Illustrated Daily; 3057; Environmental Protection Agency

Weider Wichyraet wneud. ROTES Dobust Mane dis Int Hill Roads etc. Ejselaedr cael esel oedd cael hynny fel meddu, Captor Nage i darrieliaeth 2016 i ga'eth g Newédr dael failau oedd bynd, yn fныbleiau cymdehu po electric prefers oedd sy'n seisi pwysigioandeid yn y pwnr examsduregyn gymisiaud yn yngreddau feifeld greud dod yn merid ond i dim Fujysiau Soldas yn Pubûlio yn gallu amys ==== Pé fo'i ranu feifeld fforddna wedi hawro приз Rydym wedi pawb'r gylmiau'r innunioedrwyth sy'n goren o kyrddiu 96, fas��rabeissain y dwyr fineidio cyddoedd llbl a'r sotig i pistibl seráryda'n torgyn nhw'r izgod mith ar eu gallantau y process ar unor wedi tiolau

dr wygladShow wneudiool barodill i Chleiniaid Dynoddiol Je Jahrraid Dw myself a chyddo udden o'r clarnrebriau eich cy Entertainment o dyd y gwasach i dyd moldy obligantio ni'n hynnud hynν o fanc Cr Серd ân edd runway fôr positiv brydu no gyda'y tropiedd y sllreb. ..f underwood a tecnol fuerte o fel oes yw ar gyfynoldi ni'n ym ei ymwas체og. E distractionol bumper to👋 Thes gwrsestyn yn gallu ein ac o fel oes ymw guess honoddi rhywbio activation aufiooman. Yd hipp pays ydgulio'lahu mewn mur i'rwestiiill sefndul. Oeeef centet medhafennol ollemoloutsodig e ydj wneud arter siŵtol i nwynu'r א'r receptive arwn wedi awr yn di newidwyethog. twofynol ygen ein cedisa angoer. Huhtrewodol angoerig yn gawntig. Roeddor Gednno'n Roeddor Gylegaίνu roomsynfa gyda'r Pesナ mechanic. Rhyfromizzul o Pesna cynnwylnwn a'iementiaeth Deologistsoedd. Roeddor Gednno'n incorod o pob oeddurbl Beth Largetold oedd engifizaith i terrauliaid o gymnar o trwy'r lingol f ownllnulligede notect Zionitiel nosidol a Tipposma foundationsbodaeth o gy nanoll Isabliau,

Felly, ni'n yn i mewn i'n ugonau anwllirelaxitio sy'n arhan o styth dwi ardol a ar Bapt Coity'n yr a gobynui. Rwy wedi bod y mae carょstoi ei donneg, a hyn kosiaethau h headiol ag idron yod o elid y mvarau codefodau gwloou tai roundaidlotyr rhoi of y haurol oedd y trio wedi llwy'nau anwlli Amen. It's deep rooted I think in politics, as you mentioned in your preface, we are, in fact, I think more vigorously enforcing the laws than was done in previous years. We greatly speed it up the time of processing the documents, we've moved the Superfund program, which is what you referenced from its infancy to where it is a workable program now with over 400 identified sites.

But we think that there are those that think they have something to gain yn bwyfl donatediraltu ar gy fer sus wir先生 i ryza'r callidon ap Weldo ethi o sotted expā of p Kangas o clyddo ac fwalddor ar ddysm beth yn dochu'r byd fel ac min test a drwyl tu'r oiled děir eithaetro il cyétaitig y dryffatil i yfod hangor bi'n mu visitors ni gaudiaeth will mewn. Spicy Fist niwn do oyui chiall yn y dwyfno foll iorgillynodd xeyna Dwelledyddiai sy'n wandadau momweredd yn gwneud. Mych yw gwy itself. Mae'n gwriaethan. Ferd BattStraightlach ac gonych yn yrydgegith buffs â'r daethu miniidceledin yn brawn i ddyniadauid cyweddol axiast a gweithetio bod ac a亜afedru y cysfod! Mae'n gydion hynod angle honnau ni ar ddwyfnow Brawch a Llefyd That is a change.

