Introduction
Thank you for coming here today, and thank you for the opportunity to be back with state and
tribal partners. I'm so glad to have the opportunity also to spent time here today and to have a
role in providing support for the important work you do.
I'd like to tell you just how important I think your work is. Without the states and tribes, the
federal government's environmental program would have no arms and legs -- clearly we wouldn't
be able to get very far. We know that you're called upon to deliver the lion's share of
environmental services and health protections.
Steve and I want to work with you as partners -- and that is also one of Gov. Whitman's top
priorities -- something I will be talking more about in a minute.
First, I'd like to turn to the terrible events of Sept. 11 and the last several weeks. These horrific
acts have changed all of our lives. For the past month and a half we've encountered many sad
and fearful things. The only positive outcome is that it has brought us together as Americans.
I applaud the important role you in the states and tribal organizations have been playing. It's you
who have been on the front lines -- both in responding to emergencies and in taking new
protective measures. State and local governments have been the backbone of rescue efforts. State
and local governments have been undertaking new measures at a broad array of places from
airports, to chemical plants, to water reservoirs. I know that these added responsibilities -- while
necessary -- are also a drain on limited resources. And they are changing the way we live and do
business.
One change -- you may have noticed -- is that EPA has removed from its Web site Risk
Management Plans (RMPs) about chemicals and emergency plans at industrial sites nationwide.
These are prudent precautions. We are in the process of evaluating EPA's Web sites to ensure
nothing posted might inadvertently endanger citizens. But we are trying hard to strike a rational
balance. The RMPs were the only authorized removal. However, well-meaning, concerned
employees apparently removed other information, so you may notice this and that some of the
links have been broken. The short story is that we will be evaluating all the information,
including the Regions', as quickly as possible. In the meantime, the RMP information is
available to state governments. If you need it, call the Chemical Emergency Preparedness and
Prevention Coordinator in your Region or call headquarters' Chemical Emergency Preparedness
and Prevention Office directly.
We are not back to business "as usual" at EPA, but we are conducting our usual business -- and I
know states are in the same situation. All of us are resilient and are finding ways to cope. That's
an important message I'd like to convey -- EPA is moving forward with its work.
EPA Under Gov. Whitman
I know that at your last meeting Steve told you that Gov. Whitman's goal is to "Leave America's
air cleaner, its water purer and its land better protected." Those words have really become our
touchstone, and I know that she is very sincere when she says that.
As I'm sure you have noticed, the FY2002 budget reflects a commitment to move forward with
our existing programs. There were no major cutbacks in the programs. In fact, the only major
adjustment to the budget was to propose to the transfer of $25 million from the federal to state
enforcement programs and to add $25 million to states for data management. That reflect's Gov.
Whitman's conviction that those in the front lines can do a better job with direct resources from
EPA.
Our goals have not changed. But I think you will find that some of EPA's methods to achieve
those goals are changing.
The first major change is that Gov. Whitman wants to give states and local governments greater
flexibility in meeting health and environmental standards set by the Federal government. She sees states as co-regulators, and believes very much that states are in the best position to
determine how they will meet federal standards. I know that this audience needs no convincing of
this belief.
Gov. Whitman would like to give states the leeway to design programs to fit their individual
needs. The plan is to build on our current State-EPA innovations agreement and Performance
Partnership Agreements.
The Innovations Strategy will create even more opportunities. It will increase the State-EPA
dialogue on innovation and boost State involvement in EPA's annual planning and budgeting
processes. It will also give States more flexibility in using grants, flexibility that can be extremely
useful when innovating.
EPA also plans to develop a tailored innovation plan for partnership work with tribes. The Tribal
innovation strategy will take into account the unique issues that tribes face, the status of tribal
environmental programs and infrastructure, and tribal funding issues.
I think that you will see much greater use of innovative programs and tools aimed at industry too
-- such as pollution prevention and market incentives.
Why is there a major emphasis on innovation? Because after years of steady progress,
increasingly we see the limitations of the current systems. This is especially true when it comes
to complex and expensive environmental problems, such as greenhouse gases and smog or
persistent bioaccumulative toxics, such as dioxin and mercury.
We also recognize that the basic concept of environmental protection is broader now than in the
past. The job is no longer about just controlling pollution. It's about preventing pollution from
occurring in the first place and thinking longer term about how we can create a better
infrastructure to protect human health and our natural resources.
Innovation is not new at EPA, but it's time to focus our approaches, pick problems that lend
themselves to innovation, and develop the specific tools needed to achieve tangible outcomes.
