[Senate Hearing 114-341]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 114-341
EXAMINING THE PRESIDENT'S FISCAL YEAR 2017 BUDGET REQUEST FOR THE U.S.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
APRIL 19, 2016
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
21-265 PDF WASHINGTON : 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, Chairman
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana BARBARA BOXER, California
JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
MIKE CRAPO, Idaho BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
ROGER WICKER, Mississippi KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska
Ryan Jackson, Majority Staff Director
Bettina Poirier, Democratic Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
APRIL 19, 2016
OPENING STATEMENTS
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma... 1
Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California... 3
WITNESSES
McCarthy, Gina, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency;
Accompanied by: David Bloom, Chief Financial Officer,
Environmental Protection Agency................................ 5
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Gillibrand........................................... 11
Senator Inhofe............................................... 13
Senator Rounds............................................... 15
Senator Wicker............................................... 18
EXAMINING THE PRESIDENT'S FISCAL YEAR 2017 BUDGET REQUEST FOR THE U.S.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
----------
TUESDAY, APRIL 19, 2016
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m. in
room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. James Inhofe
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Inhofe, Boxer, Vitter, Barrasso, Capito,
Boozman, Wicker, Fischer, Rounds, Sullivan, Carper, Cardin,
Whitehouse, Gillibrand, Booker and Markey.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Senator Inhofe. The hearing will come to order.
First of all, welcome, Administrator McCarthy. We
appreciate you being here. As I said to you before the meeting,
this may be the last positive note, but I want to start off on
a positive note, and that is I want you to commend your staff
that has been working on TSCA with us. It has been very, very
difficult, and it looks like now we are just a matter of
hopefully hours away of having agreement with the House. But
without your staff concentrating on that, it really couldn't
have happened, so I hope you will share that with them. I am
sure maybe they are watching now.
Administrator, the President has requested almost $8.3
billion to fund EPA next fiscal year, an increase of more than
$87 million from last year's enacted. I would like to address
what I believe are misplaced priorities and how the President
is sacrificing EPA's core programs to advance his climate
agenda.
The President is seeking--and I had two different sources
here. I think the figure is accurate. The total amount he is
seeking would be $235 million to implement the Clean Power
Plan, even though EPA has testified before this Committee that
they have done no modeling whether the rule would have any
impact on global temperature change and the Supreme Court has
stayed it from going into effect because of ongoing litigation
which could well last until 2018.
The President is intent on picking winners and losers in
the energy economy. The budget request makes clear the
President's intention to now squeeze the oil and gas sector
through costly new regulations and increased inspections and
enforcement, much like it did with coal mines and power plants
at the beginning of the Administration. Another example is how
the budget requests $300 million in mandatory funding, or more
than $1.6 billion over 10 years, to pay for charging stations
for electric vehicles and other subsidies to remake our
transportation infrastructure.
Meanwhile, the President again proposes cutting $40 million
from the very successful diesel emission retrofit program that
Senator Carper and I support. The budget would also eliminate
State grants to address radon, even though radon is the second
leading cause of lung cancer.
In the hearing earlier this month, we heard testimony about
the challenges faced by States and local governments in meeting
EPA clean water mandates. But the President's budget would cut
$414 million from the Clean Water State Revolving Fund which
helps these very same States and local communities pay for
improvements to sewer and wastewater treatment systems.
Regardless of what one thinks about the President's policy
goals, here are a few objective results: The Supreme Court has
stayed the Clean Power Plan, the centerpiece of the President's
climate legacy, over questions that EPA exceeded the limits of
its authority under the Clean air Act.
A headline in the New York Times and report by the GAO
about EPA's violating the law by using taxpayer money for
covert propaganda and illegal lobbying to support the Waters of
the U.S. rule. Injunctions were issued to halt the WOTUS rule
itself by the Sixth Circuit and a Federal district court in
North Dakota. Last year's Supreme Court decision remanding a
rule to limit mercury emissions from power plants because EPA
ignored costs.
As we have seen from the Gold King Mine blowout and the
contaminated drinking water in Flint, Michigan, EPA has at
times been distracted from fulfilling its core missions due to
the Obama administration's single-minded focus on remaking EPA
into an agency that regulates climate change and the energy
sector.
The members of this Committee and I look forward to asking
you about the EPA's priorities and regulatory agenda.
Senator Boxer.
[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:]
Statement of Hon. James M. Inhofe,
U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma
Administrator McCarthy, thank you for appearing this
morning. The President has requested almost $8.3 billion to
fund EPA next fiscal year--an increase of more that $87 million
from last year's enacted.
This budget is just the lates example of the
Administration's misplaced priorities and how EPA's core
programs are being sacraficed to advance President Obama's
climate legacy.
The President is seeking more than $50 million just to
implement the Clean Power Plant--even though the rule will have
negligible impact on global temperature chand and the Supreme
Court has stayed it from going into effeect because of ongoing
litigation.
The Obama EPA is intent on picking winners and losers in
the energy economy. The budget request makes clear the
President's intention to now squeeze the oil and gas sector
through costly new reulations and increased inspections and
enforcement, much like it did with coal mines amd power plants
at the beginning of the Administration.
Another example of this is how the budget request seeks
$300 million in mandatory funding (or more than $1.6 billion
over 10 years) to pay for charging stations for electric
vehicles and other subsidies to remake our transportation
infrastructure.
Meanwhile, the president proposes cutting $40 million from
the very successful diesel emission retrofit program that
Senator Carper and I support. The budget would also eliminate
state grants to address radon, even though radon is the second
leading cause of lung cancer,
In a heaing earlier this month, we heard testimony about
the challenges faced by states and local governments in meeting
EPA clean water mandates. But the President's budget would cut
$414 million from the Clean Water State Revolving Fund which
helps these very same states and local communities pay for
improvements to sewer and waste water treatment systems.
A key part of last year's budget request was to fund dozens
of new atorneys. But what does EPA have to show for this hiring
spree?
The Supreme Court has stayed the Clean Power Plan--the
centerpiece of the President's climate legacy--over questions
the EPA exceeded the limits of its authority under the Clean
Air Act.
A headline in the New York Times and report by GAO about
how EPA violated the law by using tax-payer money for covert
propaganda and illegal lobbying to support the Waters of the
U.S. rule.
Injunctions were issued to halt the WTUS rule itself by
the Sixth Circuit and a federal district court in North Dakota.
And let's not forget last year's Supreme Court decision
remanding a rule to limit mercury emissions from power plants
because EPA ignored costs.
As we have seen from the Gold King Mine blowout and the
contaminated drinking water in Flint, EPA has at times been
distracted from fulfilling its core missions due to the Obama
Administration's dingle-minded focus on remaking EPA into an
agency that regulates climate change and the energy sector.
The job of EPA Administrator comes with a high level of
scrutiny from Congress and the American people. We may not see
eye to eye on everything. But I appreciate the support you and
your staff have provided fot some of the Committee's work
especially to modernize the Toxic Substance Control Act. As you
know the Senate passed by voice vote last December a TSCA
reform bill named after our colleague Frank Lautenberg, and I
thank you and your staff for your continued help in moving that
bill forward.
The members of this Committee ans I are looking forward to
quetioning EPA's prioities and regulatory agenda.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Senator Boxer. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, and I will defend you as much as possible from
what is coming at you.
EPA's work implementing our Nation's landmark laws to
address clean air, children's health, safe drinking water,
toxics, and water quality in America's lakes and rivers is
essential for public health and safety. Despite my colleague's
chagrin, the work of the EPA to keep our families healthy is
widely supported in poll after poll after poll where the
opinion of this Senate and this House is probably around the
17, 18 percent range at best. So let's be clear what we are
talking about.
Vast majority support your work and, sadly, vast majority
think that we are not doing our jobs or not doing it well. That
is sad.
Now, on the budget, EPA's budget of $8.27 billion is down
from 7 years ago when the budget was $10.3 billion. It is a sad
situation, and I am sorry that the President didn't make this a
bigger priority. I guess it is $127 million increase above
2016, but there are cuts in this budget where I agree with my
colleague that are wrong.
So the problem is not enough money in the budget. That is
what I think. And you are asked to do more with less, and you
get criticized when you don't have a Johnny-on-the-spot answer
when they have cut you like this over the years.
It is important that EPA continue to focus on combatting
dangerous climate change, which is happening all around us. For
example, 2015 was the hottest year on record; 15 of the 16
warmest years on record have occurred in the 21st century. Sea
levels are rising many times faster than they have only in the
last 2,800 years. That is all. We see record rainfalls, record
droughts, record fires, and scientists are saying too much
carbon pollution in the air caused by human activity.
Young people, when asked about this, think that those
people who don't recognize this as a threat are out of touch,
and that is a nice way to put it. They say worse than that.
EPA also has a critical responsibility to ensure drinking
water is safe, and the American people have a right to expect
that they will not be poisoned when they turn on their faucets.
Small point, right? The lead poisoning of children in Flint is
a tragedy, and we must commit to never let it happen again. The
State of Michigan failed the people of Flint, is primarily
responsible, in my view, because they changed the source of the
water to save a few bucks; it ignored multiple warnings that it
was poisoning its own citizens, and EPA has a responsibility to
speak out when it sees action being taken that could harm
public health. EPA could have, and should have, done more, and
I hope the actions taken by EPA since the Flint crisis will
help prevent similar tragedies from taking place in the future.
This problem is far more widespread than is acknowledge. I
know of cases in Mississippi, California, where they have
turned off the drinking water for the children. Obviously, the
older the pipes, the worse the problem. But the offense in
Flint demonstrates we have a long way to go to provide
reliable, safe drinking water to all Americans and in cleaning
up the waterways that serve as sources of our drinking water.
The American Society of Civil Engineers gives our Country's
drinking water and wastewater infrastructure a big fat D. It is
embarrassing that this, the greatest Country in the world--a
lot of people say let's make America great again. America is
great. But how do we stand here with an infrastructure rated D,
or sit here, as the case may be?
The American Water Works Association estimates that 7
percent of homes, 15 to 22 million Americans, have lead service
lines. This is unacceptable. We have to continue to invest in
improving the Nation's failing water infrastructure.
We are very happy about WIFIA. This is a program Senator
Inhofe and I and all of the Committee worked on together to
leverage private financing for critical drinking water. But
WIFIA shouldn't be a replacement for the State Revolving Funds.
I agree with my colleague on that. Our Nation's infrastructure
needs far outstrip the funding available, and the proposed $257
million cut to the State Revolving Funds will make this funding
gap worse.
Administrator McCarthy, you have a tough job, but the
American people do support your mission, as I said. In poll
after poll they favor the efforts to address climate change,
cleanup the air, protect our water, and provide safe drinking
water to 117 million Americans. You are doing essential work.
For some reason this issue has become a partisan divide. It
is my biggest regret, as I get ready to leave the Senate that I
love so much, to see this divide. It is sad. We will see it on
display today. It will speak for itself.
Thank you.
Senator Inhofe. Administrator McCarthy.
STATEMENT OF GINA MCCARTHY, ADMINISTRATOR, ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY; ACCOMPANIED BY: DAVID BLOOM, CHIEF FINANCIAL
OFFICER, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Ms. McCarthy. Chairman Inhofe, Ranking Member Boxer, I
really appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to
discuss EPA's proposed Fiscal Year 2017 budget, and I am joined
today by the Agency's Deputy Chief Financial officer, David
Bloom.
EPA's budget request of $8.267 billion for the 2017 Fiscal
Year lays out a strategy to ensure steady progress in
addressing environmental issues that affect public health. For
45 years our investments to protect public health and the
environment have consistently paid off many times over. We have
cut air pollution by 70 percent and cleaned up half of the
Nation's polluted waterways all the while our national economy
has tripled.
Effective environmental protection is a joint effort of the
EPA, States, and our Tribal partners. That is why the largest
portion of our budget, $3.28 billion, or almost 40 percent, is
provided directly to our State and Tribal partners. In Fiscal
Year 2017, we are requesting an increase of $77 million in
funding for State and Tribal Assistance categorical grants in
support of critical State work and air and water programs, as
well as continued support for our Tribal partners.
This budget request also reinforced EPA's focus on
community support by providing targeted funding in support for
regional coordinators to help communities find and determine
the best programs to address local environmental priorities.
The budget includes $90 million in Brownfield Project
grants to local communities. That is an increase of $10
million, which will help return contaminated sites to
productive use.
This budget prioritizes actions to reduce the impacts of
climate change and it supports the President's Climate Action
Plan. It includes $235 million for efforts to cut carbon
pollution and other greenhouse gases through common sense
standards, guidelines, as well as voluntary programs.
The EPA's Clean Power Plan continues to be a top priority
for the EPA and for our Nation's inevitable transition to a
clean energy economy. Though the Supreme Court has temporarily
stayed the CPP rule, States are not precluded from voluntarily
choosing to continue implementation planning. EPA will continue
to assist States that voluntarily decide to do so.
As part of the President's 21st Century Clean
Transportation Plan, the budget also proposes to establish a
new mandatory fund at the EPA, providing $1.65 billion over the
course of 10 years that will be used to retrofit, replace or
repower diesel equipment, and up to $300 million in Fiscal Year
2017 to renew and increase funding for the Diesel Emissions
Reduction Grant Program. The budget also includes a $4.2
million increase to enhance vehicle engine and fuel compliance
programs, including critical testing capabilities.
We also have to confront the systemic challenge that
threatens our Country's drinking water and the infrastructure
that delivers it.
This budget includes a $2 million request for State
Revolving Funds and $42 million in additional funds to provide
technical assistance to small communities, loan financing to
promote public-private collaboration, and training to increase
the capacity of communities and States to plan and finance
drinking water and wastewater infrastructure improvements.
The EPA requests $20 million to fund the Water
Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act Program, or WIFIA,
which will provide direct financing for the construction of
water and wastewater infrastructure by making loans for large
innovative projects of regional or national significance.
This budget also provides $22 million in funding to expand
the technical, managerial, and financial capabilities of
drinking water systems. Included is $7.1 million for the Water
Infrastructure and resiliency Finance Center, as well as the
Center for Environmental Finance that will enable communities
across the Country to focus on financial planning of upcoming
public infrastructure investments, to expand work with States
to identify financing opportunities for rural communities, and
to enhance partnerships and collaboration with the U.S.
Department of Agriculture.
EPA is also seeking a $20 million increase to the Superfund
Remedial Program, which will accelerate the pace of cleanups,
supporting States, local communities, and Tribes in their
effort to assess and cleanup sites and return them to
productive use.
EPA's Fiscal Year 2017 budget request will let us continue
to make a real and visible difference to communities and public
health every day, and provide us with foundation to revitalize
the economy and improve infrastructure across the Country.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I look
forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. McCarthy follows:]
Statement of Gina McCarthy, Administrator, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
Chairman Inhofe, Ranking Member Boxer, and members of the
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
to discuss the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed
fiscal year budget. I'm joined by the agency's Deputy Chief
Financial Officer, David Bloom.
The EPA is, at its very core, a public health agency. The
simple fact is you cannot have healthy people without clean
air, clean water, healthy land, and a stable climate. We have
worked hard to deliver these and made significant progress over
the years for the American people. This budget request of
$8.267 billion [in discretionary funding] for the 2017 fiscal
year, starting October 1, 2016, lays out a strategy to ensure
that steady progress is made in addressing environmental
problems. This strategy includes actions to protect public
health and it ensures that the agency and its partners in
environmental protection, states and tribes, are positioned to
meet the challenges of the future. The request is $127 million
above the agency's enacted level for fiscal year 6. For 45
years, the EPA's investments to protect public health and the
environment have helped make the nation's air, land, and waters
cleaner.
However, in many ways we are now at a turning point. As
science advances, it improves our ability to measure pollution
and provide better and more complete access to environmental
information, but we know that the technologies and tools that
we have relied on to date cannot be expected to meet all of
today's challenges, like climate change and aging
infrastructure. This budget supports efforts to leverage
investments in technology, and be even more innovative and
responsive, while reflecting an understanding that a strong
economy depends on a healthy environment. It funds essential
work to support our communities, address climate change,
protect our waters, protect our land, ensure chemical safety,
encourage pollution prevention, advance research and
development and promote innovation and modernization to
streamline processes.
Supporting our state, local, and tribal partners is a
central component of our work to protect public health and the
environment. This budget builds on a history of addressing
environmental and public health challenges as a shared
responsibility. We are doing this while supporting a strong
workforce at the EPA and maintaining a forward and adaptive
organization with the tools necessary to ensure effective use
of the public funds provided to us.
making a visible difference in communities across the country
We are committed to continuing our work with our partners
to make a visible difference in communities across the
country--especially in areas overburdened by pollution--
including distressed urban and rural communities.
The EPA has made community support a top priority and this
budget reinforces that focus. It includes a multi-faceted
effort that builds and strengthens capacity using innovative
tools, comprehensive training, technical assistance, and
increased access to the most up-to-date scientific data. The
EPA is committed to assisting communities in addressing their
most pressing environmental concerns and will continue to
innovate by taking full advantage of advances in technology to
detect air and water pollution.
In fiscal year 7, the EPA will provide targeted funding and
support for regional coordinators to help communities find and
determine the best programs to address local environmental
priorities. The fiscal year budget also provides $17 million
for the Alaska Native Villages infrastructure assistance
program, and an additional $2.9 million within the Integrated
Environmental Strategies program will support these communities
in conducting resiliency planning exercises and capacity-
building. This will buildupon previous collaborative efforts
with FEMA, NOAA and HUD.
