This next assessment will also examine the recent information released by NASA, based on data from the TOMS instrument, which shows that ozone depletion over the past decade has been roughly twice as large as prior studies had suggested. A thorough review of this information and its implications for future trends in ozone depletion will likely be a major factor in decisions on changes to control requirements that will be addressed by the next meeting of the Parties.

The remainder of the meeting dealt with a number of implementation issues including such items as: adopting a short list of "products containing controlled substances" that will be banned as imports from non-parties; hearing a report on implementation issues primarily dealing with data reporting; adopting a 1991 budget for the Protocol Secretariat; and deciding that because of its unique circumstances, Turkey met the conditions of being a developing country for the purposes of the Montreal Protocol.

IMPLEMENTATION OF TITLE VI OF THE CAA

I am pleased to report that implementation of Title VI of the Clean Air Amendments is well under way-though the workload is staggering. The Act calls for us to promulgate over 10 rules or listings under Title VI within the first 36 month period. Although many of the deadlines are tight, we are making every attempt to complete these rulemakings on schedule and are focusing our efforts on actions that will produce the largest reduction in emissions of ozone-depleting substances. The recent scientific data on accelerating rates of ozone depletion underscores the need for the comprehensive approach to reducing emissions of CFCs and other ozonedepleting chemicals as called for in Title VI.

One clear success of the rulemaking process under Title VI is the use of the Stratospheric Ozone Protection Advisory Committee (STOPAC). The STOPAC is composed of industry, environmental groups, government officials, and academics who provide insight and feedback on EPA policy related to the protection of the ozone layer. In the past, this Committee has been one of the sounding boards in the development of our international positions related to the control of ozone depletion. Currently STOPAC is providing valuable insight into the development of our regulations through participating subcommittees. To date, my staff has held over 20 subcommittee meetings to obtain important technical information and to elicit various perspectives on these rulemakings. Although consensus is not always reached on each rulemaking, I believe that the regulation development process has been well served through this healthy exchange of views prior to issuance of proposed rules. Section 604 is the cornerstone of Title VI. This section lays out the phaseout schedule for production and consumption of the ozone depleting chemicals. Its requirements are similar to the restrictions of the Montreal Protocol amended last year in London. However, as you are aware, the Clean Air Act goes further by its faster and deeper interim reduction schedule, an earlier phaseout for methyl chloroform, a more restrictive allowance trading scheme, and the freeze and eventual elimination of production of HCFCs by the year 2030.

As part of the phaseout of these chemicals, the Agency promulgated on January 22 of this year a list of Class I and Class II chemicals affected by the regulations. Class I chemicals are subject to the production phaseout by the turn of the century, while the production of Class II chemicals (the HCFCs) will be eliminated by the year 2030. Since the production restrictions of Class I chemicals began this calendar year, The Agency quickly issued a direct final rule for this calendar year to ensure that the first year requirements of the Clean Air Act were met. The Agency issued the rule on March 4, 1991.

Since that time, EPA staff has been developing a more detailed regulation to fully implement section 604 and its related sections for 1992 and beyond.

The Agency is also developing a proposal to implement section 609 of the Act. Section 609 requires that all technicians servicing motor vehicle air-conditioners recov er the refrigerant for on-site or off-site recovery. This section of the Act and EPA's proposed rule build on the voluntary efforts of the industry and environmental groups over the past few years in establishing the foundation of a recycling pro gram. This effect is further reinforced by the CFC tax which has increased the price of using virgin production, thereby increasing the economic incentive to recycle Section 610 requires the Agency to ban non-essential products. Congress explicitly banned plastic party streamers, noise horns and CPC solvent for noncommerná electronic and photographic equipment in the statute EPA's proposal elimizn their sale and distribution. In addition, the Agency has the discretion to ban other non-essential products based on the purpose and intended use of the product, the technological avalability of substitutes, and their safety, health and other relevant factors

So far I have described rulemakings that are due within 12 months or less of the signing of the Clean Air Act. As you can see, these rules are at the proposal stage, and should be completed this fall. In addition to these rules, Agency staff have been working on other, more "long term" rules that are required within the next 9 to 15 months.

Section 611 requires that all products containing or made with Class I chemicals be labelled. The development of this rule presents some formidable tasks for the Agency and industry. For example, many companies may purchase components that are made with Class I chemicals, yet they could be unaware, not knowing how the component was made, that their product must be labelled by law. In another example, a company is exempt from labelling its product if the Agency determines that there are no safe substitutes of the Class I chemical that could be used. However, there are far too many existing products for EPA to make individual determinations as to whether or not there are available substitutes. These are some of the issues that EPA staff and the STOPAC are grappling with during this rule development. Despite these difficulties, I am optimistic that the Agency will make the scheduled promulgation date of May 15 of next year.

