce food and fiber without methyl bromide. Included
in this program are: (1) a newsletter which is updated and distributed
to methyl bromide users and other interested stakeholders periodically;
(2) the publication and distribution of thirty documented case studies
that describe alternatives to methyl bromide; (3) a web site in
operation since 1995 that provides all relevant information on the
phaseout, including the 30 documented case studies that describe good
alternatives to methyl bromide; (4) field visits and farmer group
speaking engagements in areas where significant methyl bromide is used;
and (5) support of an annual conference on methyl bromide alternatives.
With the extension of the phaseout date, EPA will continue these
programs to insure the American agriculture community is informed of
new developments related to methyl bromide.
Question 5. Do you anticipate that the current level of funding for
alternatives research at the USDA will produce a viable alternative for
methyl bromide in time for the production phaseout?
Response. We defer to USDA on whether the current level of funding
for research into alternatives for methyl bromide is sufficient to
develop viable alternatives.
The USDA Agricultural Research Service has been funding research of
alternatives to the use of methyl bromide for several years. This
research must continue to insure that adequate alternatives are in
place by the phaseout date of 2005. The fiscal year 2000 Budget
proposes $15 million, the same level as fiscal year 1999 Enacted, to
continue this important research effort.
Question 6. How do the cumulative expenditures at EPA since the
adoption of production phase-out dates for methyl bromide compare with
the expenditures on other ozone-depleting substances from the time
production phase-out dates were adopted through the phase-out deadline?
Response. Our records do not allow a detailed comparative
assessment of cumulative expenditures on a pollutant-by-pollutant
basis. Generally, however, it is reasonable to assume that current
levels of comparative funding may well have been characteristic of past
expenditures, which would put investment in methyl bromide phaseout and
alternatives at about 10-15 percent of overall expenditures on all
other stratospheric ozone depleting compounds combined. This excludes
funding earmarked by Congress for a Multilateral Fund of the Montreal
Protocol.
______
Responses by Administrator Browner to Additional Questions From
Senator Barbara Boxer
food quality protection act (fqpa)
Question 1. The Food Quality Protection Act requires EPA to apply
an additional tenfold margin of safety, a so-called ``10x factor,'' in
the establishment of pesticide tolerances when data with respect to
exposure or toxicity of infants and children to a given pesticide is
lacking.
Although EPA has apparently acknowledged that such data,
particularly developmental neurotoxicity tests, are lacking for most
organophosphates, I understand that EPA has not consistently applied a
10x factor in its review of such pesticides. Is this accurate? And if
so, what is the justification for not applying the 10x factor to its
review of organophosphates given the lack of these neurotoxicity tests?
Response. [No response was provided by EPA.]
Question 2. In its FQPA work to reestablish pesticide tolerances,
how many times has EPA applied the 10x factor referred to above? Has
EPA issued any guidance or policy rationale concerning the
implementation of the 10x factor?
Response. Through March 1, 1999 the following are the number of
Agency tolerance decisions and the appropriate safety factor employed.
These numbers reflect a total of 120 tolerance decisions for
conventional pesticide active ingredients (excluding biopesticides and
antimicrobials) resulting from new registration petitions, emergency
exemption requests, and reregistration actions.
The Agency retained the tenfold safety factor for 15
active ingredient decisions;
The Agency applied a threefold safety factor for 15 active
ingredient decisions; and
Based on reliable available data, the Agency was able to
remove the additional tenfold safety factor for 90 active ingredient
decisions.
EPA has been working with the Tolerance Reassessment Advisory
Committee (TRAC) and others to ensure that its science policies, risk
assessments, and decision processes are transparent and open to public
participation. Important to these discussions is the identification of
nine science policy issues believed key to the implementation of FQPA
and tolerance reassessment. The Agency will publish these policies in
draft form and will provide the public opportunity to comment. The
major science policy issue related to the 10x safety factor is
establishment of appropriate, clear, and transparent criteria for
retaining or otherwise modifying the additional tenfold factor.
Determination of what constitutes a complete and reliable data set for
toxicology and exposure data to assess risks to children is also
important in making these decisions.
In February 1998, the Administrator convened an intra-agency
workgroup to examine policy concerning the 10x safety factor, including
information needed to determine the toxicity and exposure of pesticides
to infants and children. This workgroup was charged to look at such
issues as establishing procedures for consistency and documentation;
ensuring the adequacy of the data for decisionmaking; and establishing
criteria for applying the factor. In March 1998, EPA brought draft
interim guidance on the application of the 10x safety factor to the
Science Advisory Panel (SAP). The Agency then refined and clarified its
policy to address Panelists' comments. EPA's revised evaluation
criteria and decision process were presented again to the SAP in
December. Present at the December SAP meeting was the intra-agency's
draft report. The intra-agency workgroup recommended the adoption of
toxicity tests not currently required. If EPA accepts this
recommendation it may be necessary to revisit its interim decisions.