Across the budget, activities help communities adopt green
infrastructure, provide technical assistance for building
resilience and adapting to climate change, and help communities
to reduce environmental impacts through advanced monitoring
technology and decisionmaking tools. The EPA's budget also
includes $90 million in Brownfields Project grants to local
communities, an increase of $10 million. These funds will help
to return contaminated sites to productive reuse by increasing
investments in technical assistance and community grants for
assessment and cleanup of areas where we work, live and play.
The EPA will continue work to limit public exposure to
uncontrolled releases of hazardous substances and make
previously contaminated properties available for reuse by
communities through a request of approximately $521 million in
the Superfund Remedial program and another $185 million in the
Superfund Emergency Response and Removal program. An increase
of $24 million in Superfund cleanup programs will enable the
remedial program to maximize the preparation of ``shovel-
ready'' projects, and provide funding to reduce the backlog of
new construction projects that address exposure to contaminated
soil and groundwater. It also supports critical resources with
the Emergency Response and Removal program giving us the
ability to quickly respond to simultaneous emergencies.
addressing climate change and improving air quality
The fiscal year budget request for the agency's work to
address climate change and to improve air quality is $1.132
billion. These resources will help protect those most
vulnerable to climate impacts and the harmful health effects of
air pollution through commonsense standards, guidelines, and
partnership programs.
Climate change remains a threat to public health, our
economy, and national security and the U.S. recognizes our role
and our responsibility to lead in cutting carbon pollution that
is fueling climate change. To do so, our work will position the
business community, its entrepreneurs, and its innovators to
lead the world in a global effort while at the same time,
expanding the economy. States and businesses across the country
are working to build renewable energy infrastructure, increase
energy efficiency, and cut carbon pollution--creating
sustainable, middle class jobs and displaying the kind of
innovation that has enabled this country to overcome so many
challenges. Over the last decade, the U.S. has cut its total
carbon pollution more than any other nation on Earth. And last
November, we set a goal of reducing economy-wide greenhouse gas
emissions by 26--28 percent by 2025. Even so, we are still
ranked just behind China as the second largest emitter of
CO2 , so we need to continue to lead by example as
we work to address this global challenge.
The fiscal year budget prioritizes actions to reduce the
impacts of climate change, one of the most significant
challenges for this and future generations, and supports the
President's Climate Action Plan. The budget includes $235
million for efforts to cut carbon pollution and other
greenhouse gases through common sense standards, guidelines,
and voluntary programs. The EPA's Clean Power Plan, which
establishes carbon pollution reduction standards for existing
power plants, is a top priority for the EPA and will help spur
innovation and economic growth while creating a clean energy
economy. Although the Supreme Court has stayed the CPP rule,
the stay does not preclude all continued work on the CPP and
does not limit states that want to proceed with planning
efforts or other actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
from power plants. During the stay, EPA will continue to assist
states that voluntarily decide to move forward, helping to pave
the way for plans that will involve innovative approaches and
flexibility for achieving solutions.
The President's Climate Action Plan also calls for
greenhouse gas reductions from the transportation sector by
increasing fuel economy standards. These standards will
represent significant savings at the pump, reduce carbon
pollution, and reduce fuel costs for businesses, which is
anticipated to lower prices for consumers. The budget includes
a $4.2 million increase to enhance vehicle, engine and fuel
compliance programs, including critical testing capabilities,
to ensure compliance with emission standards. An additional $1
million is included in the President's request to share the
agency's mobile source expertise and technical assistance
internationally with a focus on heavy duty trucks.
As part of the President's 21st Century Clean
Transportation Plan, the President's Budget proposes to
establish a new mandatory fund at the EPA. The existing fleet
of cars, trucks, and buses is aging, contributing to climate
change and putting our children's health at risk. To protect
the health of the most vulnerable populations and reduce
childhood exposure to harmful exhaust, the EPA will provide a
total of $1.65 billion through the Fund over the course of 10
years to retrofit, replace, or repower diesel equipment. The
proposed funding, which is separate from the agency's
discretionary funding request, will provide up to $300 million
in fiscal year to renew and increase funding for the Diesel
Emissions Reduction Grant Program (DERA), which is set to
expire in 2016. This budget also provides $10 million in
discretionary funding to support our existing DERA program to
provide national grants and rebates to reduce diesel emissions
in priority areas.
protecting the nation's waters
Protecting the nation's waters remains a top priority for
the EPA. In fiscal year 7, the agency will continue to
buildupon decades of work to ensure our waterways are clean and
our drinking water is safe. There are far reaching effects when
rivers, lakes, and oceans become polluted. Polluted waters can
make our drinking water unsafe, threaten the waters where we
swim and fish, and endanger wildlife. To meet these needs and
to protect public health, we need to expand our impact through
innovation. The State Revolving Funds (SRF) alone, while
important, cannot and should not be relied upon to solve all
infrastructure needs. New funds available under the Water
Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) credit
program, as well as technical assistance to help communities
plan future investments and better leverage Federal, state, and
local resources are necessary to get us there.
We have to confront the systematic challenges that threaten
our drinking water; a resource essential to every human being
and living thing on Earth. The EPA will continue to partner
with states to invest in our nation's water infrastructure.
This budget includes a combined $2 billion request for the
Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds and $42
million in additional funds to provide technical assistance to
small communities, loan financing to promote public-private
collaboration and training to increase the capacity of
communities and states to plan and finance drinking water and
wastewater infrastructure improvements.
The Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA)
established a new financing mechanism for water and wastewater
infrastructure projects. In this budget, the EPA requests $20
million to fund the WIFIA program, which will provide direct
financing for the construction of water and wastewater
infrastructure by making loans for large innovative projects of
regional or national significance. The WIFIA program also will
work to support investments in small communities and promote
public-private collaboration. $15 million of the $20 million
increase in the budget will allow EPA to begin making loans for
WIFIA projects. The program is designed to highly leverage
these funds, translating into a potential loan capacity of
nearly $1 billion to eligible entities for infrastructure
projects.
This budget provides $22 million in funding to expand the
technical, managerial, and financial capabilities of drinking
water and wastewater systems to provide safe and reliable
services to their customers now and into the future. Included
is $7.1 million for the Water Infrastructure and Resiliency
Finance Center and the Center for Environmental Finance that
will enable communities across the country to focus on
financial planning for upcoming public infrastructure
investments, expand work with states to identify financing
opportunities for rural communities, and enhance partnership
and collaboration with the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The
Water Infrastructure and Resiliency Finance Center is part of
the Build America Investment Initiative, a governmentwide
effort to increase infrastructure investment and promote
economic growth by creating opportunities for State and local
governments and the private sector to collaborate on
infrastructure development.
protecting our land
The EPA strives to protect and restore land to create a
safer environment for all Americans by cleaning up hazardous
and non-hazardous wastes that can migrate to air, groundwater
and surface water, contaminating drinking water supplies,
causing acute illnesses and chronic diseases, and threatening
healthy ecosystems. We preserve, restore, and protect our land,
for both current and future generations by cleaning up
contaminated sites and returning them to communities for reuse.
Funding will assist communities in using existing
infrastructure and planning for more efficient and livable
communities, and encouraging the minimization of environmental
impacts throughout the full life cycle of materials.
Approximately 53 million people in the U.S. live within 3
miles of a Superfund remedial site, roughly 17 percent of the
U.S. population, including 18 percent of all children under the
age of five. In fiscal year 7, we will increase the Superfund
Remedial program by $20 million to accelerate the pace of
cleanups, supporting states, local communities, and tribes in
their efforts to assess and cleanup sites and return them to
productive reuse, and encourage renewable energy development on
formerly hazardous sites when appropriate. We also will expand
the successful Brownfields program's community-driven approach
to revitalizing contaminated land, providing grants, and
supporting area-wide planning and technical assistance to
maximize the benefits to the communities.
taking steps to improve chemical facility safety
The EPA is requesting $23.7 million for the State and Local
Prevention and Preparedness program, an increase of $8.4
million above the fiscal year enacted level.
In support of the White House Executive Order 13650 on
Improving Chemical Facility Safety and Security, the requested
increase will allow the EPA to continue to expand upon its
outreach and technical assistance to improve the safety and
security of chemical facilities and reduce the risks of
hazardous chemicals to facility workers and operators,
communities, and responders.
These efforts represent a shared commitment among those
with a stake in chemical facility safety and security: facility
owners and operators; Federal, state, local, tribal, and
territorial governments; regional entities; nonprofit
organizations; facility workers; first responders;
environmental justice and local environmental organizations;
and communities. The EPA therefore plays a significant and
vital role.
In fiscal year 7, the EPA will develop, initiate and
deliver training to aid with expansive outreach and planning
for local communities, emergency planners, and responders. This
will assist local emergency planners and first responders in
using the risk information available to them, educating the
public about what to do if an accident occurs. The EPA also
will work effectively with facilities to reduce the risks
associated with the chemicals that are stored, used, or
produced onsite to help prevent accidents from occurring.
Continuing EPA's Commitment to Innovative Research &
Development
In building environmental policy, scientific research
continues to be the foundation of EPA's work. Environmental
issues in the 21st century are complex because of the interplay
between air quality, climate change, water quality, healthy
communities, and chemical safety. Today's complex issues
require different thinking and different solutions than those
used in the past. In fiscal year 7, we will continue to
strengthen the agency's ability to develop solutions by
providing $512 million to evaluate and predict potential
environmental and human health impacts for decisionmakers at
all levels of government. Activities in the fiscal year Budget
include providing support tools for community health,
investigating the unique properties of emerging materials, such
as nanomaterials, and research to support the nation's range of
growing water-use and ecological requirements. The Chemical
Safety and Sustainability program will continue to place
emphasis on computational toxicology (CompTox), which is
letting us study chemical risks and exposure exponentially
faster and more affordably than ever before. The EPA's ToxCast
program has screened nearly 2,000 chemicals and Tox21 has
screened over 8,000. In fiscal year we have an opportunity to
further enhance CompTox and broaden its application, adding
significant efficiency and effectiveness to agency operations.
supporting state and tribal partners
Effective environmental protection is a joint effort of the
EPA, states and our tribal partners, and we are setting a high
bar for continuing our partnership efforts. That's why the
largest part of our budget, $3.28 billion dollars, or almost 40
percent, is provided directly to our State and tribal partners.
In fiscal year 7, we are requesting an increase of $77 million
in funding for State and Tribal Assistance categorical grants
in support of critical State work in air and water protection
as well as continued support for our tribal partners.
The EPA is focused on opportunities to continue building
closer collaboration and targeted joint planning and governance
processes. One example is the E-Enterprise for the Environment
approach, a transformative 21st century strategy to modernize
the way in which government agencies deliver environmental
protection. With our co-regulatory partners, we are working to
streamline, reform, and integrate our shared business processes
and related systems. These changes, including a shift to
electronic reporting, will improve environmental results,
reduce burden, and enhance services to the regulated community
and the public. State-EPA-Tribal joint governance serves to
organize the E-Enterprise partnership to elevate its
visibility, boost coordination capacity, and ensure the
inclusiveness and effectiveness of shared processes, management
improvements, and future coordinated projects.
maintaining a forward looking and adaptive epa
The EPA has strategically evaluated its workforce and
facility needs and will continue the comprehensive effort to
modernize its workforce. By implementing creative, flexible,
cost-effective, and sustainable strategies to protect public
health and safeguard the environment, the EPA will target
resources toward development of a workforce and infrastructure
that can address current challenges and priorities.
We are requesting funding in this budget to help us fast-
track efforts to save taxpayer dollars over the long term by
optimizing and renovating critical agency space. That space
includes laboratory buildings across the country, where we
conduct critical scientific research on behalf of the American
public. Since fiscal year 2, the EPA has released over 250,000
square feet of office space nationwide, resulting in a
cumulative annual rent avoidance of nearly $9.2 million across
all appropriations. Additional planned consolidations and moves
could release another 336,000 square feet of office space in
the next several years.
The agency will continue on-going work to improve processes
and advance the E-Enterprise effort--replacing outdated paper
processes for regulated companies with electronic submissions.
The EPA's goals for process improvements are: leveraging
technology, streamlining workflow, and improving data quality,
and increasing data sharing and transparency. The agency also
is making necessary investments to improve internal IT services
to support productivity and address cybersecurity needs.
In fiscal year 7, the EPA requests $3.3 million to expand
Program Evaluation and Lean efforts as a part of the High
Performing Organization Cross-Agency Strategy. We continue to
eliminate non-value added activities to focus more directly on
all tasks that support its mission of protecting public health
and the environment.
The EPA continues to examine its programs to find those
that have served their purpose and accomplished their mission.
The fiscal year President's Budget also eliminates some mature
programs where State and local governments can provide greater
capacity. Those grant programs are the Beaches Protection
categorical grants, the Multi-purpose categorical grants, the
Radon categorical grants, the Targeted Airshed grants and the
Water Quality Research and Support grants, totaling $85
million.
We are committed to do the work that is necessary to meet
our mission and protect public health. The EPA's fiscal year
budget request will let us continue to make a real and visible
difference to communities and public health every day. It will
give us a foundation to revitalize the economy and improve
infrastructure across the country. And it will sustain state,
tribal, and Federal environmental efforts across all our
programs.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to testify
today. While my testimony reflects only some of the highlights
of the EPA's fiscal year budget request, I look forward to
answering your questions.
------
Responses by Gina McCarthy to Additional Questions
from Senator Gillibrand
Question 1. Administrator McCarthy, thank you for
testifying here today, and for your continued leadership at the
EPA to protect clean air and clean water, and address the
urgent threats we face from climate change. The EPA has a
critical responsibility to protect the health of our families;
whether it is working to ensure that our children in the Bronx
can go outdoors in the summer without fear of an asthma attack,
or that families in UpState New York can swim and fish in our
lakes, rivers and streams without fear of pollution by harmful
runoff and algae blooms. While we still have much work to do to
fully realize those goals, initiatives like the Clean Power
Plan and the Clean Water Rule have helped us move the ball
forward, and I continue to support those efforts.
I would like to ask you about a 2 areas of concern I have
that are specific to New York:
As I am sure you are aware, EPA Region 2 has been working
to address a situation in the Village of Hoosick Falls, in
UpState New York, where drinking water has been contaminated by
the chemical PFOA.
A significant concern is that PFOA is an ``unregulated
contaminant'' under the Safe Drinking Water Act, which limited
the EPA's ability to respond to PFOA contamination, and led to
an initially false assumption that the drinking water in
Hoosick Falls was safe to drink, when it was in fact likely
making people very sick. This is nothing short of an
environmental disaster for the families who have been affected
by PFOA contamination in their water.
What would it take to reclassify PFOA so that it is
regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act?
Response. The EPA is evaluating PFOA and PFOS as drinking
water contaminants in accordance with the process required by
the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). To regulate a contaminant
under SDWA, the EPA must find that the contaminant: (1) may
have adverse health effects; (2) occurs frequently (or there is
a substantial likelihood that it occurs frequently) at levels
of public health concern; and (3) there is a meaningful
opportunity for health risk reduction for people served by
public water systems.
The EPA included PFOA and PFOS among the contaminants for
which water systems were required to monitor under the third
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 3) in 2012.
Results of this monitoring effort can be found on the publicly
available National Contaminant Occurrence Data base (NCOD) at
https://www.epa.gov/dwucmr/occurrence-data-unregulated-
contaminant-monitoring-rule#3, which is updated by the EPA
approximately quarterly. In accordance with SDWA, the EPA will
consider the occurrence data from UCMR 3, along with the peer
reviewed health effects assessments supporting the PFOA and
PFOS Health Advisories, to make a regulatory determination on
whether to initiate the process to develop a national primary
drinking water regulation.
Question 2. Given the attention that has been placed on
PFOA, and concerns that have been raised both in New York and
other New England states about its prevalence in our region and
potential health impacts, what additional steps can be taken to
protect the public from PFOA?
Response. The EPA established health advisories for PFOA
and PFOS in May 2016 based on the agency's assessment of the
latest peer-reviewed science in order to provide drinking water
system operators and Federal, state, tribal and local
officials, who have the primary responsibility for overseeing
these systems, with information on the health risks of these
chemicals. These advisories will help them take the appropriate
actions to protect their residents. The EPA is committed to
supporting states and public water systems as they determine
the appropriate steps to reduce exposure to PFOA and PFOS in
drinking water. As science on health effects of these chemicals
evolves, the EPA will continue to evaluate new evidence.
If past sampling data shows that drinking water contains
combined PFOA and PFOS at individual or combined concentrations
greater than 70 parts per trillion, water systems should:
Quickly undertake additional sampling to assess the
level, scope and localized source of contamination to inform
next steps;
If water sampling results confirm that drinking water
contains PFOA and PFOS at individual or combined concentrations
greater than 70 parts per trillion, the agency recommends that
water systems:
Promptly notify their State drinking water safety agency
(or the EPA in jurisdictions for which the EPA is the primary
drinking water safety agency);
Consult with the relevant agency on the best approach to
conduct additional sampling;
Provide consumers with information about the levels of
PFOA and PFOS in their drinking water, including specific
information on the risks to fetuses during pregnancy and
breastfed and formula-fed infants; and
Identify options that consumers may consider to reduce
risk, such as seeking an alternative drinking water source, or
in the case of parents of formula-fed infants, using formula
that does not require adding water.