Section 608 is the National Recycling and Emission Reduction Program. The Agency is required to promulgate these rules by January 1, 1992. The Agency staff are making significant progress toward a national recycling program that will minimize emissions during servicing, repair and disposal of air conditioners and refrigerators. The Agency views the national recycling program as the first step in an emission reduction program that would eventually look across all industry sectors to limit emissions from such sources to their lowest achievable emission levels.

Finally, EPA staff are developing the Safe Alternatives Program under section 612 of the Clean Air Act. Although the Agency has until November 1992 to complete this rulemaking, I believe that it is important to establish this program as quickly as possible. Under this program, the Agency will evaluate the substitutes replacing the Class I and Class II chemicals to determine whether or not they are safe to human health and the environment. In those cases where EPA determines that the chemical is unsafe, the Agency will not allow the use of the chemical as a substitute for a Class I or Class II chemical, if there is an available substitute. This analysis looks at the overall health and environmental impacts of the substitutes and will consider a wide range of factors (e.g., ozone depletion, energy impacts, toxicity, flammability) in evaluating the acceptability of alternatives. Implementation of section 612 will be an important part of the Agency's ongoing efforts to ensure that substitutes for ozonedepleting chemicals are environmentally acceptable.

ISSUES CONCERNING RESEARCH FUNDING

Your letter of invitation asked for a discussion of "the effects of the decision of the Office of Management and Budget [OMB] to withdraw funding for the Agency's global environment mitigation research program." The notion that OMB has withdrawn funding for mitigation studies is erroneous. OMB has only clarified that EPA cannot fund mitigation studies out of the $21.75 million in the Agency's FY 1991 budget for research under the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP).

The USGCRP budget was developed through an interagency process coordinated by the committee on Earth and Environmental Sciences and EPA has not been singled out for special treatment. As part of the FY 1991 budgetary process, OMB directed that all agencies involved in global change research include specific levels of resources in their budgets to reflect their relative contributions to the overall U.S. research effort. The $21.75 million in funding represents EPA's share of the Fiscal Year 1991 President's Budget for the USGCRP, adjusted to reflect the reduced Congressional appropriation.

Although the USGCRP has no role per se in policy or mitigation studies, OMB has not precluded EPA or any other agency or department from funding such studies with non-USGCRP funds. EPA has and intends to continue to play an important catalytic role in industry efforts to develop and bring to market safe, energy-efficient alternatives to replace CFCs and other ozone-depleting substances.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF Liz Cook

Mr. Chairman and Members of the subcommittee: I am Liz Cook, Ozone Campaign Director of Friends of the Earth. We are the U.S. affiliate of Friends of the Earth International, a worldwide environmental network with member organizations in 43 countries. My statement this morning is made on behalf of the 45,000 members and supporters of our global advocacy group. We greatly appreciate your

invitation to appear here this morning to share our views on the following three important issues:

I. The outcome of the Third Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, which took place June 19-21 in Nairobi; II. The implementation of Title VI, the Stratospheric Ozone Protection section of the Clean Air Act; and

III. Current Federal funding for ozone protection programs, including the recent Office of Management and Budget decision to withdraw funding for EPA's global environmental mitigation research program.

As you are well aware, despite all of the international and national efforts to protect Earth's fragile ozone layer, this vital barrier against the sun's harmful ultraviolet radiation continues to deteriorate. The alarming new data from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), which shows that protective ozone above the United States is thinning twice as fast a scientists previously thought, underscores the need for us to take every feasible action to eliminate ozone-destroying chemicals as rapidly as possible. In this regard, Mr. Chairman, we commend you for the strong statement you made calling for such measures at the July 24 hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Representing Friends of the Earth, I had the privilege of attending, as an observer, the recent international ozone meeting in Nairobi. I also serve on EPA's Stratospheric Ozone Advisory Committee and several of its Clean Air Act implementation subcommittees. With this perspective, Friends of the Earth's overall view is that the international community and the United States are not doing enough to stop ozone destruction. Our testimony today is summarized in the following points and elaborated on below:

I. The Nairobi Meeting

A. At the Nairobi meeting, Parties to the Montreal Protocol failed to make a commitment to further strengthen the international ozone protection agreement. Worsening ozone depletion requires governments to accelerate the phaseout of ozone-destroying chemicals and place strict controls on harmful substitutes known as HCFCs.

B. Montreal Protocol Parties did succeed in making the ozone fund operational at the Nairobi meeting. Governments must now ensure that only environmentally sound projects are financed and that sufficient funds are available to achieve the fastest possible phaseout in developing countries.