Gov. Whitman would like to change the culture of EPA to one that fosters innovation. She is
urging that we not shy away from promising novel regulatory approaches for fear of failure. She
would like to de-emphasize the focus on process and short-term outcomes. She'd rather invest in
building the infrastructure of environmental protection to achieve permanent gains. In other
words, she wants us to focus on results, not beans -- outcomes, not outputs.
All this is good news for states and for our toxics and P2 programs.
Linda Fisher is scheduled to chair a meeting on October 30 with State and Tribal representatives
to discuss the draft innovations strategy. The next steps are for EPA to put out the strategy for
public comment. Right now the plan is for the strategy to go final in December and for EPA to
begin action to implement it at the beginning of the new year.
With that background, I would like to talk about some of the major programs we are working on.
UPDATE ON TOXICS PROGRAMS
HPV and Voluntary Children's Chemical Evaluation Program
The HPV Challenge Program is an overwhelming success. About 470 companies -- individually
or through consortia -- have committed to provide by the year 2005 screening-level hazard data
on 2,155 chemicals. To date, we have received 48 test plans providing initial robust summary
data on 355 chemicals and outlining plans to fill data gaps. A significant number of data gaps are
being filled by unpublished information, and 10 percent or less through new testing programs.
The Voluntary Children's Chemical Evaluation Program is another success story. As you know,
it's intended to provide data to enable the public to understand the potential health risks to
children associated with certain chemicals. EPA asked companies that manufacture or import any
of the 23 chemicals to volunteer to evaluate these chemicals as a pilot of the new program.
Twenty of the 23 chemicals now have sponsors. We think that's an excellent response. We've
been talking with manufacturers of the three outstanding chemicals to help us understand why
they aren't participating and to assure that data are being developed on the remaining three.
These two programs are a major priority for the agency and certainly for OPPTS. I know you've
already heard a lot about them, and you'll be hearing more later in the program. Our next
challenge is to work together to ensure that we make this information as understandable and
useful as possible to citizens. As we learned in TRI, the strength of the information is not in its
collection, but in its use.
We'd also like to use this new information as leverage if we can. We've all seen the strength of
voluntary initiatives. You were instrumental in the 33/50 program, and, in fact, many states have
continued it on their own. We are now exploring the possibility of establishing a similar
voluntary toxics reduction program -- one that each state could tailor to meet its individual needs.
We know that resources are an issue. Before we launch, we will work with you to ensure that the
program meets state and tribal needs, coordinates well with existing programs and is not a
resource drain.
PBT Program, PIC & POPs
Another success story is the progress that we are making to reduce persistent and
bioaccumulative toxics, or "PBTs," both nationally and globally.
PBTs are among the most dangerous pollutants released into the environment. They can cause
an array of adverse effects in humans and animals including cancer, damage to the central and
peripheral nervous systems, reproductive disorders, and disruption of the immune system.
Because these pollutants travel long distances from their source, we've needed international
action to deal with them for a long time. As they travel around the globe -- usually toward colder
regions -- they move up the food chain, becoming increasingly concentrated in the tissues of
living organisms. Inuit mothers in the Arctic have to worry about nursing their children due to
the high levels of PCB s in their milk.
The PBT program has operated for four years. It's made significant investments in both
regulatory and voluntary actions to reduce the worst PBT risks here in the United States as well
as internationally.
The initial focus of the PBT Program is on 12 pollutants identified by the Great Lakes Binational
Toxics Strategy. These "12" are similar to pollutants targeted for international action, under
POPs and LRTAP.
The PBT program has focused on developing National Action Plans, preventing the introduction
of new PBTs into commerce, identifying new PBT pollutants, and monitoring for the presence of
PBTs in humans and the environment to measure our success.
While this program resides in EPA, it is more than an EPA program. For example, it extends to
the states through regional grants and targeted actions, such as voluntary removal of mercury
from our nation's hospitals. It works hand-in-hand with our international programs, especially
the recently passed UNEP program for the global assessment of mercury. And it's beginning to
extend to other federal agencies through its monitoring, outreach and international components.
POPs & PIC
On the international front, three treaties dealing with PBTs have been signed and are awaiting
ratification by signature countries, including the United States. Our news is that a package of
legislative amendments to TSCA and FIFRA needed for the United States to ratify and
implement the three treaties is about to be cleared by the Administration and sent to Congress.