A number of options are available to drinking water systems
to lower concentrations of PFOA and PFOS in its drinking water
supply. In some cases, drinking water systems may be able to
reduce concentrations of perfluoraklyl substances, including
PFOA and PFOS, by closing contaminated wells or changing rates
of blending of water sources. Alternatively, public water
systems can treat source water with activated carbon or high
pressure membrane systems (e.g., reverse osmosis) to remove
PFOA and PFOS from drinking water. These treatment systems are
used by some public water systems today, but should be
carefully designed and maintained to ensure that they are
effective for treating PFOA and PFOS. In some communities,
entities have provided bottled water to consumers while steps
to reduce or remove PFOA or PFOS from drinking water, or
establish a new water supply, were completed.
hoosick falls
Question 3. On February 1st, I wrote to Region 2 Regional
Administrator Judith Enck, asking the EPA to expedite the
process for listing Hoosick Falls as a Federal Superfund site.
Will you commit to me that you will personally ensure that this
process moves as quickly as possible and that EPA will be
aggressive in ensuring that the contamination is remediated?
Response. Addressing the contamination in the Village of
Hoosick Falls is a high priority for the EPA. We are currently
gathering information needed to evaluate the site for inclusion
on the National Priorities List of Superfund sites. We also are
conducting investigations to identify the parties responsible
for the contamination. We are working actively with both the
New York State Department of Health and New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation to coordinate our
respective investigative and remedial efforts to ensure that
accurate information is provided to the public and to
effectively address the contamination problem.
hudson river
Question 4. What purpose does it serve for the EPA to
release a white paper dismissing data presented NOAA which has
a responsibility for the Hudson River a Federal Trustee--before
your agency even begins its 5 year review?
Response. The EPA's white paper presents a thorough,
detailed, scientific evaluation of a scientific article
authored by National Oceanographic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) scientists. In the EPA paper, the agency
does not dismiss any data, but instead, identifies and
addresses important and more recent data that NOAA did not
consider in its analysis. In that analysis, NOAA concluded that
the dredging project's goals would not be achieved for decades
longer than the EPA had predicted in 2002, the year the EPA
selected the cleanup action. In the EPA's white paper, the
agency presents its conclusion that, based on more recent data,
as well as other factors, the project is on a trajectory of
environmental improvement consistent with the EPA's prediction
14 years ago.
In the white paper and publically, the EPA has been careful
to define ``project success'' in terms of accomplishing the
planned dredging/mass removal and that, following the agency's
recent comprehensive review, we do not have any information to
indicate otherwise. Therefore, we can move forward to the
project's monitored natural recovery phase. The EPA has
acknowledged that PCBs remain in the river and supports the
Trustees' efforts to address such potential injury through the
Natural Resource Damage (NRD) assessment and claims process.
The EPA will continue to cooperate and communicate with Federal
and State natural resource trustees on the Hudson River
remediation.
hudson river-restore and protect
Question 5. Will you ensure that all relevant evidence and
data is evaluated during the course of the 5 year review, and
that the Federal Trustees have a seat at the table so that EPA
can work with them cooperatively to ensure that we are doing
everything possible to fully restore and protect the Hudson
River?
Response. Yes, we are working closely with all the
stakeholders to ensure a thorough Five-Year Review (FYR). The
stakeholders, including the Federal Trustees, New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation and Department of
Health, the Community Advisory Group, and non-governmental
organizations have been invited to be part of the FYR team.
Responses by Gina McCarthy to Additional Questions
from Senator Inhofe
ozone implementation guidance
Question 1. EPA is required to issue ozone implementation
guidance. However, despite 90 percent of the states that
commented on the proposed standard requested EPA propose an
implementation rule at the time the Agency finalized the
standard, EPA will not propose an implementation rule until
October 2016. Yet, we know EPA is dedicating air office
officials toward the stayed-Clean Power Plan-related
activities. Why are you not doing something 90 percent of
states commenting, reflecting a bipartisan consensus,
requested, rather than pursuing actions that are legally
vulnerable and being challenged by more than half the states?
Response. Concurrent with promulgation of the final revised
NAAQS, the EPA also issued an implementation memo (https://
www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-10/documents/
implementation--memo.pdf) describing rules and guidance that
remain current and applicable to the revised standards, and
updates that the agency expects to complete for states to use
in planning for the revised NAAQS. The EPA and State co-
regulators share a long history of managing ozone air quality
under the Clean Air Act (CAA), underpinned by a wealth of
previously issued rules and guidance. The EPA is committed to
helping air agencies identify and take advantage of potential
planning and emissions control efficiencies that may occur
within the horizon for attaining the 2015 standards.
Addressing carbon pollution is also a part of the agency's
obligations under the Clean Air Act. Since the Supreme Court
stayed the Clean Power Plan (CPP) pending judicial review
before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and any
subsequent proceedings in the Supreme Court, many states have
said they intend to move forward voluntarily to continue to
work to cut carbon pollution from power plants and are seeking
the agency's guidance and assistance. The agency will be
providing such assistance, which is not precluded by the stay.
In particular, some states have asked to move forward with
outreach and to continue providing support and developing
tools, including the proposed design details for the Clean
Energy Incentive Program (CEIP). The agency will move forward
in a way that is consistent with the stay while providing
states the tools they have asked for to help address carbon
pollution from power plants.
clean air scientific advisory committee-nominations
Question 2. Administrator McCarthy, as you know, I have
long been concerned about the integrity of the selection
process for nominations to the Clean Air Scientific Advisory
Committee (CASAC) and the Science Advisory Board (SAB). I was
surprised to learn in response to my February 2, 2016, letter
on the most recently appointed members of CASAC that each of
those selected were nominated not by the public, rather, they
were all nominated by the EPA or an EPA designated Federal
officer. Essentially, anyone nominated by an individual outside
of the agency's network was not selected. Are you concerned by
this finding? What is the point of soliciting public
nominations if the EPA only selects those internally appointed?
Response. The EPA has policies and procedures that meet and
exceed what is required by law, in order to assure expert and
independent advice from our advisory committees. For example,
although not required by law, the EPA provides the general
public the opportunity to nominate candidates for the CASAC.
The agency believes this more open nominations process expands
the breadth and diversity of its applicant pool. In selecting
members for the CASAC, the agency evaluates the qualifications
and experience of all candidates without regard to whether
individuals are nominated by the public or identified through
staff outreach.
science advisory board-policy statement
Question 3. Administrator McCarthy, as part of the fiscal
year omnibus, EPA was required to develop a policy statement
for its Science Advisory Board, which would include goals on
increasing membership from states and tribes, as well as update
its conflict of interest policy. This was to be submitted to
GAO for review last month. I understand it is still
outstanding. What is the reason for delay and when does the
Agency plan to submit this policy statement?
Response. The agency has developed a draft policy statement
for the Science Advisory Board (SAB) and the Clean Air
Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) that describes how the
EPA implements the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA),
Federal ethics regulations, and agency policies for scientific
integrity and peer review applicable to these advisory
committees. The agency remains committed to the goal of
including a diversity of scientific perspectives on the SAB and
the CASAC, including the perspectives of scientists from State
and local governments, tribes, industry, and nongovernmental
organizations. The draft policy statement is currently
undergoing final internal review and should be provided to the
GAO in the coming weeks. The agency takes seriously the
requirements for transparency, independence and balance of its
advisory committees, including the SAB and the CASAC. The EPA
frequently goes above and beyond the requirements of FACA to
ensure that the SAB and the CASAC advisory processes are open
and transparent, and applies Federal ethics regulations to
members of these committees.
gao recommendation
Question 4. Administrator McCarthy, last May GAO issued a
report on the SAB entitled, ``EPA's Science Advisory Board:
Improved Procedures Needed to Process congressional Requests
for Scientific Advice,'' that included four recommendations--
all of which remain unimplemented. What is the reason for delay
in fulfilling these recommendations?
Response. In the June 2015 report, EPA's Science Advisory
Board: Improved Procedures Needed to Process congressional
Requests for Scientific Advice (GAO 15-500), the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) recommended that the agency clarify
procedures for reviewing congressional committee requests to
the SAB to determine which questions should be taken up by the
SAB and criteria for evaluating such requests. The agency
agreed with those recommendations and is developing a process
for considering requests for the SAB advice from the
congressional committees listed in the SAB's authorizing
statute (the Environmental Research, Development and
Demonstration Authorization Act, ERDDAA). The draft process is
undergoing final internal review and should be finalized in the
coming weeks. In addition to developing a written process for
evaluating congressional requests for the SAB advice, the
agency is considering whether amendments to the SAB charter
also would be helpful to clarify how congressional requests for
the SAB advice will be handled.
sip backlog
Question 5. At a March 9 full committee hearing with State
environmental regulators, we received testimony that EPA has
increasingly issued Federal implementation plans while
simultaneously slow-walking review of State implementation
plans. Although I understand EPA has made some progress in
addressing the SIP backlog, can you please provide the
Committee a breakdown of the status of EPA's work toward
reducing the SIP backlog?
Response. The EPA has been working with states since 2013
on plans to reduce the State Implementation Plan (SIP) backlog
and address the states' priority SIPs. This work has resulted
in 4-year plans developed with states to substantially reduce
the historic backlog of SIPs by the end of 2017. Steady and
substantial progress has been made over the last several years
through the EPA and the states working together. An important
part of the agency's joint effort with the states is ongoing
discussions between the regions and states to identify which
SIPs the states prioritize for action. The EPA has acted on
hundreds of pending SIPs in each of the last several years.
national academy of sciences review-scc
Question 6. In July 2015, the EPA, as part of the
Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC),
requested the National Academy of Sciences review the SCC. How
much funding for NAS's review has EPA committed?
Response. At the request of the Interagency Working Group
(IWG) on the Social Cost of Carbon, co-chaired by the White
House's Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and Council of
Economic Advisors (CEA), the National Academies of Sciences,
Engineering and Medicine convened a Committee on ``Assessing
Approaches to Updating the Social Cost of Carbon.'' This is an
interagency sponsored project, with contributions coming from
the EPA as well as the Departments of Commerce, Energy,
Interior, and Transportation. The Department of Energy (DOE) is
serving as the coordinating agency for the contract.
multipurpose grants
Question 7. For fiscal year Congress appropriated $21 in
multipurpose grants to states and tribes, which EPA requested
zero funding for in its fiscal year budget request. Can you
please explain the reason for eliminating funds for this
program? In early April, EPA released its formula for
disbursing the grants, with more than 60 percent going to
``core air regulatory work;'' yet Congress stipulated the
grants were to provides ``states and tribes to have the
flexibility to direct resources.'' How does EPA's formula
provide states and tribes flexibility to use these grants?
Response. The EPA formula provides flexibility to states
within both funding focus areas. First, states have latitude to
decide what air activities to fund with the air portion of
their funding. The second part of a state's funding is
available for priority activities identified by individual
states under any existing continuing environmental program. For
both focus areas, State identified activities must fall under
existing Federal environmental statutes consistent with the
language included in the fiscal year appropriations.
Additionally, states have the flexibility to fund these
activities under a Performance Partnership Grant (PPG) or new
standalone multipurpose grant. The fiscal year President's
Budget request included increases for several grants to states
and tribes, including $40 million for State and local air
quality management grants, $30.9 million for Tribal General
Assistance Program grants, $15.7 million for Environmental
Information grants, and $15.4 million for pollution control
(section
Responses by Gina McCarthy to Additional Questions
from Senator Rounds
epa regulations-resources
Question 1. We have held several hearings in which State
and local officials have come to testify about the challenges
of implementing EPA regulations on a limited budget with
limited resources. This is particularly problematic in South
Dakota, where the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources is a small staff with a limited budget and is
required to oversee the implementation and compliance with
State and Federal regulations. Although we have repeatedly
heard your agency say that there are resources to help states
comply with regulations, I am increasingly concerned with the
amount of what I consider to be unfunded mandates coming out of
your agency.
Again, although you have said there are resources to help
states comply with EPA regulations, I have heard time and time
again that this is not the case as these limited resources are
spread out among all of the states. What do you tell states who
are repeatedly telling you that they simply don't have the
resources to comply with these vast, comprehensive EPA
regulations?
Response. Supporting our State partners, the primary
implementers of environmental programs on the ground, is a
long-held priority of the EPA. Funding to states and tribes in
the State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) account continues
to be the largest percentage of the agency's budget, at 39.7
percent in fiscal year 7. This percentage excludes resources
the EPA provides to states and tribes via cooperative
agreements, interagency placement assignments, and other
vehicles from the agency's operating accounts (e.g., Leaking
Underground Storage Tanks, Superfund, and Environmental
Programs and Management). This reflects the agency's
recognition of and commitment to supporting our partners and
leveraging limited resources to oversee the implementation of
and compliance with EPA regulations. In fiscal year 7, the EPA
will continue to modernize the business of environmental
protection through the E-Enterprise strategy jointly governed
by states and the EPA. Under the E-Enterprise strategy, the
agency will continue to streamline its business processes and
systems to reduce reporting burden on states and regulated
facilities, and improve the effectiveness and efficiency of
regulatory programs for the EPA, states, and tribes.
epa regulations-state compliance
Question 2. We have held several hearings in which State
and local officials have come to testify about the challenges
of implementing EPA regulations on a limited budget with
limited resources. This is particularly problematic in South
Dakota, where the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources is a small staff with a limited budget and is
required to oversee the implementation and compliance with
State and Federal regulations. Although we have repeatedly
heard your agency say that there are resources to help states
comply with regulations, I am increasingly concerned with the
amount of what I consider to be unfunded mandates coming out of
your agency.
Do you plan to do anything more to help states comply with
current and future EPA regulations?
Response. The fiscal year President's Budget includes an
increase of $40 million for State grants to assist with
implementation of climate and air quality programs, as well as
$15.4 million for State and tribal grants to assist with
implementation of water quality programs. The request also
includes an additional $15.7 million for grants to states and
tribes to build tools, services, and capabilities that will
enable greater exchange of data for delegated programs between
states, tribes, regulated entities, and the EPA following E-
Enterprise principles. Leveraging technology will enable the
EPA, states, and tribes to move from a heavily paper-based
evidence gathering process to a digitally based rapid
electronic process. The vision is to better identify patterns
of problems, be more efficient and effective in data collection
and records management, increase transparency on programmatic
and compliance status and allow for quicker responses where
appropriate.
regulatory impact analyses
Question 3. Last year the Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste
Management, and Regulatory Oversight held a hearing on EPA's
use of Regulatory Impact Analyses (RIA's) and the cost and
benefit of EPA regulations. At the hearing we discussed a July
2014 GAO report that offered several recommendations for how
EPA could improve adherence to OMB guidance, enhance the
accuracy of RIA's and better monetize the cost and benefits of
RIA's.
I am concerned that EPA continued to promulgate major,
costly regulations, such as WOTUS and the Clean Power Plan,
without fully implementing GAO's recommendations. I understand
these recommendations are still open, when can we expect they
will be fully implemented?
Response. In its recent update on these recommendations
(http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-519), the GAO has closed
one recommendation, recognizing that the EPA has implemented
it. On other recommendations, the GAO notes that ``EPA is
making progress in the spirit of'' these recommendations but
has not closed them given the longer-term nature of these
efforts.
regulatory impact analyses-reliability
Question 4. Last year the Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste
Management, and Regulatory Oversight held a hearing on EPA's
use of Regulatory Impact Analyses (RIA's) and the cost and
benefit of EPA regulations. At the hearing we discussed a July
2014 GAO report that offered several recommendations for how
EPA could improve adherence to OMB guidance, enhance the
accuracy of RIA's and better monetize the cost and benefits of
RIA's.
How do you explain the reliability of recent EPA
regulations, if they were promulgated through a process that
GAO specifically suggested might not be entirely accurate and
needed improvement?
Response. While the GAO made recommendations to improve the
agency's process, there was not a finding of systematic
deficiencies with respect to the accuracy of the analytical
work. The EPA regulations have been developed in accordance
with all applicable requirements, including those of Executive
Orders 12866 and 13563 and the guidelines of OMB Circular A-4.
The EPA relies on the best available information to calculate
both the costs and benefits of rules and further refines these
analyses through the interagency and public comment processes.
In addition, the EPA maintains a public docket where all of the
underlying documentation for each RIA is available. Further,
consistent with E.O. 12866, the RIAs developed for economically
significant regulations are reviewed by OMB and undergo an
interagency review process before being released for public
notice and comment.
epa regulations-small business impacts
Question 5. Last month, the Subcommittee on Superfund,
Waste Management, and Regulatory Oversight hosted a hearing on
small business impacts from EPA regulations, and we received
testimony regarding a number of instances where the EPA has
disagreed with the Office of Advocacy's recommendations on a
particular rulemaking. Our witnesses testified that there is no
mechanism in the law that reconciles these differences between
the EPA and the Office of Advocacy. I asked at the hearing for
you to share how you view the Office of Advocacy's
recommendations and how seriously you consider these
recommendations throughout the rulemaking process, to which you
said you do take Advocacy's comments into account. However,
there are many instances where the Agency, in fact, takes
action against Advocacy's recommendation.
Do you think a third party arbiter would help reconcile
differences between EPA and Advocacy?