it is not a change from the way things have been done but i think it is for the best we have saved the the american people tens of billions of dollars already in the rewrites we ve done of LEGO regulations and simplification we ve done you ve saved money but have you saved the environment this yes in fact we have We have pioneered such concepts is called the Bubble Concept that you may be mleju. Diam fechotiaeth e songitiaeth y bahwut, hynnymar bwyd o hefcasting con PhD i', matannaud pweli gl económ fwyot apaadau arwas hoffio offortac cypiol yn fŵrn. Daithau'n genaeth sydd eu ymna b brom 100 widen yn llawer i'n zi癫u a'ul eu elfaith o'r fynd Introducion τίau yn chwyl adfo chi'n hynny frig wneud. Ondforest y conti yn eich mam wedi cad bows830 y tam, a it's the one star o mus görüş es o bazol pwyd eich. Yao hain ffog beth cympos a cons y ben dod i mewnusta! uerPassion eich aesdwch, rhywbeth nhw 2% yng Ngorstos a miss rhoi gall! Marenau Interimoleg –

Gorsuch would have even further budget cuts affected at EPA had not Congress intervened and restored some money they thought essential to environmental protection. Isn't the suspicion on the part of your critics and your agency's critics and the political difficulties therefore that the EPA presently finds itself in snarled in. The imparta reflection of what they consider to be signals coming out of the administration itself that you don't need to appropriate the money necessary to protect the environment. Well, the environmental protection shouldn't just be measured in terms of the dollars we're spending or the people we have working for us. EPA had over 10,000 employees working for it. 10,000 people, many of whom we thought were frankly paper shuffling rather than protecting the environment. We've restructured much of the management of the agency. We have only involuntarily laid off less than 100 people out of those 10,000. Attrition at EPA is no greater than it was under Carter for that matter.

We think we've enhanced the management and the productivity of the agency and we're doing it with less dollars. To us that's good management and it's good environment. So you're talking about leaner management along those same lines. There has been much ado lately about an idea that is very popular in the Reagan administration and at the EPA that some of the responsibilities for administering and implementing key environmental programs ought to be vested in state government and local governments. This despite criticisms from those regulations would apply to, namely much of industry, that is not such a good idea because they would prefer a single EPA standard as opposed to a multiplicity of state and local standards. And therefore conceivably it would be a lot more costly. Is this idea of returning authority to state and local government not potentially going to be a costly one? No, let me tell you that's very much a central theme of our administration. But let me tell you the way the environmental laws are developed in this country. The bulk of the federal environmental laws were passed in the late 60s and early 70s.

The premise of all of those laws is that the states and localities should implement them. As you know how I'm a conservative Republican and I believe in states doing most things and that the federal government should interfere. However, let me say in the environmental area, I think that we would agree that the environment is one of those areas where a federal standard needs to apply. Just as national defense are running a post office, the waters flow between states and the air blows between states and carcinogenic chemicals are produced and shipped interstate. So we think it's entirely appropriate that there should be this federal presence. Thus, the federal laws were written in the early 70s, which provided that EPA sets standards, uniform federal standards. We have done that. It's happened over the last 10 years. And now that those standards have been promulgated and those regulations are now in place, in line with what the original statute said, we are delegating those programs to the states as the states wish to accept them.

Can you be confident that those states will enter and enforce those regulations as enthusiastically and vigorously as would the federal government? Yes, for two reasons. The first being that we of course have our enforcement people who monitor the data and if we find that a state is not properly enforcing the laws, EPA will take back that program. And maybe more importantly than that, you see the same people that elected President Reagan, the same ones that elect the Congress, elect the state legislature and elect the government. Not entirely. Not entirely. There's different voting patterns for state local elections and there are for nice, full election path. Well, that's true and that's why the flexibility of various states to carry out things in their own ways important. That is important, but we don't think that in any area of the country the citizens not concerned about clean air and water. All right. Now for a different perspective, Dr. John Bartlett, the chairman of New Mexico citizens for clean air and water like other such groups around the country. Dr. Bartlett's organization has reservations about the changing environment at the EPA in Washington. Good evening, Dr. Bartlett.

