[Senate Hearing 114-441]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 20, 2016
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 11:02 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Lisa Murkowski (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Murkowski, Udall, Tester, Cassidy, Blunt,
Leahy, Daines, and Hoeven.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STATEMENT OF HON. GINA McCARTHY, ADMINISTRATOR
ACCOMPANIED BY DAVID BLOOM, DEPUTY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LISA MURKOWSKI
Senator Murkowski. Good morning. I would like to welcome
everyone to today's hearing in the Interior Appropriations
Subcommittee. Sorry that we are starting a little bit later
than scheduled, but we had an energy bill that we wanted to
move across the floor. Thanks to my colleagues for on that bill
support.
We are here to examine the fiscal year 2017 budget request
for the Environmental Protection Agency.
Administrator McCarthy, thank you for being here. Thank you
for your work. I hope that we have a constructive dialogue
today.
Mr. Bloom, welcome back to the subcommittee as well.
Ms. McCarthy, we had a chance to visit briefly on the phone
about some of the issues that are front and center in Alaskans'
minds, and as you know, there is angst, there is anxiety, there
is a view by many within my State that EPA is overstepping its
appropriate role. I hear from these folks all the time.
There is a concern that, rather than focusing on the core
mission of attending to and cleaning up the environment, the
Agency is pumping out rule after rule based on questionable
legal authority. I hear about the Agency's Waters of the United
States proposal repeatedly, the so-called Clean Power Plan, and
several other rules that come up repeatedly in conversation.
Several of these are rules have such questionable legal grounds
that they've been stayed in the courts. Numerous other rules
are being challenged by States and other impacted entities who
are concerned that EPA continues to push an agenda that lines
up more with those that are seeking to stop development rather
than working with the States or working with the tribes.
Although the court stay offers a temporary respite, I
continue to be very concerned about the Agency's Waters of the
United States proposal. I've described this rule as a
showstopper in the past. I know that it will have negative
consequences for my State and many others if it is allowed to
move forward. Approximately two-thirds of the State of Alaska
is considered wetlands, and this proposal could subject even
more of the most routine projects to EPA's scrutiny and
possible delay.
I'm also concerned about the Agency's efforts to use the
Superfund statute to require potentially duplicative financial
assurance requirements on hardrock mining. From the time when
States and Federal agencies like the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) and the Forest Service updated their bonding requirements
for mining, no hardrock mining site has been placed on
Superfund's National Priorities List, and yet, the EPA
continues to move forward with a rule that has the potential to
make mining prohibitively expensive.
I appreciate that your staff has signaled a willingness to
work with us as the rulemaking process proceeds, and I hope
that we can have continued dialogue on this proposal. It is
very important.
I'm also hearing substantial concern with the Agency's
latest proposal to regulate methane at existing oil and gas
wells. In spite of the fact that natural gas production is up
significantly, methane emissions from the oil and gas industry
are either flat or in decline. In fact, one study suggests that
methane emissions from hydraulically fractured natural gas
wells have fallen approximately 79 percent since 2005. At a
time when low oil prices are creating a challenging situation
for the industry, I'm concerned that this proposal has the
potential to perhaps limit investment, hamper domestic
production, and drive up costs for the consumers.
While I have concerns with many of the major rules that the
Agency is moving forward with, I am hopeful we can find a path
forward on a laundry list of proposals that will have a real
impact on cleaning up the environment. For example, the fiscal
year 2016 omnibus included $20 million for Targeted Air Shed
Grants. My understanding is that the city of Fairbanks is
eligible for some of these grants to help deal with the
particulate matter problem that you are very familiar with. I
am hoping that we can work with you to ensure that this type of
cleanup can occur.
Additionally, I was pleased that we were able to double the
funding for the Alaska Native Villages Water Program in the
fiscal year 2016 omnibus to $20 million. I am also pleased that
we were able to find a way to ensure that the backhaul program
can continue to collect trash and other things that need to be
disposed of from villages in rural Alaska.
I am also hopeful that we can find common ground on a
number of lower profile issues this year that are still very
important to Alaskans. We still need to find a workable
solution for small remote incinerators that are the only option
to deal with solid waste in some areas in Alaska. This is
something we've been working on for a long period of time. We
need to deal with backup diesel generator concerns in rural
Alaska and find a way to clean up abandoned oil tanks and
contaminated lands. We are willing to find some sensible
solutions, and I want to work with the Agency on those issues.