Response. The agency considers all comments received as
part of a rulemaking process, including information received
from the public as well as through the interagency process. The
views of small businesses are taken into account through
various means in the process, including participation by the
Small Business Administration in the interagency review process
run by the Office of Management and Budget. In addition, as
part of its Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for a rulemaking,
the agency responds to comments filed by the Office of
Advocacy. The agency describes steps taken to minimize impacts
on small businesses and other small entities, and provides an
explanation of why any significant alternatives considered by
the agency that affect the impacts on small entities were not
adopted in the rule.
regulatory flexibility act
Question 6. At the same subcommittee hearing, we received
testimony that there are opportunities for EPA to increase
transparency with its implementation of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. For example, one witness testified that EPA
could make its final SBREFA report public at the time complete
rather than waiting until a rule is issued, something OSHA
already does with its SBREFA reports.
Why does EPA wait until a rule is issued to release its
SBREFA report? Don't you think the public and regulated
entities, such as small businesses, would benefit from the
report being made publicly available as soon as complete? Will
you commit to making these reports public when complete moving
forward?
Response. A completed SBREFA report is one of the support
documents used by the agency in developing a proposed rule, and
is provided to the Administrator so that its recommendations
may be considered during the development of the rule. The
report is made public when the proposed rule is released for
public comment, consistent with all applicable requirements.
Small entity representatives provide key input to the Federal
participants in the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel, who
then develop recommendations to the Administrator on how best
to achieve the goals of the RFA. Because the Panel Report is a
key element of the administrative record for the proposed rule,
it is placed in the rulemaking docket at the time the proposed
rule is published. Comments on the report are then considered
in development of a final rule.
regulatory flexibility act
Question 7. The courts have held agencies are not required
to consider indirect or secondary impacts of a rule for
purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. However, I
understand that the compliance burden is on the states, but
often small businesses are significantly indirectly impacted by
regulations, regardless of who has the burden of complying with
the regulations.
Do you believe indirect impacts on small businesses should
be considered and do you think a rulemaking would benefit from
greater small business input early in the rule development
process?
Response. In addition to the requirements of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, the agency frequently undertakes many types of
public outreach, including outreach to small businesses, during
the development of its rules. For example, the agency may hold
public meetings early in the rule development process.
Frequently, agency offices, including the regional offices,
hold meetings with stakeholders including small businesses. The
information gained from this engagement informs the rulemaking
process by providing input from various stakeholders. In
addition to the public and stakeholder meetings, the agency has
other mechanisms in place to ensure that the views of small
businesses can be incorporated into the agency's decisionmaking
processes. One such example is that the EPA's Deputy
Administrator holds periodic meetings with small businesses to
discuss regulatory topics suggested by and of interest to small
businesses. The EPA also has an Asbestos and Small Business
Ombudsman that advocates for small business during the EPA
rulemaking process.
Responses by Gina McCarthy to Additional Questions
from Senator Wicker
watershed trading program
Question 1. Do you think EPA needs to do more to allow
watershed trading to occur?
Response. The EPA has taken many important steps to support
efforts by states and other stakeholders to pursue water
quality trading consistent with the Clean Water Act.
To date, the EPA has authorized forty-six states to run
their own National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) programs. State permitting authorities (or the EPA in
unauthorized states) can establish water quality trading
programs, based on their unique regulatory structure as well as
stakeholder and environmental needs. The primary demand-side
driver for nutrient trading is the existence of a new or more
stringent water quality based effluent limit for nutrients in a
point source's NPDES permit. States usually include such water
quality-based effluent limits in NPDES permits following State
establishment of a nutrient TMDL, or State determination of
``reasonable potential'' for the NPDES permittee's discharge.
Without this permit driver in place, there has been little
demand for nutrient reduction credits.
Roughly one third of states have had water quality trades
in their state. Each State with a trading program has developed
its own unique trading rules. Some states have enacted statutes
or regulations that authorize and regulate their statewide
trading programs, such as Connecticut, Virginia, and Ohio.
Other states authorize trading on a case-by-case basis through
watershed-specific or individual NPDES permits, such as North
Carolina's Neuse River Compliance Association trading program.
Other states, such as Arkansas and Louisiana, are considering
developing water quality trading programs. Many of the states
with active trading programs, such as Pennsylvania and Oregon,
allow NPDES permit holders to attain their nutrient water
quality-based effluent limits through the purchase of nonpoint
source nutrient reduction credits.
As demand drivers increase, we anticipate water quality
trading to increase as a flexible method for meeting those
regulatory requirements. The EPA looks forward to continuing
its work with states and other stakeholders interested in
pursuing these approaches.
watershed trading program-clean water act
Question 2. EPA allows some non-point source nutrient
reduction initiatives under EPA's watershed trading program,
but there is no usable process to allow this to occur.
Are legislative changes to the Clean Water Act necessary to
make watershed trading usable?
Response. The Clean Water Act provides sufficient authority
for the EPA to implement its water quality trading policy. The
EPA's 2003 Water Quality Trading Policy encourages states,
interState agencies and tribes to develop and implement water
quality trading programs consistent with the Clean Water Act
(CWA) and its implementing regulations for nutrients, sediments
and other pollutants (with some exceptions) where opportunities
exist to achieve water quality improvements at reduced costs.
One of the EPA's roles under its CWA oversight authority is to
ensure that any such water quality trading programs are
consistent with the CWA and its implementing regulations. The
EPA is working with states and interested stakeholders to
educate and assist them regarding their options for
establishing water quality trading programs.
disinfection by-products rules
Question 3. Are Tier 2 public notices (PN) for the EPA
disinfection by-products rules eligible for electronic
reporting or annual notice (similar to Tier 3 PNs)?
Response. Tier 2 notices require notice within 30 days of
the violation and subsequent notice every 3 months for as long
as the violation continues. Annual notices are not an option.
Tier 2 requires mail or direct delivery with the bill and a
method to notify those who do not receive a bill or do not have
service connection addresses (such as renters, apartments,
nursing homes, etc.). Posting on the internet is allowed as one
of the methods to reach those consumers. In addition, systems
might be required to use other methods to reach consumers who
might not see a posted notice in a school, library, or other
commercial/public buildings.
national radon action plan
Question 4. In your testimony on April 19, you stated that
the National Radon Action Plan (NRAP) will replace the Federal
Radon Action Plan (FRAP). The major differences between FRAP
and NRAP are that NRAP has no dedicated funding plan like the
State Indoor Radon Grant (SIRG) program and the major
responsibilities are pushed to the states and private sector.
How will NRAP be successful without Federal funding and
active Federal leadership?
Response. In fiscal year 6, the EPA closed out the Federal
Radon Action Plan and launched a broader plan, the National
Radon Action Plan (NRAP). This plan was endorsed by nine non-
governmental organizations and three Federal agencies. The EPA
will continue to lead the Federal Government's response to
radon and continue to implement the agency's own multi-pronged
radon program. With funding requested in fiscal year through
the agency's indoor air program, the EPA will encourage radon
risk reduction as a normal part of doing business in the real
eState marketplace, will promote local and State adoption of
radon prevention standards in building codes, and will
participate in the development of national voluntary standards
(e.g., mitigation and construction protocols) for adoption by
states and the radon industry
national radon action plan--sirg program
Question 5. In your testimony on April 19, you stated that
the National Radon Action Plan (NRAP) will replace the Federal
Radon Action Plan (FRAP). The major differences between FRAP
and NRAP are that NRAP has no dedicated funding plan like the
State Indoor Radon Grant (SIRG) program and the major
responsibilities are pushed to the states and private sector.
Is there a plan or need to create a SIRG program within
NRAP to make it successful?
Answer: In fiscal year 6, the EPA closed out the Federal
Radon Action Plan and launched a broader plan, the National
Radon Action Plan (NRAP). This plan was endorsed by nine non-
governmental organizations and three Federal agencies. The EPA
will continue to lead the Federal Government's response to
radon and continue to implement the agency's own multi-pronged
radon program. With funding requested in fiscal year through
the agency's indoor air program, the EPA will encourage radon
risk reduction as a normal part of doing business in the real
eState marketplace, will promote local and State adoption of
radon prevention standards in building codes, and will
participate in the development of national voluntary standards
(e.g., mitigation and construction protocols) for adoption by
states and the radon industry.
state indoor radon grant program
Question 6. You justified EPA's cuts in funding for SIRG in
part by saying that SIRG funding to some states has not been
very effective.
Can EPA modify the grant allocation to make SIRG more
effective? Please comment and assess ways to improve SIRG
rather than eliminate it.
Response. Reducing radon related deaths continues to be a
priority for the EPA and the Administration. From 1990 to 2013,
the estimated number of homes needing mitigation (i.e., having
radon levels at or above 4 picocuries per liter (pCi/L) and no
mitigation system) increased by 14 percent; from about 6.2
million to 7.1 million homes. During the same period, the
number of homes with operating mitigation systems increased by
more than 700 percent from 175,000 to 1,245,000 homes.
For over 25 years, the EPA has provided Federal funding to
states and technical support to transfer best practices among
states that promote effective program implementation across the
Nation. Section 306 of the Indoor Radon Abatement Act (IRAA)
authorizes radon grant assistance to states, as defined by the
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Title III. The EPA has
targeted this funding to support states with the greatest
populations at highest risk. In future years, the EPA will
continue to promote partnerships between national
organizations, the private sector, and more than 50 state,
local, and tribal governmental programs to achieve radon risk
reduction.
state indoor radon grant program--radon professionals
Question 7. If SIRG is eliminated, will EPA undertake and
maintain the State listings of certified radon professionals?
Response. In fiscal year 7, the EPA will continue providing
consumers with information and guidance on locating qualified
radon measurement and mitigation services professionals. The
EPA's website (https://www.epa.gov/radon/find-radon-test-kit-
or-measurement-and-mitigation-professional#who) contains
information regarding radon credentialing programs, listings
for State radon program contacts and general indoor air quality
information. In addition, most states provide information about
qualified radon service providers and many states have some
form of radon requirements for radon service providers.
Forty-five states requested and received State Indoor Radon
Grants (SIRGs) funding this past fiscal year. In the absence of
SIRG, states would depend on their own funds to continue
investment in radon programs. States receiving Federal SIRG
funds are required to provide a 40 percent match. Many states
provide this through in-kind matches (non-monetary resources),
others through appropriated funds. This would be the starting
place for states to consider whether they would fund State
programs in the absence of SIRG funds. A number of states have
developed additional radon funding mechanisms through State
licensing or mitigation system installation fees.
state indoor radon grant program--consumers
Question 7. How will the agency ensure that consumers are
not subject to fraud from uncertified professionals using
equipment that may not be calibrated and traceable to a radon
standard or a radon decay product standard, particularly in
non-regulated states?
Answer: In fiscal year 7, the EPA will continue providing
consumers with information and guidance on locating qualified
radon measurement and mitigation services professionals. The
EPA's website (https://www.epa.gov/radon/find-radon-test-kit-
or-measurement-and-mitigation-professional#who) contains
information regarding radon credentialing programs, listings
for State radon program contacts and general indoor air quality
information. In addition, most states provide information about
qualified radon service providers and many states have some
form of radon requirements for radon service providers.
Forty-five states requested and received State Indoor Radon
Grants (SIRGs) funding this past fiscal year. In the absence of
SIRG, states would depend on their own funds to continue
investment in radon programs. States receiving Federal SIRG
funds are required to provide a 40 percent match. Many states
provide this through in-kind matches (non-monetary resources),
others through appropriated funds. This would be the starting
place for states to consider whether they would fund State
programs in the absence of SIRG funds. A number of states have
developed additional radon funding mechanisms through State
licensing or mitigation system installation fees.
state indoor radon grant program--state grantees
Question 8. Please provide a list of State grantees and
indicate which states are likely to continue their current
investment in radon in the absence of Federal SIRG funding.
Answer: In fiscal year 7, the EPA will continue providing
consumers with information and guidance on locating qualified
radon measurement and mitigation services professionals. The
EPA's website (https://www.epa.gov/radon/find-radon-test-kit-
or-measurement-and-mitigation-professional#who) contains
information regarding radon credentialing programs, listings
for State radon program contacts and general indoor air quality
information. In addition, most states provide information about
qualified radon service providers and many states have some
form of radon requirements for radon service providers.
All states with the exception of New Hampshire, Maryland,
Hawaii, Arkansas, and Louisiana requested and received State
Indoor Radon Grants (SIRGs) funding this past fiscal year. In
the absence of SIRG, states would depend on their own funds to
continue investment in radon programs. States receiving Federal
SIRG funds are required to provide a 40 percent match. Many
states provide this through in-kind matches (non-monetary
resources), others through appropriated funds. This would be
the starting place for states to consider whether they would
fund State programs in the absence of SIRG funds. A number of
states have developed additional radon funding mechanisms
through State licensing or mitigation system installation fees.
radon risk maps
Question 9. The last Federal surveys and State radon
mapping occurred nearly three decades ago. Several states have
updated State risk data with their own maps that show a larger
risk than initial assessments. Does EPA have any plans to
update the EPA radon risk maps?
Response. In fiscal year 7, the EPA will continue to
maintain its map of radon zones aimed at assisting national,
State and local governments, and private organizations to
target their resources to implement radon-resistant building
codes. Please visit https://www.epa.gov/radon/find-information-
about-local-radon-zones-and-state-contact-information#radonmap
for more information. The agency continues to recommend that
this map be supplemented with any new data vetted by the states
in order to further understand and predict the radon potential
for specific areas and counties. This approach is captured in
new consensus-based private sector radon standards under
development by the radon industry's standards consortium.
ecolabels
Question 10. The US Green Building Council recently
announced the LEED green building rating system will now award
credit for forest products certified to the SFI and ATFS
standards. I understand that the EPA is re-examining its
interim recommendations regarding the use of environmental
standards and labels in Federal procurement for lumber.
Can you please tell me what your agency is doing to
reconsider your recommendation and ensure that it appropriately
recognizes other credible standards like Sustainable Forestry
Initiative (SFI) and the American Tree Farm System (ATFS)?
Response. The EPA is seeking clarification from the U.S.
Green Building Council (USGBC) on whether the LEED Alternative
Compliance Pathway that awards credit for forest products
certified to the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) and
American Tree Farm System (ATFS) standards sufficiently
addresses environmental criteria or if it is focused more
narrowly on legality of harvesting.
The Implementing Instructions for Executive Order 13693--
Planning/or Federal Sustainability in the Next Decade--directed
the EPA, in consultation with the Office of Management and
Budget and the Council on Environmental Quality, to issue these
recommendations to assist Federal purchasers in identifying and
procuring environmentally sustainable products. The basis for
our interim recommendations on wood/lumber was the DOE GreenBuy
Program. The EPA is pursuing several options to determine if an
update to the lumber/wood interim recommendations is
appropriate, and has updated the website to reflect this (see
the footnote for Lumber/Wood under the Construction sector at
https://www.epa.gov/greenerproducts/epas-recommendations-
specifications-standards-and-ecolabels).
The EPA is engaging with both the Department of Energy and
the U.S. Department of Agriculture in a high-level review to
determine the effectiveness of these standards in protecting
human health and the environment. Furthermore, the EPA's
standards executive is currently reviewing the forestry
standards to determine if they were developed through a
voluntary consensus approach consistent with the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and OMB
Circular A-119. Finally, SFI, ATFS, Canadian Standards
Association (CSA) and Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) have
each volunteered to have their forestry standards assessed
against the criteria developed through a multi-stakeholder
consensus process in the guidelines pilot for the flooring and
furniture sectors. The results of that pilot assessment can
help inform whether those standards would meet the EPA's
baseline criteria for environmental performance as specified in
the EPA's draft guidelines for Environmental Performance
Standards and Ecolabels for use in Federal procurement.
ecolabels--interim recommendations
Question 11. The US Green Building Council recently
announced the LEED green building rating system will now award
credit for forest products certified to the SFI and ATFS
standards. I understand that the EPA is re-examining its
interim recommendations regarding the use of environmental
standards and labels in Federal procurement for lumber.
Can you give me an assurance that you will move quickly
with this review and provide a timeline when a decision will be
made?
Response. The EPA will consider the input received from
other Federal agencies, stakeholders, and experts, along with
information obtained during our assessment of forestry
standards during the pilot process, to inform the further
refinement and finalization of the EPA's guidelines and
recommendations. The agency believes it can decide on a path
forward within the next several months.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Madam Administrator.
First of all, in light of what is going on right now, you
have the Supreme Court and their stay is taking place on the
Clean Power Plan. I wrote EPA a letter on March the 10th on
this topic, but the response received yesterday doesn't really
answer the question, I don't believe.
EPA's letter states that it will not need to submit initial
plans by September 6th of 2016, as initially stated. But it
doesn't say about after that, because in 2018 it would seem to
me that as long as the stay is there, and, of course, it is
going to be there until all the legal problems are cleared up,
27 States, including my State of Oklahoma, is suing you at this
time.
So it is going to be at least probably 2018. Now, 2018
happens to be the deadline of the final. Now, is that deadline
going to be delayed also, the same as the deadline for the
beginning that would have taken place on September the 6th?
Ms. McCarthy. Well, Senator, what we do know is that the
implementation of the rule is currently stayed. The Supreme
Court didn't actually speak to any of the tolling issues
regarding the compliance requirements. We certainly know that
the issue will not be resolved by this coming October and
September. Beyond that, the courts are going to have to speak
to that issue when decisions are made.