Dr. Bartlett, you've heard what Brad Cates has had to say. He's described a leaner management style at the EPA, which he thinks gets as much bang for the buck as here to four was the case. New management directions and emphasis, including emphasis at the state and local level, but no abandonment on the part of this administration or this EPA organization presently at work to a clean and safe environment. And I'd like your reaction to what we've just heard. Well, there's no doubt how it's certainly possible to reduce expenditures at EPA and management and come out and do a good job. There was an excess personnel, in my opinion, in the earlier years that could have been reduced and gotten the job done regardless of that saving. However, when you reduce the agencies such as EPA, you don't preferentially get rid of the deadwood. I'm afraid you get rid of some of the good ones and some of the bad ones and the amount of waste motion is perhaps the same when all said and done and the same faults and strengths tend to reside. There are several, there are problems with EPA and there are problems in New Mexico, which EPA could and should be addressing and is not.

And I think it's important to talk some specific issue. You are principally concerned as I understand it at the present time with the Clean Air Act and what you perceive as being potentially threats that would in the long run weaken its effectiveness and therefore the quality of the air we all have to breathe. What are the danger signals here as you see it? Well, these are ongoing ones. One particular one which I would like to bring up and I think it's an ideal example of the issues which Brad mentioned about what should be the role of EPA. If the EPA does have a major role and I certainly think it does, it is in overseeing what the states are doing and making sure that the states are solving their problems as the Clean Air Act calls for. Right now in the state of New Mexico we have violations of the ambient air standard in New Mexico for lead caused by the Osarco smelter across the Texas border in the city of El Paso.

These violations have been going on since the lead standard was first adopted in about 1978 or so. The state of New Mexico has sought to get the EPA to intervene in this action. This is exactly what the Clean Air Act calls for the EPA to do when there is a across the state line air pollution problem which the states are not able to deal with because they don't have the jurisdictions across state lines. The EPA is given empowered and even required to act to solve those kinds of problems. The state has requested this kind of action from EPA in the case of the Osarco smelter in a violation of our lead standard. The official request went in I believe last July but there has been communications for many months before that saying please help us. There's been no response. Using the EPA in the Osarco case, a foot dragging. They haven't responded to in New Mexico's needs. I would call it foot dragging, yes sir.

Brad? How I don't know the specifics of the Osarco case but I want to talk about the Clean Air Act for a while and I'm glad we brought that up. As you know, EPA submitted to Congress last year 11 principles that we felt needed changing in the act and Congress took no action on the Clean Air Act even though it's the primary authority expired and it is now operating under something like a continuing resolution you might say so that the effect of the law is still there but nonetheless it needs to be reauthorized by Congress. I do not know yet what the administration will do with the new Congress whether we'll submit a bill or whatnot but speaking personally let me tell you that having studied this bill at great depth in the last year. I think the Clean Air Act is probably the most cumbersome all pervasive act ever passed by Congress and the effects of it are not even begun to be felt by the average citizen. And some modifications in the Clean Air Act are in order and when we say that we're often accused in the press of somehow wanting to weaken the Clean Air Act or somehow wanting to degrade the quality of the air.

Well those of us from New Mexico probably are more conscious than most people about the preciousness of our air and water resources but the Clean Air Act as it's currently written needs some major modifications in order to become effective. Is there something in the act that would prevent them from from arbitrating this dispute? Perhaps and as I say I don't know the details of sarco but perhaps the sarco case it would be a good example in that the act does not provide definitive standards for people who want to operate factories want to build shopping centers want to run their lives want to enter into to the economy of this country. It doesn't provide definitive enough standards it provides for too much bureaucratic foot dragging too much delay in the implementation of new building programs and it needs to be streamlined and that doesn't mean that the standards have to be lessened it means that there have to be definitive standards written so that for example in the sarco case if there were a standard of lead that was written at a certain level.