In March 1999, EPA plans to release for public comment several
documents on its proposed 10x policy. The first, entitled ``10x Task
Force and the Office of Pesticide Programs' Guidance Documents,'' will
contain criteria and procedures for making determination on whether and
how to apply the additional safety factor. In the second document,
``Standard Operating Procedures for the Use of the FQPA Factor,'' EPA
will develop detailed, working level guidance for applying the policy
established in the 10x guidance documents. The public will have 60-days
to comment after which EPA will revise the policies, if warranted. An
August 1999 date is projected for the final versions and ultimate
adoption of a standard policy. If the final policy is notably different
from EPA's interim approach to applying the tenfold safety factor,
affected decisions will be reevaluated to ensure thorough protection
for infants and children.
Question 3. In its recently released report, ``Do You Know What
You're Eating: An Analysis of U.S. Government Data on Pesticide
Residues In Foods,'' Consumers Union found that fruits and vegetables
often contain pesticide residues that are unsafe for children. For
example, residues of the pesticide methyl parathion on peaches and
other foods was found to exceed the safe dose for children by as much
as 125 times.
What does EPA plan to do in the 1999 growing season to reduce the
clear risk that methyl parathion poses to children?
Response. Although some have questioned the scientific validity of
Consumers Union's analysis, EPA has not reviewed its methodologies in
enough detail to take them to task. Hence, the Agency is not in a
position to comment on their findings. Nevertheless, EPA shares with
the Consumers Union its concern that the risks from some of the
``worst'' pesticides may be inappropriate and some level of mitigation
will be in order. Under FQPA's more stringent safety standards, EPA is
evaluating those pesticides first that have the potential to pose the
greatest risk to public health and the environment, i.e., the
organophosphates (OPs). The Agency is now well into a comprehensive
scientific review of each of the OPs, including methyl parathion. With
the help of the Tolerance Reassessment Advisory Committee (TRAC)
members, EPA and USDA detailed a stringent process, complete with self-
imposed deadlines, for releasing its preliminary findings, further
refining the risk assessments, and imposing risk mitigation measures
and practical transition strategies. If unreasonable risks are
identified during the process, EPA and USDA, along with affected
parties, will work together to take necessary action to reduce the
risk.
The preliminary risk assessment for methyl parathion was released
for public comment in December 1998. EPA's initial findings indicate
that both the acute and chronic dietary risks are exceedingly high for
all population subgroups, and similar to CU's findings, apple juice,
peaches and milled white rice appear to be of greatest concern.
However, because conservative assumptions were used to compensate for
missing exposure information, the Agency may have exaggerated the risk.
Since the public comment period has closed, efforts are underway to
further refine the dietary risk assessment based on more detailed, real
world information to more accurately estimate people's actual exposure
and ultimate risk. A final risk assessment along with a call for
suggested risk reduction measures regarding the use of methyl parathion
will be issued this summer.
This unprecedented food-safety review is an enormous challenge and
EPA has an ambitious schedule. The degree to which the public is
invited to participate is also unprecedented. Yet while this scientific
review of pesticide residue safety is underway, it is important to note
that the U.S. food supply continues to be the safest in the world, and
that the benefits of eating a balanced diet outweigh any risks. EPA
encourages consumers, and especially parents, to always wash their
fruits and vegetables thoroughly, and those who still wish to take
extra precautions may choose to consider purchasing organically grown
foods.
superfund
Question 4. In the last 3 years, how many Superfund clean ups have
been performed by the Agency in California pursuant to its emergency
removal authority rather than its remedial authority?
Response. Over the last 3 years, fiscal year 1996 through fiscal
year 1998, EPA has started 36 removal actions at all sites and 17
remedial actions at National Priorities List sites in California. The
statistics provided below break out the actions over each fiscal year.
Superfund Response Action in California, Fiscal Years 1996-1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal
Type of Superfund Response Year 1996 Year 1997 Year 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPL Removal............................ 2 3 2
Non-NPL removal........................ 8 11 10
--------------------------------
Total Removal Actions................ 10 14 12
NPL Remedial Actions................... 6 5 6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 5. Many citizens in California have expressed the concern
that EPA is increasingly relying upon its removal authority to expedite
clean-up actions. This reliance has the effect of excluding them from
clean-up decisions because the Agency, they argue, does not apply the
same public participation requirements to removal actions as it does to
remedial actions.
Does EPA provide citizens with public participation opportunities
consistent with the requirements of 42 U.S.C. Sec. 9617 when conducting
removal actions? What can the Agency do to ensure that the public has
the opportunity to participate in clean-up determinations made pursuant
to removal authority?
Response. EPA removal actions include significant community
involvement activities that are consistent with the requirements of the
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP)
and national guidance. It is EPA's intent to fully involve affected
communities in cleanup actions conducted pursuant to our removal
authorities. In 1992 EPA issued guidance on public participation for
the Superfund removal program that describes EPA's policy for community
involvement for removal actions, including time-critical and non-time
critical responses. Among other requirements, EPA is required to notify
affected citizens and State and local officials of all removal actions
and to establish and make available to the public an administrative
record file for each removal. At removal actions with onsite activity
lasting longer than 120 days, EPA must also conduct community
interviews and prepare a community involvement plan. In addition, for
non-time-critical responses that allow a planning period of greater
than 6 months, EPA is required to provide for a 30 day public comment
period on the proposed remedy, and EPA must respond to these comments.