Senator Inhofe. But as far as deadlines, you have these
people out there right now looking at deadlines in different
States, different counties, the private sector. Are you saying
that you are not prepared now to extend those deadlines like
you did the initial deadline of September 6th?
Ms. McCarthy. No, sir. We are stayed in terms of moving
forward to implement the rule as it currently exists, and we
need to wait for the court to make those decisions.
Senator Inhofe. And I assume the same thing is true with
WOTUS?
Ms. McCarthy. That is correct.
Senator Inhofe. OK, now, I think the majority would not
agree with that.
I want to mention one other thing, and this time goes by
pretty fast. On December 14th the Government Accountability
Office, the GAO, found the EPA violated the Anti-Deficiency Act
and appropriations law restrictions on covert propaganda and
grassroots lobbying in promoting the WOTUS rule. Now, the Anti-
Deficiency Act requires the EPA to report immediately to
Congress and to the President about the violation. Have you
done this?
Ms. McCarthy. We actually have our response at OMB now and
they are looking at that. We have not, as far as I know,
identified resources that were attributable to the two issues
out of many that GAO identified.
Senator Inhofe. Now, who has that now?
Ms. McCarthy. The office of Management and Budget is
looking at our corrections, as well as any identified resources
that went into those two issues that GAO identified.
Senator Inhofe. And you are saying that is going to happen
before this Committee is going to be in a position to evaluate
this? Because when they say report immediately to Congress,
that is us.
Ms. McCarthy. Yes. Well, sir, these are two issues. They
are both social media issues, one related to a blog, the other
related to the use of a social media that we used in accordance
with OMB guidance. We haven't really identified significant
funding that went into either of those two actions.
Senator Inhofe. Well, OK. I would say this: That is
something that this Committee is very concerned about.
I do want to get one other issue out there, the ozone. We
have talked about this in the past.
Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
Senator Inhofe. We have the requirements, parts per million
or the parts per ppb, and it appears that we set standards,
then go down the road, and before the counties, now this is
confusing because you really think in terms of the number of
people, the population. What happens, the 210 counties account
for 40 percent of the American population. So we have 40
percent of the American population from those counties not in
compliance with the 75 parts per million.
Now, what was the reasoning behind going over and now
saying, even before you do that, we are going to set a new
standard of 70 parts per million? What is the logic?
Ms. McCarthy. Well, very quickly, what happened was that
the prior administration moved forward with an ozone standard
that the courts deemed was not legally solid and based on sound
science. They kicked it back to the Agency. The court dictated
us to resolve that issue in a specific timeframe, and then we
also had obligations under the Clean Air Act to continue to
look every 5 years at whether those standards need to be
adjusted. So it ended up squeezing the system a bit.
Senator Inhofe. It doesn't mean you have to set those
standards, yet. You have to, you say, look at them.
Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
Senator Inhofe. Right now Senators Thune and Flake have
legislation, you are familiar with that legislation, where it
says that until 85 percent of the counties have, although it
could be interpreted as to the population, but 85 percent of
the counties have complied, we are not going to be setting new
standards. Is that reasonable or is that unreasonable?
Ms. McCarthy. Well, there is no inconsistency with
continuing to move in a fashion that is reasonable to continue
to look at how we achieve health standards moving forward. We
have always had great success over time, and there is no threat
to establishing a standard on health as long as the
implementation is reasonable and appropriate, which we believe
it is and has been.
Senator Inhofe. Well, I was the mayor of Tulsa when we were
out of compliance, and it was very, very difficult. So these
people are going through the punishment phase before they have
had a chance to accomplish.
Ms. McCarthy. Well, we don't think of it as a punishment
phase.
But the good news is that when we are looking at the ozone
standard, even the most stringent one that we just established
at 70 part per billion, we are only looking at about a dozen
counties that would be out of attainment by 2025, if you don't
count the counties in California, which we know have unique
geographic challenge.
So we actually think that they can use the systems already
in place, the rules have been put in place, that reducing NOx
and VOC emissions to achieve national compliance, as well as
address significant problems at the county level. So we are
actually moving in a way that is consistent with the direction
that the Nation is heading, and the good news is that we have
had so much success in reducing NOx and VOCs that this should
not be a significant burden to any county.
Senator Inhofe. Well, it is a burden because we have been
there.
Senator Boxer.
Senator Boxer. Administrator McCarthy, my State just
experienced a massive natural gas leak at Aliso Canyon that
released 96,000 metric tons of methane into the atmosphere.
Until the well was capped, the leak accounted for 20 percent of
California's total methane emissions, and that is a potent
greenhouse gas, as we all know. This highlights the need to
improve controls for methane emissions.
I am pleased the EPA has made it a priority to cut methane
emissions from existing sources of methane. When do you expect
to propose standards for existing sources? Give me an idea.
Ms. McCarthy. Well, Senator, we are moving forward
hopefully very soon with the release of the information
collection request, which is really the fundamental information
we need in order to regulate effectively under the law. So we
are looking at opportunities to move quickly this year, as well
as continue that.
Senator Boxer. Well, when do you expect to propose
standards? I mean, I know you are going to start. Just give me
a sense of it. It may be the next administration, but when do
you think you will have these?
Ms. McCarthy. Well, we certainly would have a significant
information next fiscal year, but we are not ruling out an
opportunity to continue this this year.
Senator Boxer. Well, just count me as one person who thinks
this is essential, because what a nightmare we have had.
Administrator McCarthy, EPA's proposed revisions to its
Risk Management Program regulations will add new requirements
for chemical facilities to improve safety. I have had to deal
with this when I was chairman of this Committee, these horrific
explosions because of the failure to really have the best
safety standards at these plants.
So the rule is long overdue. OMB's Website indicates EPA
intends to publish a final rule by the end of 2016. Can you
assure this Committee that you can complete that rule on time?
Ms. McCarthy. We are fully prepared to complete that rule
on time. It is out; it is open for comment. We are looking
forward in delivering that to the American people by the end of
this year.
Senator Boxer. So your intent is to have the rule by the
end of 2016.
Ms. McCarthy. We do intend to do that.
Senator Boxer. OK. Administrator, the drinking water crisis
in Flint highlights the need to address the Nation's failing
water infrastructure. We don't have to go into the pain and
suffering of that community, those little kids facing lives
that are very problematic because of this failure of Government
to provide them with safe drinking water.
So I don't know quite why your budget request is a net cut
of $257 million for these State Revolving Loan Programs. So in
light of those cuts, can you explain how EPA will ensure
adequate investments in clean water and drinking water?
Ms. McCarthy. Well, we are looking to supplement the State
Revolving Fund with other specific investments, but you are
right, it is----
Senator Boxer. What does that mean? What does that mean?
Ms. McCarthy. Well, we are looking at investments that will
go to support WIFIA. We are looking for investments that would
go to support our financing strategy, where we are working with
States. There is no question that we are sympathetic to the
need for more State Revolving Fund moneys, and we will try to
work with communities and States to make the most of this.
But the challenge we have is that our operating budget is
significantly limited and we have to look at presenting a
budget that is reasonable and appropriate for the full range of
responsibilities that the Agency has.
Senator Boxer. Well, let me just say I am very sympathetic
to your problems, but at the end of the day I would hope to see
EPA fighting for a budget that meets the needs of the people.
So, again, when we look back all those years ago, we are
spending $2 billion more.
Now, I know my colleagues probably on the other side of the
aisle would not agree with me on this one, but I don't get how
we can be spending less than we did several years ago when we
have aging infrastructure. And I agree it is wonderful to have
this leveraging, the WIFIA program, but it shouldn't replace
the State Revolving Funds.
It is upsetting because WIFIA was not meant to be a
replacement, and I think my colleague and I would agree, to the
State Revolving Funds. We want to have the State Revolving
Funds be healthy and then have the leveraging ability of a
WIFIA to come into play.
So can you talk about the steps EPA has taken since the
Flint crisis to avoid a repeat of this disaster?
Ms. McCarthy. Certainly. Well, first of all, we are working
very hard in the city of Flint to restore that water system
appropriately. We have also written to every Governor in every
primacy agency at the State level to make sure that they are
looking at reviewing all of the data.
They are looking at being transparent, notifying
individuals and homeowners when they see lead increasing. We
are looking at opportunities to bring together both people to
look at what went wrong in Flint. We are looking at our lead
and copper rule to strengthen it, as well.
So we are taking a number of steps and also would like to
continue the dialog on infrastructure investments, where we
recognize that we simply have aging infrastructure, well beyond
the lead challenge, that needs to be addressed that is
currently hard to envision how we are going to maintain safe
drinking water not just for legacy problems like lead, but for
some of the new contaminants we are seeing.
Senator Boxer. Well, Administrator McCarthy, my time is up,
but I do want to say this to you as we wind down our current
jobs. I think it is the role of EPA to get ahead of these kinds
of crises; not to whisper in the ears of the State, but to yell
in the ears of the State when we know facts.
Now, there is a lot we know about lead. We know what it
does to children; we know what it goes to fetuses; we know what
it does to sick people. We need to get out in front, not
whisper in the ears of people, because the people don't want to
hear the bad news.
So I am going to count on you and push you to do that. And
if my colleagues yell at you, you can say it is my fault. But
we need to get ahead of this stuff because the people are
counting on us. All you have to do is look at the faces of
those people there who are poisoned. That is murder by any
other definition. That is a felony, because we know what lead
does; it is not a great mystery.
Ms. McCarthy. I would expect nothing less of you than to
push us to do that.
Senator Boxer. OK.
Senator Inhofe. Senator Fischer.
Senator Fischer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for convening
this important budget oversight hearing today. The oversight
function of this Committee is critical to ensuring taxpayer
dollars are spent in a judicious and also an accountable
manner. The EPA must be accountable to the American people.
There isn't a day that goes by that I don't hear concerns from
my constituents about the impacts of the EPA regulations on
Nebraskans.
For example, Nebraska's public power utilities are
grappling with how they could ever comply with the EPA's carbon
emission reduction mandates. The city of Omaha is struggling
with the Agency's expensive CSO mandate and drinking water
affordability. Nebraska's farmers are waiting on new crop
technology products that are stuck in a broken regulatory
process. Our ethanol producers are desperate for certainty
under the RFS.
Homebuilders, transportation stakeholders, and local
government officials are concerned about the Federal Government
expanding control over our State's water resources. Communities
and small business owners fear that the EPA's ozone mandate
will stunt potential economic development and growth. Families
are concerned about the future of their livelihoods due to the
EPA's activist role, the consequences of which could lead to
the elimination of entire industries.
The EPA has an enormous impact on the American people. For
this reason, it is important that this Agency be open,
transparent, and take responsibility for its actions.
Throughout this Administration, we have witnessed the EPA's
misguided actions that have negatively impacted families all
across this Nation.
For example, in 2012, the EPA conducted aerial surveillance
of feed yards in Nebraska. These properties are not only places
of work, but they are homes where Nebraskans live and where
they raise their children. The EPA also joined the Army Corps
of Engineers to propose and finalize the very intrusive Waters
of the U.S. rule, which threatens the economic security of
countless Nebraska families.
Moreover, a GAO report found that your agency broke the law
by gathering public support for the misguided WOTUS rule
through the use of social media. In another, more recent
example, an EPA grant to the Northwest Indian Fisheries
Commission was used to fund an anti-farmer advocacy campaign in
Washington State. The billboard's website, radio ads, and other
social media associated with this campaign villainized farmers
and ranchers, and I found this initiative, which was funded by
your Agency, extremely troubling.
As we conduct our discussion today, I would ask you to bear
in mind that these Americans, both in Nebraska and across the
Country, who work hard each and every day to protect our
treasured environment and natural resources, are important.
As I mentioned in my opening remarks, Administrator, recent
revelations have come to light regarding how the What's
Upstream? campaign has been funded, and that was through an EPA
grant. The financial assistance that your agency gave to fund
this lobbying campaign is a blatant violation of Federal law.
Even more disturbing is the revelation that a 2014 inspector
general's report found this EPA region had insufficient
protections in place to ensure against using these funds for
lobbying purposes.
So I would ask you, at what point did your Agency become
aware of the misuse of EPA funds for the What's Upstream?
Campaign and what role did EPA have in reviewing that billboard
and website?
Ms. McCarthy. Well, I cannot give you the exact date, but I
can assure you that EPA also was distressed about the use of
the money and the tone of that campaign, and we have put a halt
to reimbursements of any funds under that. It is a subcontract
and we have told our contractor that we need to have a full
discussion and review before additional moneys are expended.
And I do know that the most egregious tone was reflected on
billboards. That will not be reimbursed through this fund.
Senator Fischer. Thank you.
I would ask you, are you planning on putting protections in
place in the Agency so that we can be sure that grant funds
aren't used in that manner in the future?
Ms. McCarthy. I think we need to re-look at the details and
the scope of our contract so that subcontractors that are then
used not only meet the legal merits of what we have to do, but
also reflect the tone and the interest of EPA in collaborating
with agriculture on these issues.
Senator Fischer. Thank you.
Could you get information to my office about what policies
and procedures that you are putting place that would prevent
misuse in the future?
Ms. McCarthy. Certainly.
Senator Fischer. Thank you. I know all of my colleagues
join me in supporting agriculture, and especially our families
who work hard every day to produce a safe, affordable, healthy
product in order to feed the world.
Thank you.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Fischer.
Senator Barrasso.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
There is an April 7th Wall Street Journal story, Toxic
Spill Fears Haunt Southwest. This has to do with the spill
about 6 months ago that the EPA crew accidentally caused where
you unleashed waste at a gold mine, the spring snow melt, as it
says, threatens to stir up pollutants. So the people in the
area are concerned that as the snow melts and comes down.
The article talks about a 46 year old oilfield worker about
the contamination. It says, ``The EPA hasn't returned to
conduct more tests, and now Mr. Dils and others are worried
that lead and other toxic materials that settled in the river
will be stirred up.'' And just to remind folks, this is the
one, you have seen the picture, the mustard orange colored
river, 3 million gallons of toxic material that poured into
that river.
So he said they are worried that these toxic chemicals will
be stirred up, contaminate the river again as the Animas swells
with spring snow melt from the Rocky Mountains. So he says,
``I'm nervous about the long-term effects.'' Says, ``It will be
a matter of testing our well continuously, and we don't have
the money to do it.''
So in your oral testimony before the Indian Affairs
Committee specifically related to that toxic spill, you stated
that the EPA water results, in your words, ``indicated that
water and sediment have returned to pre-event conditions.''
This gives, I believe, an incomplete picture of the long-term
impacts of this EPA-caused environmental disaster. Ppeople in
the area are referring to the EPA and they are saying EPA
stands for the Environmental Polluting Agency, the
Environmental Poisoning Agency.
As Senator Boxer just said, look at the faces of those who
were poisoned. This is murder. This is Barbara Boxer's quote
about what happens when people are poisoned. She, a little
earlier, said this is murder; and that's the way people in the
area feel about what has happened.
Communities want to know if their families will be safe as
a result of the disaster that the EPA has caused, and you said
it will take responsibility for. They need money for testing,
and what EPA has offered in terms of technical support and
long-term monitoring isn't nearly enough.
So when the Indian Tribes impacted wanted a followup
hearing to examine these issues specifically in that location,
at first the EPA refused to even send a witness to testify in
person. The hearing is going to be this Friday, Earth Day.
Instead, the EPA offered only written testimony.
As a result, the Senate Indian Affairs Committee has had to
issue a subpoena, something that the Indian Affairs Committee
hasn't had to do since the Jack Abramoff scandal. That puts you
and the EPA in a very exclusive club, and it shouldn't have
happened. This was a bipartisan subpoena.
We are holding this field hearing to do oversight into this
catastrophe that the EPA has caused. So the Indian Affairs
Committee, both Democrat and Republican Senators, have now
given you and EPA, or EPA Assistant Administrator Stanislaus an
opportunity to testify at the field hearing Friday in person.
So my question is, this Friday, are you planning to go to
New York for the signing of the Paris Climate Agreement, stay
here, or will you take this opportunity to face the people, the
Navajo Nation, other Tribes whose communities were poisoned,
and commit to them, as well as all the affected communities of
this spill, the people who were poisoned, that you will provide
them with the testing and the funding they actually need to
assure that their families will be safe?
Ms. McCarthy. Well, Senator, there may be some confusion,
but I was actually never invited to this hearing. Mathy
Stanislaus was originally and Mathy Stanislaus will be
attending.
Senator Barrasso. So you have been subpoenaed as a result
of the EPA's decision to send no one, so we named you and Mathy
Stanislaus, either/or. So my question is does the buck stop
with you or with Mr. Stanislaus?
Ms. McCarthy. Mathy Stanislaus will be attending the
meeting, and we did our best to communicate with your staff to
let them know that we were happy to send somebody before the
subpoena was issued. We failed to be able to have those calls
and communications returned to us.
Senator Barrasso. I wanted to switch topics to the more
than 2,400 jobs that have been lost in the energy sector in
Wyoming since January. They are good-paying jobs, benefits that
provide for Wyoming families. You stated before the
Environmental Council of the States, on April 13th of this
year, that ``I can't find one single bit of evidence that we
have destroyed an industry or significantly impacted jobs other
than in a positive way.'' That is your quote.
I don't know what you are talking about. I hear it every
day back in my State, in Wyoming, heard it this weekend, how
EPA regulations are destroying the coal industry. Your
regulations are costing jobs. Are you going to tell the laid-
off coal miners in Wyoming and West Virginia and Kentucky that
you take no responsibility whatsoever for what is happening in
coal country?