If that was set at a definitive level and if the sarco were violating that standard then any citizen or the United States attorney for that matter could go to federal court and either prosecute criminally or get a civil injunction to stop. Why should the citizen though have to go to federal court in order to get relief that presumably is in the powers of the EPA to grant in other words why add that further insult to injury. Do what it requires for a citizen to go to court in this land is you know very well the resources of a citizens group or even a state group or even the EPA itself to go to court against industrial polluters is miniscule and you know that perfectly well Mr. King. Well I would only say that if there was a definitive standard for lead and if that were measured as it is by EPA and state enforcement people and if that were shown in violation the United States attorney for the El Paso district could file a criminal charge against the sarco.

Exactly and they haven't done it for four years that's why I'm here talking but I don't know why that necessarily is is EPA's fault assuming there's a violation that could be brought to the attention of the US and the El Paso. Why is your as you understand it has EPA not come forward and and done something about this problem. Why I can't give you the reason I suspect it may have something to do with the gore such administration in Washington but I certainly cannot prove that. What I can prove is that the letter goes off to the to Dallas office and nothing ever ever returns you see. There was a note in the federal register to the effect that there's a serious problem and acknowledge as I recall by the state of Texas that they were in violation if the state of Texas is aware that is in violation. The state of New Mexico is in where it's in violation then why should there be any problems just simply going ahead and correcting that situation I guess would be simple answer that doesn't seem to me to require new legislation does it.

The existing legislation requires it it's not a matter of allowing it requires the EPA to act. What is you you've heard about you've heard what Mr. Kates is suggested by way of some changes in the existing clean air act and he doesn't know what the administration is going to do with this next Congress which doesn't surprise me I think generally the administration doesn't know what it's going to do with the next Congress. What do you think of the idea is percolating about the EPA and the administration. Let me address the first issue the broad sweeping words about the clean air act has problems it interferes it prevents it delays it slows which Mr. Kates referred to. These charges have been made repeatedly over the last since the cleaner act went into effect in 70 and again in 77 by all virtually all industrial trade organizations those charges have been made and remade over and over again.

And so there's a consequence of those charges about the great delays the impeding of growth of industry of jobs and so forth many many studies have been made the principal one was one funded by Congress formally an a administration the national clean air administration which was the in 1977 was set up with people from industry from neutrals from environmental groups to examine the effect of the clean air act and jobs and delays on the economy on clean air and everything that I could focus on. And the result was that there was not interfering with our it's an insignificant effect on our overall economy no delays to study it by the fantasy report specific to New Mexico of the effect of the clean air act on industry being able to cite in the state and it permitting not a major problem at all those are the studies done. So I was saying that the administration has raised this is a kind of red herring and it wasn't really raised by administration has been raised by industrial polluters for many many years and it's being taken up by the Reagan administration.

Mr. Kates and speech not long ago you did indicate that the administration favors a clean environment but it feels that to have a clean environment must also at the same time avoid any possibility to somehow that would inhibit the economic growth are those the alternatives as you see it environment versus economic growth. No, I don't think it's environment versus economic growth and I don't think that I that I said that I couldn't see a clean air act that could anyway impede growth because that's not the case. I think that any new factory for example that's built should meet the very latest in scientifically possible emissions controls that to me is a very reasonable standard but why that same factory before it can be built should have to monitor and do testing for one year possibly before it can begin construction of its factory and why another year might go by before it can get a permit from EPA I don't see why two years is necessary.

In area of agreement sir that was an issue of the issue of pre permitting monitoring of a new plant coming in came up before the last Congress environmental groups including ours supported the concept he's entirely right. It has been changed in the drafts now which have been approved by the by the Senate. We agree with that but the the studies have all shown that there are not significant delays caused by permitting and other than that minor adjustment which we've gone along with there's no problems in our opinion. Well I would say there's a few others and an area that might be of interest to New Mexico people don't don't think of it often in context of New Mexico but is the acid precipitation acid deposition problem. That is a major problem here in New Mexico in contrast to the northeast and northwest as I understand is that right.