II. Clean Air Act Implementation

A. Title VI of the Clean Air Act has the potential to provide tremendous protection for the ozone layer, but Congress must ensure that the EPA uses its authority to fully implement Title VI's provisions.

B. Section 606 of Title VI requires the EPA Administrator to hasten the phaseout of class I and class II substances if scientific information indicates a faster timetable is necessary to protect human health and the environment. The new NASA data provides such a scientific basis.

III. Government Funding for Ozone Protection

A. The Office of Management and Budget decision to cut funding for EPA's environmental mitigation program on the development of control options and alternatives to ozone depleting chemicals is in direct conflict with U.S. efforts to eliminate these destructive chemicals.

B. EPA's overall funding levels for its stratospheric ozone protection program should be increased to enable the agency to carry out the additional workload of implementing Title VI of the Clean Air Act.

C. Congress should cut funding for NASA's High Speed Commercial Transport (HSCT) program. The NASA budget recently approved by the House and Senate Appropriations Committees contains $76.4 million for fiscal year 1992 to research the feasibility of this ozone-damaging aircraft.

D. Congress can bring extra protection to the ozone layer and increase revenue by enhancing the existing tax on ozone-depleting chemicals.

NAIROBI MEETING

Parties to the Montreal Protocol should have made a commitment to further strengthen the international ozone protection agreement at their third annual meeting in Nairobi.

Parties to the Montreal Protocol made significant progress when they amended the agreement in London in June 1990. However, the Parties set dangerously slow

timetables for the phaseout of ozone-depleting chemicals and left harmful HCFC substitute chemicals uncontrolled.

Since then, NASA has released alarming new satellite data showing that ozone depletion is worsening over populated regions of the globe and extending into the time of year when people begin to spend more time outdoors. In the past, ozone depletion over mid-latitudes (such as Washington, DC) was believed to average, at its worst, about 2.3 percent during wintertime. Now scientists have measured ozone losses of 3 to 5 percent extending into April and May. The new data underscore the need to take measures beyond the London amendment.

It is a great disappointment that the Parties to the Montreal Protocol did not respond in Nairobi to the new scientific findings by issuing a declaration committing themselves to further strengthening the protocol when it is next up for amendment in 1992. When the Parties first met in Helsinki in May 1989, they issued the Helsinki Declaration which gave negotiating guidance to the Parties in the period leading up to the London amendment. Such a declaration also served to reassure the world community that further action beyond the original Montreal Protocol would be taken.

Montreal Protocol Parties did not give the world similar assurances at the Nairobi meeting. Only seven governments-Sweden, Finland, Switzerland, Austria, Germany, and Denmark-formally responded to the new scientific data. In a statement, they called for more stringent protocol measures to be adopted in 1992, and agreed to phase out CFCs, halons, and carbon tetrachloride as soon as possible but no later than the year 1997, and methyl chloroform as soon as possible but not later than the year 2000. They also said they are determined to limit by no later than 1995 the use of HCFCs to specific key applications where more environmentally suitable alternatives are available, and to phase out their use in those areas as soon as technically feasible.

While these seven governments and others have made unilateral commitments to phase out CFCs and other chemicals faster than the revised Montreal Protocol requires, there was not enough support for a strong Nairobi declaration from all the Parties. Vocal opposition to a declaration by Japan, the Soviet Union, and several developing countries indicates that further amendment of the protocol in 1992 is far from certain. Moreover, despite the great concern that EPA Administrator Reilly expressed about the new NASA data, the United States did not forcibly press for a Nairobi declaration. Instead, the Parties simply instructed the protocol's assessment panels to look at "the possibilities and difficulties of an earlier phaseout of the controlled substances, for example the implications of a 1997 phaseout." They also asked the panels to identify the areas where HCFCs are the only suitable alternative, estimate the quantity of HCFCs that will be needed, and suggest a possible date for an HCFC phaseout.

Successful negotiations to amend the Montreal Protocol will require leadership from the United States. There is no excuse for why the United States-the world's largest producer of ozone-depleting chemicals-cannot phaseout CFCs and other controlled chemicals sooner than the year 2000. Several governments, including Germany, Sweden, Norway, Australia, Switzerland, and Austria, are committed to cutting CFC use by 90 to 100 percent by 1995. Canada and the European Community will eliminate CFCs in 1997. In this context, technological arguments and fear of putting the United States at a competitive disadvantage do not hold up. On the contrary, the U.S. "go slow" approach may create a climate in which U.S. industries fall behind other nations in the race to develop CFC alternatives.