Turning to the fiscal year 2017 budget request, I have some
very serious concerns with the choices the Agency has made. The
budget prioritizes funding for controversial regulatory
programs over on-the-ground cleanup, and it shifts money away
from programs that have demonstrated results in favor of
funding the bureaucracy. I think the most glaring example of
this is the Agency's decision to cut the Clean Water State
Revolving Fund by more than $414 million. While the Agency has
proposed an increase in funding for the Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund, the fiscal year 2017 budget shortchanges the
State Revolving Funds (SRFs) by approximately $257 million. At
a time when there is ever-increased focus on the need to
improve our Nation's water infrastructure because of events
like those that occurred in Flint, Michigan and in other cities
with water quality issues, I am very concerned about the
direction the budget takes here.
Additionally, the Agency once again proposes to eliminate a
program to protect against radon exposure, the second leading
cause of lung cancer behind smoking, and it proposes to
eliminate the grant program that I mentioned earlier that has
the potential to help improve air quality in areas with
particulate matter and ozone issues.
At the same time the Agency proposes these cuts to programs
with proven records of success, the budget requests
approximately $235 million to fund the President's climate
change agenda. This is a 48 percent increase over last year's
level, even though the Clean Power Plan has been stayed by the
Federal court. Similarly, the Agency has asked for a $27.5
million increase in the Agency's enforcement budget, even
though I'm hearing concerns from folks back home about the
Agency's enforcement activities.
These are areas that I would like to explore with you, and
working with the subcommittee, find a way to ensure that the
actions of the Agency are consistent with what most people in
the country believe the priorities should be.
Again, thank you for being here. And my apologies that
we're starting so late.
With that, I will turn to my ranking member, Senator Udall.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR TOM UDALL
Senator Udall. Thank you so much, Chairman Murkowski. And
what she didn't say was we just came off a big victory on the
floor, bipartisan victory, in terms of an energy bill. We
haven't had an energy bill since 2007. And Senator Murkowski
and Ranking Member Maria Cantwell I think came up with a very
solid proposal, and we hope the House will work with us, and I
just want to congratulate you for that, and also say I hope
those same bipartisan credentials we can both work on together
in this subcommittee to get things done.
Welcome, Administrator McCarthy, and thank you for joining
us today. It's been quite a year since you last testified
before this subcommittee. The EPA finalized the Clean Power
Plan. This is a critical step. It will reduce carbon pollution
and will make real progress on climate change. The EPA also
proposed standards for methane to protect public health and the
environment. We worked together on last year's omnibus bill and
fought off dangerous environmental riders. And we made history
when the United States took part in the Paris agreement to
fight climate change. The United States and 200 other countries
agreed to work together to fight rising sea levels and climbing
temperatures.
On Friday, Earth Day, Secretary of State Kerry will sign
the agreement for the United States. It will be a monumental
step. It will seal our commitment with our global partners to
fighting climate change. The EPA's Clean Power Plan will frame
our efforts to meet that commitment.
While the Supreme Court did issue a stay on the Clean Power
Plan, that decision was not on the merits of the case, and I'm
confident that the Clean Power Plan will prevail. It will be
flexible and it will meet the unique needs of each State.
I'm pleased to see that EPA has not skipped a beat. It will
keep helping States that are working to reduce carbon
pollution, providing funding and technical help, ensuring that
these plans are tailored to each State's needs. I want to hear
more about how the EPA plans to build on these efforts in
fiscal year 2017. It takes time, effort, and resources to make
progress on international agreements and new standards.
But that's why I'm also worried. Last year, the budget deal
allowed us to make targeted investments for many agencies, but
not so for the EPA. Its operating budget was frozen in last
year's budget deal, left at the sequester level. Over the past
decade, its budget has dropped 10 percent in real terms, and
the Agency has lost 10 percent of its staff. The fiscal year
2017 budget request proposes important increases to support
clean air, clean water, and basic Agency functions. I think the
EPA has reached a critical point, and I think it's time for us
to get realistic about providing the resources that the EPA
needs.
Administrator McCarthy, I want to thank you for making sure
your draft budget supports programs that are important to New
Mexico, especially uranium cleanup, but I think we need to look
closely at the proposed offsets, in particular, the 11 percent
cut to State grants for clean water and drinking water. Across
our country, communities like Flint, Michigan, face serious
water contamination. In my State of New Mexico, over 20 water
systems exceed the EPA's lead level, lead action level,
including St. Vincent's Hospital in Santa Fe, New Mexico. This
is very troubling to me.
I'm also concerned about EPA's proposal to reverse progress
on the U.S.-Mexico Border Water Program. This is critical to
ensure our border communities have clean water.
But, Administrator McCarthy, my top priority today is to
get firm answers about EPA's response to communities in New
Mexico, Arizona, and Colorado after the Gold King Mine spill.