Ms. McCarthy. Sir, I think our responsibility is to make
sure that when the energy system is shifting, as it is in the
market today, that we do everything we can to help those
communities and those folks be able to cope with a shift in the
economy and the energy system that we are seeing. And I am
happy to have any of those conversations if I can be helpful.
Senator Barrasso. So based on your quote of April 13th, you
are saying you are not responsible for even one job loss in
coal industry.
Ms. McCarthy. Sir, that is not what my quote said, but what
I would indicate to you is I believe that the energy system has
been shifting since the 1980's, and it is time that we work
with those communities and individuals to make sure that
everybody in the United States has an opportunity to live well.
And there are challenges in those communities, without
question, but the vast majority of that is related directly to
the market shift, not to EPA regulation.
Senator Barrasso. Mr. Chairman, I will point out that 2,400
jobs have been lost in the energy sector in Wyoming since
January, and I believe it is directly a result of the EPA
actions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Barrasso.
Senator Markey.
Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.
And thank you, Administrator McCarthy, for everything that
you do for our Country. Thank you for the Clean Power Plan
which you have put together. It is a very important part of the
solution to the intensification of the warming of the planet,
and I think it really helps the United States be a credible
leader in working on these issues.
Two thousand 15 was the warmest year on record. 2016 is off
to a start that could break last year's record. In fact, 15 of
the 16 hottest years on record have occurred since 2001. Only
1998 rivals the temperature seen in the 21st century, so we
have to act now.
A recent report by Environment America shows that each year
renewable energy could power our Country 100 times over. We are
making strides in smart grid and storage technologies. The
question is no longer if we can provide power for the Country
with renewable energy, it is when and how we make the
transition to 100 percent renewable. I don't think there is any
question that by 2100 we will be there. The technology will
just make it possible, along with the capacity of the grid to
be able to manage those technologies.
But, nonetheless, I know that there are still those that
believe that you are the principal person responsible for this
shift in the energy generation in our Country and the sources
that create it. We know that natural gas, because of fracking,
has just become a plentiful supply of alternative means of
generating electricity in our Country, and we know that it has
half of the greenhouse gases that coal does, and we also know
that it is very competitive, if not less expensive than coal.
So that is just the reality in the free market, Darwinian-
Adam Smith free market. And the same thing is true for 30
States deciding that they want to have renewable electricity
standards. That is just 30 States deciding that they want to do
that. And I don't think we want to get into the way of
individual States making a decision as to what their mix of
generation should be across all sources.
But I would also note again, and I think it is important to
have this very, very clear, in 2009 the House, in the Waxman-
Markey bill, actually provided $200 billion for carbon capture
and sequestration for the coal industry, for the electrical
generation industry in its use of coal; and that $200 billion
was in that legislation in order to create a bridge for the
coal industry. Now, Peabody Coal, amongst other coal companies,
said that they did not want the bill; they did not want that
money, which is their choice.
But as a result, that $200 billion is not available right
now, which it would have otherwise been. And I think that could
have played a large role in ensuring that the coal industry had
a bridge to the future, because with carbon capture and
sequestration it would have dramatically reduced the amount of
greenhouse gases down to levels which would have been
compatible with the goals the Country has for the reduction in
greenhouse gases over the next 20 or 30 years.
We also had money in to help communities respond to the
changing energy landscape. We built that in as well for the
communities.
So I just want to make that very, very clear. That
legislation was intended to actually help the industry with the
transition that was already going on, and to make sure that it
would deal with that source of fuel in a way that could have
made it compatible.
So can you talk a little bit, as well, about how the Clean
Power Plan creates flexibilities for each one of the States to
be able to deal with the reduction in greenhouse gases, which
is going to be required?
Ms. McCarthy. Well, Senator, the Clean Power Plan is
enormously flexible in terms of allowing States to determine
their own energy mix, as well as to work with other States to
identify the best path forward that will not only achieve the
greenhouse gas reduction targets, but also look at how we can
strengthen the economy of every State moving forward.
I agree with what you said, but one of the other pieces
that I would add is that solar and wind now is so cost-
competitive, and that is where job growth is being seen. So
there is a need to address the challenges in these coal
communities, but there is also an opportunity here for lowering
energy costs while we maintain a sound and reliable energy
system.
Senator Markey. Thank you so much for your great work.
Thank you.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Markey.
Senator Rounds.
Senator Rounds. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning, Administrator.
Ms. McCarthy. Good morning.
Senator Rounds. Last week a subcommittee of this Committee
on Superfund, Waste Management, and Regulatory Oversight, a
committee that I chair and Senator Markey sits as the ranking
member, hosted a hearing on small business impacts from EPA
regulations, and we received testimony regarding a number of
instances where the EPA has disagreed with the Office of
Advocacies out of the SBA, but the Office of Advocacy's
recommendations on particular rulemaking.
Our witnesses testified that there is no mechanism in the
law that reconciles these differences between the EPA's
decisionmaking process and the Office of Advocacy's opinions.
Can you please share how you view the Office of Advocacy's
recommendations and how seriously you consider these
recommendations throughout the rulemaking process?
Really what I am curious about is it doesn't appear that
there is any way to reconcile the difference when, as in this
particular case, the one that we were working on was WOTUS,
where the Office of Advocacy actually came out and said they
disagreed with implementing it; and yet it moved forward.
Can you share with us the role that it plays, the reactions
that you have and how it is considered, how their position is
considered in your decisionmaking process?
Ms. McCarthy. Well, we certainly work with the Small
Business Administration to comply with the law, which is that
we need to consult with them in a panel that is established to
look at the rule to provide us advice on how we can both
identify and respond to significant challenges that small
businesses might face. And I think we have actually a very good
record of being able to have a robust process that informs our
decisionmaking early on in the rules so that we can propose
rules that are more sensitive to the needs of small businesses
and finalize those rules.
Now, there are differences between the work we do with the
Small Business Administration to comply with all of the OMB
rules and requirements and what the Small Business Advocacy
Office might understand and move forward in terms of their
concerns, but we try to resolve them; and I can certainly show
you where their input has provided us tremendous opportunity to
get at the reductions we are supposed to achieve, but to do it
in a way that is much more sensitive of the unique challenges
that small businesses face.
Senator Rounds. Administrator, I think that would be
helpful because in this particular case, with WOTUS, their
recommendation was do not implement it; and yet the process
moved forward with the implementation. As we all know, it has
now been stayed, and yet it appears as though they were
straightforward in their recommendations. If there is evidence
that there was a reasoning or a discussion that continued on,
that would be very helpful to this Committee to be able to see
that; and if you could provide that it would be helpful. Is
that available?
Ms. McCarthy. I certainly know that we had meetings to
discuss the implications on small business. I was briefed on
those discussions, and I would be happy to provide you a
summary of those or see what else I might be able to provide
you to indicate that we did listen to those inputs.
You know, the Clean Water Rule is a little bit different
than an implementation rule; it is really looking at how you
structure the jurisdictional questions around what streams and
rivers require protection under the Clean Water Rule and how we
manage those. And, frankly, how we did the Clean Water Rule was
to try to be very clear in terms of trying to reduce sort of
the process of identifying those jurisdictional answers, as
well as how you would mitigate the challenges moving forward.
Senator Rounds. And I think that is one of the reasons why
they had recommended that it not be implemented, was the
frustrations that they had looked at as an outside group. I am
wondering if it isn't time to perhaps have a third party as an
arbiter when it comes to these types of problems, where you
have two Federal agencies, one in which you want to implement a
rule and one in which you have another Federal agency which
says clearly this is damaging to small business.
Is it time to start talking about a third-party arbitration
process within the Federal agencies themselves?
Ms. McCarthy. I think there is a panel process that we are
required to go through in many instances, but in this case,
Senator, this wasn't the sort of something that EPA just
decided on our own to do; the Supreme Court told us two times
that the current guidance and rules were not sufficient, that
we needed to do science and we needed to come back.
And when we did come back and we suggested maybe a guidance
was the thing to do, we were told by many in Congress, as well
as stakeholders, no guidance; do rules, we want a public
process. And that is what we did. And we will see whether this
rule stands up when it is held to court scrutiny. But I am very
confident that we did the work we should do and that it will
prevail.
Senator Rounds. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Administrator McCarthy, thank you.
Ms. McCarthy. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Rounds.
Senator Whitehouse.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Chairman.
Welcome, Administrator McCarthy.
Ms. McCarthy. Senator, how are you?
Senator Whitehouse. First of all, just for the record, I do
believe that it has been reported in a variety of forums that
the war on coal was actually waged and won by the natural gas
industry, including a recent story by that famously liberal
publication, the Wall Street Journal. So I will ask unanimous
consent to have that Wall Street Journal story put into the
record.
This past week, in Rhode Island, in addition to the
national New York Times front page story on the dying out and
bleaching, which is more or less the same thing, of the Great
Barrier Reef, the Providence Journal ran a front page story
headlined Drowning Marshes. Our seaside marshes are not keeping
up with the pace of sea level rise. The newspaper also did a
big story on the historic buildings in and around Newport and
the number of them that are vulnerable to our current State
projections of sea level rise, which actually numbers 550
historic or historic designation-eligible buildings worth close
to half a billion dollars.
Unless somebody around here wants to repeal the law of
thermal expansion, then we are going to have to really address
this problem, and it is going to hit my ocean State very, very
hard. These are facts that my State lives with every day, so
don't let up; keep doing what you are doing. We understand.
Clearly, there are several dimensions to the political fight
that you are caught in the middle of.
One is, unfortunately, Republican versus Democrat. It
didn't use to be that way; this used to be a Committee where
Republicans and Democrats worked together on environmental
issues. But at least for now those days appear to be past. It
is also a little bit of the past versus the future; and the
future is inevitable, but the past is often reluctant to give
up its incumbency.
But it is also geographic. And as you heard from Senator
Barrasso, he has some very legitimate concerns about what is
happening in Wyoming. Rhode Island also has very legitimate
concerns; they just happen to be the opposite side. The more
that Wyoming coal pollutes, the more that we experience these
changes in Rhode Island.
The third story in the Providence Journal related to a big
session that they had and they brought in people to talk about
our fisheries. Rhode Island's fisheries are in a State of
upheaval because of the warming temperatures of the sea. We
know that 90 percent of the excess heat from climate change
from the warming planet has gone into the oceans.
This is something that we measure with thermometers, so
unless people want to be not against science, but against
measurement, they are going to have a real problem with this
data. It is not complicated to take these measures, and
fishermen are telling me, Sheldon, things are getting weird out
there. They are getting fish like tarpon and grouper in their
nets in Rhode Island Sound.
Joe Manchin and I have exchanged visits to each other's
States so I could understand the problems of coal country and
he could understand the problems of ocean country, if that is a
phrase. And we went out on a fishing boat and the captain said,
you know, this isn't my grandfather's ocean; I grew up fishing
and I don't know what is going on out there any longer. And
that creates real peril for our fishing industry. So don't
forget the Rhode Islands of the world when you are taking heat
from the folks who are on the side, I would say here, of the
past.
And I would urge my colleagues, you know, we met at Senator
Markey's request with a delegation that included a gentleman
from the Mexican Parliament. They have just accepted an auction
for 3.5 cent per kilowatt hour wind power or solar. I forgot
which. But it was a clean power source. Three point five cents.
It is really hard to compete with that.
And the day is going to come, those prices are going down,
when this adjustment has to happen; and there are two ways we
can make it happen. It can be a managed transition in which the
harm from the transition, the upheaval from the transition is
dealt with in a responsible way, or it can be an abrupt
transition. And I would suggest that what we have seen with
Peabody Coal and with some of these other companies show that
when the industry focuses on just truculent, grit your teeth
and wait until the better end, the abrupt transition is very,
very unpleasant.
So my time is up. Keep doing what you are doing. And I urge
my colleagues to please work with us. There is a way to make
this transition much more manageable for the genuine economic
concerns that they face in their States, but it is not fair to
come here and talk about the economic concerns that they face
in their States and then completely ignore the changes that are
happening in my State. Thank you.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse.
Senator Wicker.
Senator Wicker. Administrator McCarthy, thank you very much
for coming to see us again.
I want to ask about radon. The State Indoor Grant is one of
a number of programs the President proposes to eliminate in his
budget. On the other hand, the President's budget requests $235
million in climate-related funding, the centerpiece of which is
the Clean Power Plan, of course.
The Clean Power Plan, according to your figures, will avoid
6,600 premature deaths by the year 2030. On the other hand, by
your own analysis, radon causes an estimated 21,000 lung cancer
deaths each year. Do I have those figures right, at least,
Administrator?
Ms. McCarthy. Well, I don't have that exact figure, but the
figures that we provide for 2030 are annual figures. Every year
that is a reduction.
Senator Wicker. OK. So what you are saying is that the
Clean Power Plan will avoid 6,600 premature deaths per year.
Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
Senator Wicker. OK. And by contrast, radon causes an
estimated 21,000 lung cancer deaths annually in the U.S. It
just seems to me that you are not being cost-efficient there.
The core mission of the EPA is to protect human health and
environment. Given these numbers, it seems to me that taking
the money away from known threats such as indoor radon is
inefficient, in that there are some 21,000 lung cancer deaths
attributed to radon each year.
Ms. McCarthy. Well, let me just respond to that. If I
thought $8.1 million in State grants would actually reduce
21,000 lives and save those, I would. Really, the question is
whether or not that $8.1 million to States is the right way to
address the risk that is apparent. And we have developed a
separate strategy that we think is more efficient that doesn't
require State grants to be done, and we have not found that
State grants are the most appropriate and efficient way to
address that risk.
What you are comparing is known reductions that we believe
will happen versus the entire risk to radon.
Senator Wicker. You are saying the State indoor radon grant
program is an ineffective program?
Ms. McCarthy. I am saying that there are more effective
ways to use our resources, and we are trying to do that. That
is how we have framed this budget.
It is not that we don't like the grants, but you have to--
--
Senator Wicker. So what is the name of the program, then,
that you are advancing and advocating today to supplant the
State indoor radon grant?
Ms. McCarthy. We have our indoor air program, and part of
their charge is to address radon, and we are doing that in two
different ways. We have a Federal plan that is looking across
the board at how we do this using Federal resources from
agencies that are essentially landlords, and we are also
marrying that effort with individual States and NGO's and
innovators who have technology options to actually reduce radon
in the home and how we spread that word more effectively.
Senator Wicker. OK, well, we will discuss that more in
depth with some questions for the record.
Ms. McCarthy, the Clean Power Plan has been stayed by the
Supreme Court. You have said it doesn't prevent EPA from
continuing to work on the rule. Now, last month you testified
before the House Energy and Commerce Committee with regard to
the stay.
Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
Senator Wicker. So we certainly won't do anything that
implements or enforces the rule, consistent with the Supreme
Court stay. What work is your agency continuing to do with
regard to the Clean Power Plan? Have you requested any legal
analysis to ensure that you have the legal authority to carry
out this work? And if you have requested such a legal analysis
and received one, can you provide that analysis to this
Committee?
Ms. McCarthy. Well, I can certainly tell you that I have
worked with our Office of General Council, who is working very
closely with the Department of Justice to make sure that we
totally respect the decision of the Supreme Court, as we always
would. We are continuing to attend meetings that the States
request of us. We are continuing to work with States that, on a
volunteer basis, want to actually continue to move forward in
the development of their State plans; and we are continuing to
look at the tools available to the agency to support that
effort. For example, the States want us to develop an
accounting system that would help them to account for their
greenhouse gas emissions.
Senator Wicker. But in the short time we have, with regard
to a legal analysis, you have been working with your inside
counsel and with the Justice Department.
Ms. McCarthy. Correct. Yes.
Senator Wicker. Have they provided you with written
analyses about whether you can go forward and what you can do
and what you can't do?
Ms. McCarthy. I have certainly had many discussions with my
Office of General Counsel, who has told me what everybody
believes is the consensus of what we should and shouldn't be
doing. It is very clear to me----
Senator Wicker. Is there anything in writing? You see what
I am getting at, though. I am just trying to get a specific
answer so I can know if you can provide this Committee with
copies of this written advice. So you have mentioned oral
advice.
Ms. McCarthy. Yes. I did not see anything in writing.
Senator Wicker. But do you have anything in writing?
Ms. McCarthy. I have not seen it provided to me, but I can
go back and see if there is written discussion of this. But
clearly we are doing everything possible to consult with our
attorneys and make sure we are being very respectful. But I am
doing nothing that implements or enforces this rule, consistent
the Supreme Court's decision.
Senator Wicker. If you have anything in writing, I would
appreciate it if you would submit it to this Committee.
Ms. McCarthy. Thank you, sir.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Wicker.
Senator Cardin?
Senator Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Administrator McCarthy, I very much respect what you are
doing and thank you very much for your service. We have worked
together on many issues and I very much support your leadership
at EPA.
Having said that, last year I raised an issue at the budget
hearing and I thought we were going to do better this year, and
it looks like we haven't done any better this year. So perhaps
you can try to clarify for me the budget as it relates to water
infrastructure in this Country.