In Nairobi, Friends of the Earth-USA issued a statement, signed by thirteen environmental organizations from around the world, calling on the Parties to accelerate and broaden the phaseout in 1992 in the following ways:

• CFCs and Other Controlled Substances: The Protocol should call on all nations to end production and consumption of CFCs, halons, methyl chloroform, and carbon tetrachloride immediately. The absolute deadline for phasing these chemicals out should match or exceed the timetables set by Germany.

● HCFCs: The Protocol should prohibit production and consumption of long-lifetime HCFCs and HCFC blends with an ozone depletion potential greater than .02 by 2000. Production and consumption of shorter-lifetime HCFCs should be prohibited shortly thereafter. HCFCs should be confined to essential applications, where chlorine-free substitutes are not yet available.

HFCS: Recognizing that long-lifetime HFCs contribute significantly to global warming, and that these compounds are coming into use due to the Protocol's controls, the Protocol should prohibit production and consumption of HFCs with long lifetimes.

It is especially important that governments do not allow the chemical industry to gear-up for large scale production of HCFCs and HFCs, especially long-lived ones. Such new chemicals, while less harmful than CFCs, could become tomorrow's environmental problems if widely adopted. In Title VI of the Clean Air Act, Congress has recognized the potential danger of indefinite use of HCFCs. The law, however, allows HCFC production to grow unchecked until 2015 and to continue until 2030 to service existing equipment. Alternatively, Germany's ozone protection law eliminates new uses of HCFC-22, a long-lived HCFC, in 2000—fifteen years ahead of the Clean Air Act. In light of the worsening ozone depletion, strict limits must be place on HCFCs at both the domestic and international level.

Montreal Protocol Parties did succeed in making the ozone fund operational at the Nairobi meeting. Governments must now ensure that only environmentally sound projects are financed and that sufficient funds are available to achieve the fastest possible phaseout in developing countries.

The Montreal Protocol gives developing countries up to ten extra years to comply with its control measures. Greater protection for the ozone layer can be achieved by helping these countries take immediate, rather than delayed, steps to reduce consumption of ozone-depleting chemicals. For example, starting right now, CFC recycling programs in the refrigeration industry sector can be initiated; aerosol manufacturing shifted away from CFCs; and in countries where electronics manufacturing occurs, water-based cleaning and no-clean technologies can be adopted. It is essential that the United States and other industrialized nations ensure that sufficient funding is available to achieve the fastest possible phaseout in developing countries.

On an optimistic note, at the Nairobi meeting governments cleared the way for the Ozone Fund to become operational. During the past year, procedural issues had bogged down the fund and no ozone protecting projects had been financed. In Nairobi, however, the Executive Committee which oversees the Ozone Fund approved the work plans of the three implementing agencies-the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), and the World Bank. An announcement at the meeting by China that it had ratified the Montreal Protocol provided Parties with confidence that the fund was encouraging global participation in the agreement.

Friends of the Earth is particularly pleased with a decision by the Parties to permit representatives of non-governmental organizations to observe meetings of the Ozone Fund's Executive Committee. Initially the committee had decided to permit NGO observers by special invitation only. The United States, however, made a proposal to the meeting of the Parties and succeeded in changing the rule to allow more open participation. We gratefully appreciate the support and leadership that the U.S. delegation provided on the observer issue. The decision by the Parties to elect Eileen Claussen of the EPA as vice chair of the fund's Executive Committee is evidence that active U.S. participation in the funding mechanism is widely appreciated.

We look forward to working with the Friends of the Earth International network to monitor and provide input to the activities of the Ozone Fund. The fund faces an important challenge: to make information available about all possible alternatives to ozone-depleting chemicals. Investment in alternatives is often disproportionately controlled by CFC producing companies, which are emphasizing the development of close variants of the current chemicals. Production processes and end-use applications which are less reliant on HCFCs often receive short shrift. Funds should not be provided to sell a new generation of ozone-destroyers for applications where an ozone-safe alternative is available. Given the availability of chlorine-free alternatives for many CFC applications, a shrewder long term strategy would be to provide these alternatives wherever possible. We are counting on U.S. to use its influential role in the fund to make sure this happens. Otherwise, developing countries risk getting locked into uses of HCFCs which the industrialized world may soon abandon.

CLEAN AIR ACT IMPLEMENTATION

Title VI of the Clean Air Act has the potential to provide tremendous protection for the ozone layer, but Congress must ensure that the EPA uses its authority to fully implement Title VI's provisions.

With the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Congress provided the EPA with wide-reaching authority to control ozone-depleting substances. We commend the subcommittee on Environmental Protection, particularly Chairman Max Baucus and Ranking Minority Member John Chafee, for the vital role it played in developing and enacting Title VI, the Stratospheric Ozone and Global Climate Protection