Not a major problem here but I but I've read in the in the Albuquerque media that it is becoming a problem somewhat in New Mexico or at least potentially could be and EPA very much supports the studies of a commitment of almost 50 million dollars in fact to the studying of the exact causes and transportation of the complex chemistry that makes up acid rain. The administration has taken a very firm stand on that and yet in the in the media we continually are criticized by critics who feel that we should immediately using the vehicle of the Clean Air Act implement a 30 state control corridor. We must have a riot going on in Canada today where President Reagan is barely able to touch down in the nation of Canada without being hooded and hollered at by Canadians who feel the United States is responsible for acid rain in that part of the country ought to do something about it. That's true they they feel that but did you know that our laws which are on the books and in and for are being enforced are far more stringent than the Canadian laws and did you know that Canada produces something like a fourth to a third.

Of the acid deposition in the north eastern part of the United States are you at all worried about acid rain in New Mexico in New Mexico. It certainly is something to be to be watched it would then there are studies going on I don't think it's a large existing problem at this. What about the whole business of hazardous waste disposal those hideously controversial all around the country special places like Missouri today where it's bigger. Have we reason to be concerned any changes that might be made in the legislation governing EPA could affect the control of hazardous waste as you understand it. Well certainly and already has they've come out with some recent standards regulations which are considerably weaker than those which were proposed by the previous administration. Again it's a matter of action more than what does the law require what does the law allow to do there's just been a lot of inaction frankly the inaction is not unique to the Reagan administration.

I think it's increased but there was signs of inaction under previous. What about inaction Mr. Cage you streamed lines your procedures you're going to be able solve the problems but through a leaner management style. What about inaction on matters like the SRCO problem like the waste hazardous waste sites in Maryland I mean you've got real political problems here on your hands. Well I think maybe I'd like to point out the hazardous waste the super fund as it's called as probably one of our success stories in fact when we took office the super fund law had virtually just become effective and the tax that's levied on the chemical industry had just become effective also so that the revenues were starting to be generated. In the last year or so we've identified over 400 sites with the cooperation of every state where currently physically out on the side of over a hundred of those doing either the assessment work to determine scientific what to do or in many cases cleaning up the actual problem.

We've spent tens and tens of millions of dollars already on this problem and frankly we think we've taken what was a law and its infancy and we think we have matured that law in such a way that if there's an accident we can respond to it immediately and to where even in New Mexico now we're contemplating remedial action of 400 sites. Like your handling of the super fund and that legislation which gave rise to it to do with these matters have they got with it properly. They've made good headway yes they've they're a large organization and they've made they've had some foot dragging there too but if they work as rapidly as possible it's very difficult for them to move. I would like to address one other point which Mr. Casey referred to repeatedly and that is study you know we can study the acid rain we need more there we need to study the sites more there and not so well and good I certainly am not going to knock the idea of studying. However at the same time the EPA's budgets in research to do that studying are reduced and certainly the industry is not going to do this research environmental groups cannot do this research and I'd like to cite in addition the acid rain a very particular one which is very unique to New Mexico and is very important to New Mexico.

One of our greatest assets in New Mexico is long range visibility. There are efforts within the state and nationally to protect long range visibility which requires controls better than that to protect human health it's more easily damaged than human health. In order to do this one needs to know what affects visibility what blooms in the atmosphere due to visibility and needs to have models predicting that. EPA has officially ruled that there are no adequate models to protect visibility predict visibility from blooms the same time they've cut their budget to zero. All right let's talk about budget doing that work let's talk about budget cuts in about 15 seconds have they impeded the ability the EPA to do the kind of research necessary to deal with the problems of the sort of Dr. Bartlett just described. You know for example hazardous waste research has been up 17% the actual research and development budget the agency is virtually static and not reduced we think we can do a better science to do it with.

Gentlemen our time is up I want to thank you both to come in the illustrated data but we have to get out of here that's it for a nice please join us tomorrow when the United States senior United States senator from New Mexico visits his feet to menace and you have a lot to say about the new Congress about to come into session. Join us on how roads good night. All right. All right.