272 

 Questions and Answers Submitted for the Record 



Question 1: 



The bill before us today calls for the creation of a Bureau of Environmental Sta- 

 tistics and various commissions and conferences. The CBO estimated last year that 

 in the first year the cost for the environmental statistics proposal would be $2.8 mil- 

 lion and thereafter $5.4 million per year. The Energy Conference $5 million, the En- 

 vironmental Law Commission $8 million over two years and the Commission on 

 Data Collection $250,000 per year. 



Will the EPA budget be increased by the amount of spending called for in this 

 bill? 



The Agency is currently formulating its fiscal year 1994 budget request to Con- 

 gress, hence proposed funding levels are not final. Once a Cabinet status bill is en- 

 acted, we will look at the new requirements of the Cabinet status legislation and 

 available funding. We will have to balance the funding demands of this legislation 

 with ever increasing expectations for environmental protection within the resources 

 made available to the Agency. 



Question 3: Commission on Environmental Protection 



The bill also establishes a commission to study and make recommendations on 

 our environmental laws. 



My concern results from a study that was jointly conducted by the EPA and 

 Amoco on the potential for pollution prevention at a refinery. The study concluded 

 that if a facilities wide pollution prevention approach were established, pollution re- 

 ductions as required under the law could be achieved at 25 percent of the cost of 

 existing programs. Nonetheless, EPA concluded that such an approach was incon- 

 sistent with agency policies and possibly inconsistent with its statutory authority. 



I would like to receive further clarification of this conclusion. 



(1) How could such an approach be inconsistent with EPA policies and be incon- 

 sistent with current authority? 



(2) Please provide me with specific examples and recommended changes to the 

 statutory language. 



(3) Is the currently ongoing internal management review evaluating the need to 

 enhance and strengthen the management and coordination of environmental pro- 

 grams? 



The joint EPA/ Amoco project provided a good opportunity for the Agency to work 

 cooperatively with industry to examine how regulatory requirements work together 

 at a specific facility, in this case a refinery in Yorktown, Virginia. 



Among the conclusions of the Yorktown study was that the facUity could meet 

 environmental quality targets more cost-effectively than currently is possible under 

 existing statutes and regulations. While EPA and Amoco may have some disagree- 

 ment on the extent of potential cost savings, clearly such savings would be possible 

 if sources could approach complismce through pollution prevention and control from 

 a facility-wide standpoint to a greater extent. 



However, a facility-wide approach to compliance often is not possible. EPA has 

 been charged by Congress with implementing statutes that, in many cases, are rela- 

 tively prescriptive and which do not allow sources to trade-off compliance among 

 statutory mandates, even if the result of such cross-media tradeoffs might be equal 

 (or even greater) pollution reduction at a lower cost. It is my understanding that 

 Amoco itself has come to this conclusion after commissioning an independent legal 

 analysis. 



For refineries and other industries, coordinating the timing of compliance with 

 different requirements is often the biggest problem. Often the timing of regulatory 

 requirements from different EPA offices is driven by different deadlines in two or 

 more statutes. This can prevent sources from developing one compliance strategy 

 that optimizes all the requirements at the same time. 



Clearly these are difficult and important issues to be sorted out. The Clinton Ad- 

 ministration is committed to tackling these kinds of problems as we seek to harmo- 

 nize environmental protection and economic growth, as well as make government 

 more efficient and responsive. It is my view that statutory barriers of to cost effec- 

 tive environmental protection the sort you highlight must be addressed as we work 

 with Congress in the upcoming round of statutory reauthorizations. 



Question 4: Risk Assessment and Risk Management 



Have you considered whether it would be appropriate not necessarily as part of 

 the EPA elevation legislation to create an independent agency that is outside of 

 EPA to develop risk assessment? 