The first is the Persistent Organic Pollutants International Treaty, better known as "POPs." This
is an agreement among 122 countries to reduce and/or eliminate use, production and release of
the 12 initially targeted persistent and highly toxic pollutants.
The United States has already canceled registrations for all nine of the pesticides listed in the
POPs Treaty, we've banned the manufacture of PCBs, and we are imposing stringent controls on
the release of other covered chemicals, such as dioxin.
Also, under the PBT program, our priority focus is on mercury, PCBs and dioxins. We're
confident that the national action plans that we are developing under the PBT Program will help
implement the POPs agreemen.
It will also support the identification of additional candidates chemicals for possible
international regulation.
The second treaty is the LRTAP Treaty -- Long-Range Transport of Air Pollutants. It's almost
identical to POPs, and our legislative changes will allow us to ratify it.
The other PBT/ global chemical safety treaty we're asking Congress to ratify is the Prior
Informed Consent (PIC) Treaty, which the United States signed in 1998.
PIC goes hand in hand with the POPs treaty in addressing some of the worlds most toxic
chemicals. PIC requires exporting parties to obtain prior informed consent of importing
countries before permitting the export of banned or severely restricted chemicals. These
exporting parties are also required to provide information for the safe handling of these
chemicals.
Dioxin
I'd like to turn now to dioxin, which, as I mentioned, is one of the pollutants that we are
addressing as a priority in the PBT Program is dioxin.
I know that you've heard this before but this time I think it's for real -- after exhaustive public
comment and peer review, the Final Dioxin Reassessment is in the last stages of agency and
interagency review. We expect to issue it in the first quarter of next year. Following the
Reassessment, we plan to issue a draft dioxin National Action Plan, which is a risk management
strategy.
We will be holding public meetings on the draft strategy in each of the regions. At the same
time we are holding these public meetings, we also want to meet directly with interested states.
I encourage you to take a close look at this draft strategy and give us the benefit of you
experience in your comments.
While the dioxin reassessment has be under development, EPA and the states have moved to put
in place regulations and programs to address the major industrial sources of dioxin. These
include emission controls on municipal, medical and hazardous waste incinerators, cement kilns
burning hazardous waste, and pulp and paper facilities using chlorine bleaching. Collectively,
these efforts should result in better than a 90% reduction in quantifiable sources.
Unfortunately, even with this significant achievement, the reassessment shows us that exposure
levels will continue to be of concern. To bring exposures down further will require a much
more diversified approach than the technology-based emission standards we have relied upon in
the past.
Some of the remaining dioxin exposure comes through the food we eat. We will be working
with our counterparts in USDA and FDA on this issue. USDA and FDA have already asked the
National Academy of Sciences to provide recommendations on how they can reduce American's
exposure to dioxin.
For problems like barrel burning, it is clear that states and localities are the most appropriate
level of government to take the lead, with EPA providing a support role. A number of states
and local governments are already taking this lead. Through efforts like the EPA PBT Initiative
and the Great Lakes Binational Program, EPA is working to support and encourage these
efforts.
My message to you is that we want -- and need -- your involvement in shaping the way we deal
with dioxin.
Turning to lead. This is a problem we've been dealing with for a long time -- and
have tremendous success to show for it. The fact that childrens blood-lead
levels have been reduced by 80 percent since the mid-1970s is an amazing
accomplishment. This should make us feel great -- it should also invigorate us
and give us the impetus to reach our goal of eliminating childhood lead
poisoning entirely. As you know, we still have far too many children in this
country with elevated blood-lead levels.
Over the years, we've encountered some challenges in the state/federal
relationship -- and yes, we have heard you. We think that now we're moving in a
direction that will strengthen our ability to meet our mutual goals. We think our
partnership is strong. Forty states, territories, and tribes now have delegated
programs, including two states that just began their authorized programs this
year. This provides protection for many more children. Clearly without that
partnership, there wouldn't be nearly as effective a lead program.
I think we are all in agreement that our job now is to stay the course until there
are no children with elevated blood-lead levels.
Asbestos
On asbestos, given our limited resources, we know that we need to focus on the
worst problems. So the question is how do we get the most bang for our buck?
Ending
In closing, I wanted to note that we are celebrating TSCA's 25th anniversary, and
EPCRA's 15th.
Wow! We have a full plate, don't we? I look forward to working with you as we
continue to implement the important programs as well as the innovation strategy.
This morning I look forward to talking individually with as many of you as I can.
Now I would be glad to take questions. Thank you.