Your own department has estimated a need of $655 billion
over the next 20 years in regards to clean water and save
drinking water. Since we last met, we have had the tragedy of
Flint, and Flint is not an isolated circumstance. What they did
I hope is isolated, that is, not actively responding to
minimize the risk of lead in drinking water, but we know that
there is a lot of lead in pipes that lead into people's homes;
we know that there is corrosion issues; we know that there is
old, inefficient water systems in regards to safe drinking
water; and we know that the clean water infrastructure is in
bad need of repair, to the tune of, as I said, $655 billion,
your own estimates, over the next 20 years.
So I am perplexed as to why, in regard to the State
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, the President's budget is
less this year requested than what the President requested last
year in his budget. And then when you go to the Clean Water
State Revolving Fund, the amount the President requested is
substantially less than the amount appropriated in last year's
budget, to the tune of about $413 million. That does not seem
like a commitment to modernize our water infrastructure. Do you
have a better explanation this year?
Ms. McCarthy. There are obviously constraints that we have.
One is we have to respect the levels that were established in
the bipartisan budget agreement, and our choice was how do we
use the money that is allocated to us in the best way that we
can. There is no question that we have to have a larger
conversation about how we fund infrastructure. I think Flint
has made that very clear to everybody. But I don't think that
that is something that we can identify as a way to fully
resolve within the budget constraints of EPA.
Senator Cardin. I very much appreciate the struggle with
the budget caps and the omnibus limits. I very much appreciate
that. And I do want you to adhere to those limits because that
is our agreement for this budget year, and we are all going to
work to adhere to the agreement that has been reached.
But there are creative ways that you can help us find ways
to improve our water infrastructure. The last one we did the
WIFIA funds. There are different tax incentives that you can be
talking about. There are different challenges we have in
dealing with the last connection between the drinking water
supplies and a person's home.
It seems to me that, recognizing the risk factor that we
have today, we need your advocacy for stronger water
infrastructure in America.
Ms. McCarthy. Well, I will do my best to be able to provide
my voice to that. I will tell you I think there has been no
worse issue that I have faced in my almost 36 years now than
Flint, Michigan. It was devastating to the individuals there.
And if there is anything that we can do as a Country to
recognize the challenges we face, because in Flint it is not
only the lead issue; it is the fact that it has half of the
population it had in the 1970's and it now has a big system
that they haven't invested in in decades. So it is enormously
challenging.
And from that perspective it is not different than many
other urban areas that have lost significant populations and
simply don't have a way of continuing to make those investments
moving forward. And you are absolutely right, it becomes a
responsibility of EPA to identify those challenges and to speak
as loudly as we can about them, and I will do the best I can
with the time I have remaining.
Senator Cardin. I appreciate that. I point out, as you just
said, it is not just Flint. The systems in my State date back
100 years, and the ratepayers just cannot do everything that is
required in order to replace pipes that are in some cases 100
years old. In Baltimore City, our public schools, the drinking
water supplies through the fountains have been terminated
because it is not safe because of lead. So we have a national
problem and we need national leadership.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Cardin.
Senator Sullivan.
Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As I have been saying in the Committee, it is not just
aging infrastructure, it is lack of infrastructure. There are
entire communities in my State that don't have clean water or
flush toilets; they live in Third World conditions, and we
certainly would want your help there, Administrator McCarthy.
I wanted to raise a concern that I have raised on this
Committee with you a lot, and it is the concern about we
certainly all want clean air, clean water. My home town of
Anchorage won another award for best practices recently on
clean water.
But the concern about the law and your agency not abiding
by the law, you know, since you last appeared here, two courts
have placed injunctions on your two signature regulatory
issues, the Waters of the U.S. and the Clean Power Plan. These
are really important issues to us in terms of oversight.
Many of us asked for the legal justification on WOTUS. You
were reluctant to provide it. Now I understand why. Have you
read the 6th Circuit opinion that has put a stay on the Waters
of the U.S. ruling?
Ms. McCarthy. I am certainly aware of it.
Senator Sullivan. Do you know what they said?
Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
Senator Sullivan. What did they say?
Ms. McCarthy. Well, basically they said that they wanted to
make sure that they looked at the underpinnings of the rule
from both a science perspective, as well as a legal
perspective, and indicated that the rule shouldn't continue to
move forward until they were done.
Senator Sullivan. They were also concerned and favorably
disposed to the petitioner's argument that you were expanding
your jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act, which is only the
realm of Congress. Only we can do that; the EPA can't do this.
Ms. McCarthy. And that is why we are looking forward to----
Senator Sullivan. So that is a big deal. But let me go.
There is another much bigger that I don't think is getting
nearly the attention, it is the injunction by the U.S. Supreme
Court for the Clean Power Plan. You glossed over it in your
testimony, but this is a really big deal.
Let me ask you, Administrator McCarthy, how many times do
you think the Supreme Court has done this in its history, has
put an injunction on a Federal regulation before a lower court
weighed in on its merits? How many times in the history of the
Supreme Court has that happened?
Ms. McCarthy. I am not aware of any.
Senator Sullivan. I can tell you. Never before it happened
to you. So this is an unprecedented action and, again, it goes
to this issue of the rule of law. So have you thought about why
they did that? Have you read that ruling?
Ms. McCarthy. Well, it was fairly short.
Senator Sullivan. It was short, but has your team thought
about why the Supreme Court, first time in U.S. history, took
this kind of unprecedented action? It is a big, big deal. Why
do you think they did it? Let me just ask you a couple reasons
why they may have done it.
Your recent record in the Supreme Court, utility air
regulators, where Justice Scalia said you had violated the
separation of powers; the EPA v. Michigan; the WOTUS ruling. Do
you think that those may have impacted the Supreme Court's
ruling?
Ms. McCarthy. Sir, the Supreme Court gave no indication
that they we relooking at the merits on this issue when they--
--
Senator Sullivan. No, but I am asking you guys to reflect
on why.
Ms. McCarthy. It would be way more presumptuous of me to
indicate what I think the Supreme Court was thinking.
Senator Sullivan. When Laurence Tribe was arguing against
the rule, he stated, and Laurence Tribe is not some kind of
Republican partisan, ``Burning the Constitution should not
become part of our national energy policy. The EPA, with this
rule, is attempting an unconstitutional trifecta: usurping the
prerogatives of the States, Congress, and the Federal courts
all at once.''
Do you think the Supreme Court may have been thinking about
Laurence Tribe's arguments?
Ms. McCarthy. Sir, I know the Supreme Court did their job.
We will do our job on the merits, and I am very confident of
this rule not just being constitutional, but being legally
solid all around.
Senator Sullivan. Do you think they may have been thinking
about job losses that have occurred because of EPA regulatory
issues?
Ms. McCarthy. Sir, I can't say what the Supreme Court was
thinking. They made their decision and I respect it.
Senator Sullivan. Let me ask one other issue, Administrator
McCarthy, on why the Supreme Court may have done that, and I
think it relates to your views on some of these regulatory
issues. You were quoted, on the eve of the EPA v. Michigan
case, when they asked if you thought they were going to rule in
your favor, you said yes. They didn't. But then you said,
``Even if we don't win, it was 3 years ago that we issued the
rule. Most of them,'' meaning companies in America, ``are
already in compliance, investments,'' hundreds of millions,
``have been made and we'll catch up. We're still going to get
at these issues from these facilities.''
So, in essence, you publicly were stating even if we lose
on the rule, we win.
Ms. McCarthy. No, sir, that wasn't what I----
Senator Sullivan. That statement has been played around the
Country. Many, many Americans are upset by it. Do you
understand how that exudes arrogance and a disrespect for the
rule of law when your agency is essentially saying we don't
even care how the courts rule? And do you think the Supreme
Court may have taken this unprecedented action because of your
statement that you made on this issue?
Ms. McCarthy. Well, I would find it--well, I won't even----
Senator Sullivan. Do you regret making that statement?
Ms. McCarthy. No, not at all, because I wasn't indicating
what you just said. The Supreme Court actually didn't negate
the rule; they remanded it back because they thought we needed
to do a job earlier on in the process on cost, which we have
just completed. I think we got nine comments on that.
And we know that we are past now the 4-year window for full
compliance on that rule. I am proud of it. I love the lives
that we are saving as a result of that rule. And the industry
has been able to manage their way through it brilliantly.
Senator Sullivan. Mr. Chairman, I have some more questions,
and I would ask, once everybody is done, I would like, if it is
possible, to stay. We do this in every other committee. I don't
know why this would be a problem.
Senator Inhofe. Well, this is not every other committee.
What I will do, we will certainly, if Senator Boxer wants to
have an additional 3 minutes or something like that, I could
yield mine to you. But that is about as far as we could go.
Thank you.
Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you.
Senator Carper.
Senator Carper. Thanks. I want to just note with some irony
that the job approval rating of the U.S. Senate, both sides of
the aisle, pales by comparison to the voter approval of the
EPA, and your stewardship with respect to clean air and clean
water.
I would also say lovingly to my colleagues on the other
side that we sure could use a nice Supreme Court Justice. I
think the President has given us a pretty nominee, and I would
urge you to spend some time with him.
When I left the hearing earlier this morning to go a
roundtable with the Committee on Homeland Security, Senator
Inhofe was saying that he wanted to start off the hearing on a
positive note, and he conveyed his gratitude to you and to EPA
with respect to an issue that has been contentious on this
Committee, and I just want to second that emotion from you. I
know it is not easy for you; it is not easy for us. But thank
you very much for your work there.
I want to talk about another issue that we have worked on
together on this Committee, Senator Inhofe and myself, Senator
Boxer, and a new colleague from West Virginia now have authored
legislation reauthorization for DERA, Diesel Emission Reduction
Act. Diesel legislation is close to my heart. The original
author of that was George Voinovich, as you will recall. I
understand from the President's budget proposal that his budget
shifts funding away from DERA and instead funds clean diesel
programs through attacks on oil producers separate from the EPA
budget. Is that correct?
Ms. McCarthy. It actually relies on a separate mandatory
fund. But we have $10 million allocated on our Fiscal Year 2017
budget. I think you and I share a love for the DERA program,
and certainly for all of the great reductions in emissions that
has resulted from it in the past.
Senator Carper. Thank you. Can you just explain the reason
for this shift in funding? And if the Administration is not
able to convince those of us in the legislative branch to
implement this tax on oil, how important is the current funding
mechanism for the DERA program?
Ms. McCarthy. Well, we know that diesel emissions are
particularly difficult to manage and we know that we are
supporting, beyond the diesel campaign and the DERA money,
opportunities to look at areas like ports and others that are
so important to address.
So I think the idea was that we would provide a more stable
mandatory basis for supporting programs that were like the DERA
program that showed consistent success. It is an opportunity to
look over a 10-year horizon to implement or to effectively get
$300 million dedicated to this, and it was the choice of the
President to move in this direction and to support DERA in a
considerable way.
Senator Carper. All right, thank you.
Changing back to the Clean Power Plan, if I could, it is my
understanding that the budget request from the Administration
includes $25 million to the States through a grant program to
implement the Clean Power Plan. Is that correct?
Ms. McCarthy. That is correct.
Senator Carper. Do you believe that the States will use
this money to provide better flexibility and certainty to
utilities within their States when implementing the rule?
Ms. McCarthy. I think they will fully utilize it, yes.
Senator Carper. OK. Do you believe that cutting these funds
will derail the Clean Power Plan?
Ms. McCarthy. No, sir, but I think it will slow down the
ability of States to hit the ground running.
Senator Carper. And who would it hurt the most if we were
to cut these funds?
Ms. McCarthy. The States.
Senator Carper. All right. Earlier, one of my colleagues
was talking to you about Waters of the U.S. We spend a fair
amount of time in our State, and I know my colleagues have in
their States, meeting with different folks, could be
developers, could be farmers, a lot of different folks who
represent different environmental views.
But my understanding is that one of the reasons why you
have promulgated this is because for years we heard that there
is not enough certainty and predictability for folks who are
farming, for folks that want to develop or build communities or
housing projects; there is not enough certainty for them to
know what to do, and they have been asking for some certainty
and predictability. My understanding is that you have tried to
provide that. Would you just respond to that thought?
Ms. McCarthy. We did. We actually were required to do this
by the Supreme Court. But we also knew that there was a level
of uncertainty that was causing a lot of backup in the process
for decisions to get made, for people to have certainty about
what was in and what wasn't, and what the mitigation strategy
would be. We spent a considerable amount of time working to
make sure that we were following the science to say what is in,
what is out, and where case-by-case review is necessary.
We also provided significantly more clarity for the
agriculture community on the exemptions and exclusions. We
didn't take any away; we actually added some into the system so
that agriculture would be able to perform their vital role for
all of us in a way that would allow them to be sure that they
are not running afoul of any rule or regulation.
Senator Carper. All right. Thanks so much.
Senator Inhofe. Senator Vitter.
Senator Vitter. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you both for being here. Mr. Bloom, our apologies for
not directing any questions to you. I know you are all upset
and frustrated by that.
[Laughter.]
Senator Vitter. But like the others, I am going to direct
my questions to Ms. McCarthy.
I want to build on some previous comments and questions,
Madam Administrator, about the Small Business Regulatory
Flexibility Act. I am Chair of Small Business. This has been a
real concern of a lot of members, including Democrats, and I
heard your response to Senator Rounds a few minutes ago that
you take it very seriously.
In the case of WOTUS, which is a big deal by anyone's
estimation, the EPA said it has no significant impact on small
business. Do you really stand by that and do you really think
that backs up your statement that you take this mandate to
mitigate impacts on small business seriously?
Ms. McCarthy. Well, sir, when we were looking at the Clean
Water Rule, we consulted with OMB. The decision was that we
were not required to formally do a panel, SBREFA panel, but we
did commit to having significant conversations and that is how
we----
Senator Vitter. I don't mean to interrupt you, but that
means that you determined the WOTUS rule had no major impact on
small business.
Ms. McCarthy. Because it was a jurisdictional rule instead
of an implementation rule.
Senator Vitter. You stand by that?
Ms. McCarthy. Certainly. I stand by the fact that we did
the outreach to small business the way we should.
Senator Vitter. And you think reaching that conclusion is
evidence of your taking the small business impact issue
seriously?
Ms. McCarthy. I think the evidence of our taking it
seriously was we went above the beyond the requirements under
the law to reach out to small businesses and get their input.
Senator Vitter. Just for the record, I completely disagree.
I don't think you met your requirements.
Ms. McCarthy. OK, Senator.
Senator Vitter. More recently, EPA submitted its proposed
rule regulating methane emissions for new oil and natural gas
infrastructure to the White House. You submitted that to the
White House for review before the small entity representatives
on the panel submitted any comments to the EPA. Do you think
that evidences your taking this small business impact issue
seriously?
Ms. McCarthy. I am sorry, Senator, I don't know the exact
timing on that, but often there are overlaps. But, as you know,
we make adjustments through the interagency process so that
those efforts are completed before any proposal is out for
public comment.
Senator Vitter. Well, I do know the timing, and I am
telling you you submitted it to the White House for review
before getting any small business input. Now, I know you can
always come back and change things, but normally, you have a
draft, once you are giving it to the White House, that is
basically it. Once again, to me, this is a red flag that you
all aren't taking the small business impact issue the least bit
seriously.
Let me move on to a second issue, which is Flint; and we
have talked about that.
Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
Senator Vitter. I think it is very clear to all of us that
there were multiple failures of government at multiple levels
with regard to this issue, and it is now well established that
that, unfortunately, includes EPA, that EPA knew of the crisis
well before national media attention, but seemed to fail to act
on the issue and notify Flint residents.
Because of this, Senators Inhofe, Cornyn, and I wrote to
you with some specific questions on February 4th. It is now two
and a half months later; we have no response. When are we going
to see a detailed written response?
Ms. McCarthy. I apologize for interrupting. You are going
to get it momentarily. I am sorry, within the next day or two.
Senator Vitter. OK, so we will look for that within the
next 2 days. Again, we sent this February 4th.
Ms. McCarthy. Right, sir.
Senator Vitter. Detailed questions, and we look forward to
a substantive, specific detailed response.
Ms. McCarthy. We will do the best we can.
Senator Vitter. Ozone regulation.
Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
Senator Vitter. You recently claimed at a conference that
you ``can't find one single bit of evidence that the EPA has
destroyed an industry or significantly impacted jobs other than
in a positive way.'' Do you stand by that statement?
Ms. McCarthy. Yes, sir.
Senator Vitter. OK. Well, I just want to point out, related
to ozone regulation, I can tell you from Louisiana there were
four major chemical manufacturing projects under active
consideration for Baton Rouge. That was public, specific
projects.
After EPA first proposed lowering the ozone standard in
December 2014, those were canceled. Since that has been
finalized, that cancellation is definitive. Just those
projects, one metro area that happens to be in my State,
totaled 2,000 direct and indirect jobs. New payroll would have
been over $86 million. Is that a negative impact?
Ms. McCarthy. Well, sir, the jobs that you are talking
about are essential for everybody to continue to grow, so I am
happy to look at that issue, but very often companies make
decisions on the basis of their larger economic benefits and
costs, and very often they will point to an EPA rule to justify
that decision when there are many other issues going on that
actually account for that decision more directly.
Senator Vitter. Well, I can tell you in the case of Greater
Baton Route, ozone is a huge issue because it pushes the whole
area into non-compliance. It is absolutely categorically
canceling projects, including the four I mentioned, and that is
over 2,000 jobs. So, you know, when you make the statement that
you see no evidence anywhere that anything EPA has done has
hurt jobs, I think that is a very crystal clear example to the
contrary.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Vitter.