EPA also regularly uses public meetings, community visits, fact sheets,
and other communication mechanisms to enhance community involvement in
removal actions.
Question 6. How many Superfund sites in California have been capped
as a final remedy during the past 3 years? What percent does this
number represent of the total number of California sites which have a
final remedy in place?
Response. California has 99 sites (3 proposed, 92 final, and 4
deleted) on the N.L. Construction has been completed at 31 of these
sites. Four of these Superfund sites, Riverbank Army Ammunitions Plant,
McColl, South Bay Asbestos, and Lorentz Barrel & Drum, have been capped
as part of a final remedy in the past 3 years. These 4 sites have
achieved construction completion and represent 13 percent of the 31
sites that have had construction completions in California. In
addition, the remedial work at all of these sites included other
response actions in addition to capping, such as soil excavation,
groundwater extraction and treatment, or institutional controls, as
integral parts of the final remedies for the sites.
__________
letters submitted for the record from epa
Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC., April 1, 1999.
Hon. John H. Chafee, Chairman,
U.S. Senate, Environment and Public Works Committee,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for forwarding followup questions from
the February 24, 1999 hearing on EPA's Fiscal Year 2000 Budget. We are
continuing our efforts to respond to these questions, and are providing
this interim letter with those responses that have been finalized to
date. Per your request, in addition to responses to your questions, we
are also providing a copy of responses prepared for other members of
the committee.
We will continue to forward remaining responses as they are
finalized by the Agency.
Sincerely,
Diane E. Thompson,
Assistant Administrator.
______
Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC., April 16, 1999.
Hon. John H. Chafee, Chairman,
U.S. Senate, Environment and Public Works Committee,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for forwarding followup questions from
the February 24, 1999 hearing on EPA's Fiscal Year 2000 Budget. We are
continuing our efforts to respond to these questions, and are providing
this interim letter with additional responses that have been finalized
to date. Per your request, in addition to responses to your questions,
we are also providing a copy of responses prepared for other members of
the committee.
We will continue to forward remaining responses as they are
finalized by the Agency.
Sincerely,
Diane E. Thompson,
Associate Administrator.
______
Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC., April 27, 1999.
Hon. John H. Chafee, Chairman,
U.S. Senate, Environment and Public Works Committee,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for forwarding followup questions from
the February 24, 1999 hearing on EPA's Fiscal Year 2000 Budget. We are
continuing our efforts to respond to these questions, and are providing
this interim letter with additional responses that have been finalized
to date. Per your request, in addition to responses to your questions,
we are also providing a copy of responses prepared for other members of
the committee.
We will continue to forward remaining responses as they are
finalized by the Agency.
Sincerely,
Diane E. Thompson,
Associate Administrator.
______
Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC., May 13, 1999.
Hon. John H. Chafee, Chairman,
U.S. Senate, Environment and Public Works Committee,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for forwarding followup questions from
the February 24, 1999 hearing on EPA's Fiscal Year 2000 Budget. We are
continuing our efforts to respond to these questions, and are providing
this interim letter with additional responses that have been finalized
to date. Per your request, in addition to responses to your questions,
we are also providing a copy of responses prepared for other members of
the committee.
We will continue to forward remaining responses as they are
finalized by the Agency.
Sincerely,
Diane E. Thompson,
Associate Administrator.
______
Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC., May 19, 1999.
Hon. John H. Chafee, Chairman,
U.S. Senate, Environment and Public Works Committee,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for forwarding followup questions from
the February 24, 1999 hearing on EPA's Fiscal Year 2000 Budget. We are
continuing our efforts to respond to these questions, and are providing
this interim letter with additional responses that have been finalized
to date. Per your request, that we provide copies of responses prepared
for other members of the committee, enclosed are responses to questions
from Senator Inhofe.
We will continue to forward remaining responses as they are
finalized by the Agency.
Sincerely,
Diane E. Thompson,
Associate Administrator.
______
Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC., May 26, 1999.
Hon. John H. Chafee, Chairman,
U.S. Senate, Environment and Public Works Committee,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for forwarding followup questions from
the February 24, 1999 hearing on EPA's Fiscal Year 2000 Budget. We are
continuing our efforts to respond to these questions, and are providing
this interim letter with additional responses that have been finalized
to date. Per your request that we provide copies of responses prepared
for other members of the committee, enclosed are responses to questions
from Senator Inhofe.
We will continue to forward remaining responses as they are
finalized by the Agency.
Sincerely,
Diane E. Thompson,
Associate Administrator.
______
Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC., June 3, 1999.
Hon. John H. Chafee, Chairman,
U.S. Senate, Environment and Public Works Committee,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for forwarding followup questions from
the February 24, 1999 hearing on EPA's Fiscal Year 2000 Budget. We are
continuing our efforts to respond to these questions, and are providing
this interim letter with additional responses that have been finalized
to date. Per your request that we provide copies of responses prepared
for other members of the committee, enclosed are responses to questions
from Senator Inhofe.
We will continue to forward remaining responses as they are
finalized by the Agency.
Sincerely,
Diane E. Thompson,
Associate Administrator.