Senator Booker.
Senator Booker. Mr. Chairman, I would first like to say
thank you to you publicly. Your staff and team has been working
so well with mine in regards to TSCA, and I am just grateful.
These last few days you guys have been pretty extraordinary, so
thank you, sir.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you.
Senator Booker. It is just so good to see you. And again I
apologize for you just being completely ignored today, which is
just insulting. If you would like to hang out after, I will buy
you a beer.
Ms. McCarthy. He is great moral support.
Senator Booker. OK.
But, Administrator, I just want to thank you. You have been
such a great partner focusing and championing a lot of issues
that are very personal to mine. You have been to my State a
number of times and I am grateful for your work, especially for
marginalizing and vulnerable populations. I think we have a
crisis in this Country in terms of the toxicity and how it
affects our children, particularly children in rural areas and
urban area, and to see the health data for those children is
just alarming to me.
Really quick, one of my greater frustrations about the
historical change of our Country is really President Reagan,
who reauthorized the last time the Superfund clean-up efforts
with some current Senators even being a part of that, was
helping us to more quickly remove Superfunds, which exist in
every single State of our Country.
Are you aware of the health data, now that we have a lot
more longitudinal data, that is showing that birth defects for
children born around Superfund sites is about 20 percent
higher, showing that autism rates for children born around
Superfund sites are about 20 percent, that give us more
scientific urgency to removing these Superfund sites? Are you
aware of that data?
Ms. McCarthy. To some extent. I am aware of a number of
studies that have been done that show a couple of things. One
is the hell of damage around these sites, but also the economic
benefits of transforming these sites.
Senator Booker. Right. And definitely every dollar invested
in cleaning up these sites creates greater economic growth,
greater jobs. But for me the children, now that we are seeing
much more longitudinal studies, the lost economic productivity
of kids that are being affected and their health is being
affected is really troublesome.
So I have reintroduced the same legislation that was
reauthorized by Ronald Reagan, voted on by a number of my
colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, which is a small tax on
polluting industries. What I guess I want to ask you really
directly is when I put a request into the EPA to give me the
count of Superfund sites, we have actually seen an increase in
our Country of Superfund sites, as opposed to a decrease.
And these orphan sites, many of them are ready to go but
lacking the funding to remove them. It seems pretty stunning to
me that you are not able to right now actively cleanup these
sites which are affecting the health of children and pregnant
women.
Ms. McCarthy. Well, we would certainly love an ability to
be able to knock some of those sites off the list. It is a long
and slow process, and additional funding certainly helps to
address that issue.
Senator Booker. So Congress's inaction to find this is
putting at risk the health of our children and pregnant women
in every State around the Country.
Ms. McCarthy. There are many risks in every State around
the Country from environmental exposures. Superfund sites are
one of them.
Senator Booker. Thank you very much.
The other issue that I just want to bring up really quickly
is air quality. Urban areas in New Jersey have, and you came to
Newark, in fact, and helped us to start to produce the data on
this, but the asthma rates are about three, four times higher.
No. 1 reason why children are missing schools; the lack of
productivity, the impact it has on that child's overall success
is pretty dramatic, and that evidence is pretty iron clad,
correct?
Ms. McCarthy. Yes, it is.
Senator Booker. So I know you are doing some shifts and
changes with the DERA program, but could you just outline for
me, and I have one more question after this, so I am hoping you
can do it quickly, some of the efforts to deal with the clean
air which disproportionately impacts our poorest and most
vulnerable communities in areas that are heavily dependent,
really located in transportation superstructures?
Ms. McCarthy. Well, as you know, our work on the National
Ambient Air Quality Standard is a significant step forward in
terms of looking at ozone and particulate matter, to be
specific. So we are looking at those issues.
We are also doing community level work. We are trying to
get better monitoring data, look at potential localized
emissions that are also crucial moving forward. We are working
with innovators to develop new monitoring so we can have a
better understanding of what air quality looks like. So we are
working on a number of different funds from both national
rules, as well as local community efforts.
Senator Booker. And really quickly, relative to other areas
of the budget, there is a very small pool for environmental
justice work. Could you just detail that? And I will be
respectful for the Chairman.
Ms. McCarthy. Yes. We have a whole community effort that we
are looking to support in this proposal and continue, it is
called Making a Visible Difference in Communities and it is
called Environmental Justice. Those are incredibly important
efforts moving forward, and they are efforts that are
extraordinarily positive because they bring other agencies to
the table so the communities that otherwise wouldn't have the
wherewithal to take care of these exposures get opportunities
not just to reduce those through our funding, but also
opportunities for new jobs, for new housing to really become
active, engaged, and affirmative communities that control their
own destiny.
Senator Booker. Thank you very much.
Ms. McCarthy. It is a wonderful opportunity.
Senator Booker. Thank you. And, again, I appreciate your
leadership and the passion you have for vulnerable communities.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the time.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Booker.
Senator Capito.
Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank the witness and thank you for your service.
Ms. McCarthy. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Capito. I wanted to ask you about the Clean Power
Plan. And I have been sort of in and out of the meeting, so I
apologize if you have directly answered the question that I am
going to ask, but I think the initial response I heard was
vague, and that is what has concerned me; and that is what
would happen to the deadlines under the Clean Power Plan if the
rule is ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court.
Janet McCabe, who is your Acting Assistant Administrator,
she said that it is actually a little premature to be
speculating specifically about the compliance dates in the
Clean Power Plan, but I would beg to differ since it could have
massive consequences to all of our States. I think something
more crystal clear and definitive, whether these deadlines will
be suspended or tolled as your brief, I think, before the
Supreme Court seemed to agree to.
So I guess today have you made a statement, again, if I
wasn't in the room, I apologize, to a clear signal as to what
will happen to these deadlines if your rule is upheld at the
Supreme Court level?
Ms. McCarthy. Well, the reason why I think Janet indicated
it is premature is the first compliance deadline doesn't happen
until 2022. So we are hoping that it will be expedited, as they
know there is an expedited schedule already in the district
court to get through this system and get to the Supreme Court,
as they have indicated.
The Supreme Court didn't speak to the tolling question; all
they did was stay the rule. We do not have the authority on our
own to be able to make changes to that rule, and we certainly
expect that the courts, when they make their final decisions,
will speak to that issue directly.
Senator Capito. So I guess what I am hearing is that since
the compliance date is not until 2022, the anticipation is that
the deadlines, if the Court doesn't speak to it, the deadlines
would go forward as proposed?
Ms. McCarthy. Well, the deadline would if the Court doesn't
speak to it. The deadline we knew we couldn't manage was the
one that is coming up, because there is no way in which we will
be to the Supreme Court in a timely way.
Senator Capito. And what happened to that deadline?
Ms. McCarthy. We indicated to the States not to submit
plans because we are not implementing the rule.
Senator Capito. Right. By that deadline.
Ms. McCarthy. That is correct.
Senator Capito. But you are still going to have a time for
them to submit plans if in fact the Supreme Court agrees with
the regulation.
Ms. McCarthy. That is correct.
Senator Capito. OK. Let me ask you this. You have stated in
your budget and you stated, I think, well, I have here that 25
States are continuing to voluntarily work on implementation
plans. Is that correct?
Ms. McCarthy. Yes. There are a number of States. I don't
have the exact number, but there are a number of States that
are working on plans and there are many States that continue to
get together and talk to us and look at how they would be
prepared for the rule moving forward.
Senator Capito. If we could get a more definitive number of
States that are actually moving forward, because in your budget
you are saying that you want to spend $25.5 million to work
with States to develop and review CPP plans. So your whole
climate change budget is $235 million.
Ms. McCarthy. That is correct.
Senator Capito. Twenty-five million of that is supposedly
to help voluntarily with these States.
Ms. McCarthy. For EPA to develop tools and work with the
States. But there is also $25 million for the States themselves
to continue to move forward on implementation voluntarily or on
other issues related.
Senator Capito. That is an additional 25?
Ms. McCarthy. That is correct.
Senator Capito. Is that the STAG grants to States?
Ms. McCarthy. That portion is, yes.
Senator Capito. Yes.
Ms. McCarthy. That is not the total of the STAG grants.
Senator Capito. So that is $50 million, and we are still
$185 million asking for appropriations for where you State that
the centerpiece of this effort, the Clean Power Plan. I would
just register some concern that in fact it appears, through
your budget, that you are moving forward with this even though
you have a stay on it. It is still very much a part of the
appropriations process.
And when I look and see that the Clean Water State
Revolving Loan Fund, which a lot of people have, and I would
join in my concern about the cuts there, I could make a
suggestion. I have $185 million sitting over here I think could
go right over to the Clean Water State Revolving Fund and I
think impact a lot of people and their health as well.
Ms. McCarthy. Senator, if I could just point out.
Senator Capito. Yes. Of course.
Ms. McCarthy. All of that money I would be able to provide
you the detail, but only those two are directly related to the
Clean Power Plan, that is $50.5 million. The rest is identified
as opportunities in our vehicle emissions, our Energy Star
program, our methane reduction initiatives. So there are a
number of others that we can certainly provide you with details
on.
Senator Capito. So it is a little vague in here, because
you say the centerpiece of these efforts is the Clean Power
Plan right after you ask for $235 million.
Ms. McCarthy. And it is not all tagged to that, just the
50.5.
Senator Capito. OK. All right, then let's move to methane,
because you are undertaking a series of mandates covering
methane, but you, even in your own statements in February, said
my caveat is that EPA is learning this industry right now
because it is not an industry we regulate. We have just gotten
into regulation of this, so there are hundreds of thousands of
small sources and EPA doesn't generally have a relationship
with this industry, it is regulated at the State level, as we
do other sectors that we have regulated for decades, but we are
learning.
So we are learning, but we are moving forward with a costly
regulation, and the regulation has been at the States. We have
pushed down the methane; emissions have fallen by a greater
percentage than the number of wells that have been drawn. Do
you feel that the States are not adequately regulating in this
area? And why would you not let them continue since their
record is moving in the absolutely correct direction?
Ms. McCarthy. Well, the rules that we are moving forward on
we are very confident that we have the level of information we
need to do that rulemaking appropriately. There are some States
that are doing a great job, and we are coordinating with them
to make sure we are not duplicating and to coordinate on
reporting or any other requirements under a Federal law. But
there are many States that continue to have challenges in this
regard and what we have identified is that there are many more
methane emissions from the oil and gas sector than we had
previously understood.
So when I am talking about learning, we are actually
putting out an information collection request to the industry
that will provide us the level of data not just on emissions,
but on technology choices to reduce those, as well as costs, so
that we can work with States to identify where they can improve
and where a Federal rulemaking may be advisable and what that
might look like.
Senator Capito. Thank you.
Senator Inhofe. OK, this does complete all of those who
have been here. I am going to do something that I know I will
regret, but I am going to do it anyway, because we have one
member on our side who really wants to have three more minutes.
So I am going to ask Senator Boxer if she would like to have
three more minutes and, if so, maybe even give that to you,
Senator Whitehouse.
Senator Boxer. No, I am going to need my 3 minutes.
Senator Inhofe. Why don't you go ahead and take your 3
minutes, then?
Senator Boxer. I would prefer to wait.
Senator Inhofe. Well, I would prefer you take it now.
Please do.
Senator Boxer. Well, I would prefer to wait.
Senator Inhofe. Well, I prefer you take it now. You know,
we had an election, you understand.
Senator Boxer. It is ridiculous.
Senator Inhofe. Yes, I agree.
Senator Boxer. But I will take it now. I will take it now.
First of all, I want to answer some of the garbage that you
have heard here today. I want to talk about job creation,
because a lot of people here have taken it on and said
environmental regulations stop jobs.
Let me tell you about my State. Leader in taking action on
climate; leader in taking action on pollution control. We
created, in our great State, since 2011, 17 percent of all the
new jobs. OK? And we account for 11 percent of the population.
And I will ask unanimous consent to place those exact numbers
in the record.
Senator Inhofe. Without objection.
Senator Boxer. Now, we also hear from Senator Vitter the
ozone rule is killing jobs. Let me just say something here. If
you can't breathe, you can't work. Let's be clear. And if you
die prematurely, you surely can't work because you are dead. So
here is the deal. With this rule we will save 320 to 660 people
from premature death. OK? Two hundred thirty thousand asthma
attacks in children will be averted. One hundred sixty thousand
days we will not have kids miss school; 28,000 missed work days
will not happen; 630 asthma-related emergency room visits will
not happen; and 340 cases of acute bronchitis in children will
not happen.
So when you look at this and you see this constant refrain
from my colleagues on the right here against the environment,
totally against it, attacking you, and you have been fabulous
standing up to these nonsensical attacks, you wonder why they
are doing it given I made a mistake, I said our job approval as
a Congress was 18 percent; it is 14 percent according to a CBS
News poll, April 2015. People want us fighting to clean up the
air and cleanup the water. There is no question about it.
And I will put into the record the counter poll numbers;
Senator Carper alluded to it. I want to be pretty clear. First
of all, from 1970 to 2014, aggregate national emissions of the
six common pollutants alone dropped an average of 69 percent,
while gross domestic product grew by 238 percent. So anyone who
has been alive through these years, who has a heartbeat and a
pulse knows when you cleanup the environment, you boost the
economy for so many reasons: people's health; the fact that,
yes, we make investments in clean technology that get disbursed
throughout the world.
And if you look at the voter support for Clean Power Plan,
60 percent; 73 percent of voters support the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency placing stricter limits on the amount of
ozone pollution; and they do not want the Congress to deal with
it.
I will close with this. The Waters of the United States, 77
percent say the EPA should protect us from the dirty water and
do the clean water rule; 9 percent say the Congress should to
it.
So I stand with the American people against this right-wing
rhetoric, and it is just ridiculous that this is the
Environment Committee and you need to be subjected to the kind
of attacks that you have been submitted to.
And also on TSCA there is no agreement. I just checked with
Nancy Pelosi.
Senator Inhofe. All right, I will take my 3 minutes and 52
seconds, and I am going to give my 3 minutes and 52 seconds to
Senator Sullivan, after which we will be adjourned.
Senator Sullivan.
Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank
the Ranking Member, whom I have the utmost respect for. I just
think sometimes we are reflecting the different frustrations of
our constituents, and my constituents are enormously frustrated
by many, not all, actions of the EPA, and one of them is
compliance with the rule of law. And it is not just me talking,
it is Laurence Tribe, it is the U.S. Supreme Court, it is the
6th Circuit. I mean, it is pretty dramatic.
Administrator, I appreciate your service. I know it is not
always easy, but I am shocked at your statement about even if
we lose, we win. This is the kind of statement that fuels the
frustration so many Americans have regarding their Federal
Government, and I just would thoroughly disagree with you. I
think that is the kind of statement that senior Administration
officials should not be making, because it demonstrates that
you are not serious about the rule of law.
But let me go to another issue that we had a hearing on,
the Animas River spill. You testified here, when I asked a
question on that, should you be held to the same standard as
the public or private sector of American citizens or companies,
you said that, actually, it would be a higher standard that
would be appropriate for your agency.
So can you give us an update on what happened there? And
let me just ask a couple questions. Has anyone been held
accountable? And what do you think would happen if a private
sector company did exactly what the EPA or its contractors did
in this case, which is, I assuming accidentally, I am assuming
you didn't intentionally pollute a water, through a mistake?
What would happen to a private sector company? I can tell
you, you probably know this, EPA has actually criminally
prosecuted private sector companies for doing something less
serious. So this is a bit of an act as I say, not as I do
issue.
Can you give us an update and is anyone being criminally
prosecuted or is anyone resigning or has anyone taken
responsibility as you would if it were a private sector company
who did the identical thing? At the last hearing we had on
this, for the record, I did give many examples of that kind of
prosecution that the EPA has undertaken. What is the latest?
And are you holding yourself to a higher standard, as you said
you would, than you would to a private American citizen?
Ms. McCarthy. I believe we are, and I know that the Office
of the Inspector General is producing a report where he is
looking at the issue and will provide that when the report is
complete. But I think, as you know, we were there actually to
be of assistance to the State and those local communities
struggling with the mine situation and the potential for a
blowout.
Senator Sullivan. But, Administrator, if it is a higher
standard and you made a mistake, not intentional, you polluted
dramatically a river, if a private sector American did that,
say with a backhoe like happened in Alaska, unintentionally,
criminally prosecuted. So how can you say you are holding EPA
to a higher standard when it doesn't even seem like anyone has
resigned or done anything? So I don't get it.
Ms. McCarthy. I think there is a difference between going
in and trying to be helpful to resolve the situation that we
know is a significant problem and there is a difference between
intending to create a problem, and so----
Senator Sullivan. Right, but you have prosecuted criminally
people who have not intentionally polluted.
Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
Senator Sullivan. Now, look, polluters should be prosecuted
to the full extent of the law, I agree with that. But if you
are saying that you should be held to the same standard, let me
just end with a related----
Ms. McCarthy. The issue is, were we negligent? Did we do
our job? Was the accident intended or could we have done
something that prevented that? Those issues the Inspector
General is looking at and we will be able to speak to that.
But, in the meantime, our job is to clean it up, to reimburse
those expenses, to look at the long-term monitoring, and we
certainly are doing that to the best we can.
Senator Inhofe. Madam Administrator, we are adjourned.
Ms. McCarthy. Oh, thank you so much.
[Whereupon, at 11:53 a.m. the committee was adjourned.]
[all]