The spill was an accident, but the EPA made several serious
mistakes, and the EPA owes it to the Navajo Nation and the
State of New Mexico to make things right as soon as possible. I
appreciate that $2 million was made available for long-term
water quality monitoring. This funding is greatly needed by
affected States and tribes, but the EPA must sustain that
commitment. And I'm very disappointed at how long it has taken
the EPA to process reimbursements submitted by the State and
the Navajo Nation, and I'm frustrated that 8 months later, we
still don't have an official finding of tort responsibility
despite public assurances that EPA takes full responsibility
for the spill. We need a fair compensation process up and
running for those who were affected so that people can file
claims and receive compensation. I look forward to getting
clear answers from you and when this will be corrected.
Administrator, I want to add one note, and thank you to you
and your team for all your technical assistance as we work on
the many drafts of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The
program office and the general counsel have been invaluable,
and I hope you feel as optimistic as I do that we can get this
done.
Thank you again for appearing before us today, and I look
forward to a good discussion.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Udall.
With that, let us turn to Administrator McCarthy. Again,
welcome to the subcommittee, and we look forward to your
comments and the opportunity to engage in questions.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. GINA MCCARTHY
Ms. McCarthy. Well, first of all, thank you very much,
Chairman Murkowski and Ranking Member Udall for the opportunity
to speak here as well as members of the subcommittee. It's an
opportunity for me to be here before you to discuss EPA's
proposed fiscal year 2017 budget, and I'm joined 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
EPA, the States, as well as our tribal partners. That's why the
largest part 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 work in air and water protection
as well as continued support for our tribal partners. This
budget request also reinforces EPA's focus on community support
by providing targeted funding and support for regional
coordinators to help communities find and determine the best
programs to address their local environmental priorities.
The budget includes $90 million in Brownfield Project
grants to local communities, and that's an increase of $10
million, which will help to return contaminated sites to
productive use. This budget prioritizes actions to reduce the
impacts of climate change and supports the President's Climate
Action Plan. It includes $235 million for efforts to cut carbon
pollution and other greenhouse gases through commonsense
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 Clean Power Plan rule, States are not precluded from
voluntarily choosing to continue implementation planning, and
EPA will continue to assess those 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 to retrofit, replace, or repower diesel
equipment, and up to $300 million in fiscal year 2017 to renew,
as well as increase, funding for the Diesel Emission 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
challenges that threaten our country's drinking water and
infrastructure that delivers it. This budget includes a $2
billion request for the State Revolving Fund and $42 million in
additional funds to provide technical assistance to small
communities, loan financing program 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, 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
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 and the Center for
Environmental Finance that will enable communities across the
country to focus on financial planning for upcoming public
infrastructure investments, to expand work with States to
identify financing opportunities, particularly for rural
communities, and to enhance partnership and collaboration with
the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
EPA is also seeking a $20 million increase to the Superfund
Remedial program to accelerate the pace of cleanups, to support
States, local communities, and tribes in their effort to both
assess as well as clean up and return contaminated sites 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, as well as provide us with a foundation to
revitalize the economy and improve infrastructure across the
country.
I want to again thank you for the opportunity to testify
today, and I look forward to answering your questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Gina McCarthy
Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall, and members of the
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to
discuss the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed fiscal year 2017
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 2016. 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 2017, 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 2017 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 build upon 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 2017 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 2017 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 2017 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 2017, the agency will continue to build upon 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 government-wide 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 2017, 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 2016 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 2017, 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 on site 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 2017, 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 decision makers at all levels of
government. Activities in the fiscal year 2017 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 2017 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 2017, 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 2012, 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 2017, 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
2017 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 2017 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 2017 budget request, I look forward to answering your
questions.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Administrator.
And we will now move to a round of 6-minute questions.
Let me begin with a real softball for you because this is
something that we have tried to do working with your folks.
Each year we convene a senior EPA team to sit down with my
staff to go through the laundry list of things that come to my
attention from constituents. They're not as high profile as
Waters of the United States or methane, but they're critically
important. I'm hopeful we will be able to continue these
discussions. I know that things are winding down within the
administration, but having as much dialogue back and forth on
these as we can is appreciated, and I would hope that we would
have your commitment to convene this type of a meeting perhaps
later this spring.
Ms. McCarthy. These meetings have been enormously important
and productive, and I would be happy to do that. We do have
limited time, but we're certainly looking to make progress
moving forward.
Senator Murkowski. Good. If we can keep these issues from
expanding into bigger, more complicated problems, then we're
all ahead.
I mentioned the issue with city of Fairbanks and their
eligibility to apply for a portion of this $20 million that's
in these Targeted Air Shed Grants. I know that you are very
familiar with the issue and the limited options that the
community of Fairbanks has. I would like your commitment this
morning that you'll look closely at what the city of Fairbanks
is doing as they're attempting to improve their air quality in
this manner and their ability to perhaps use these grant funds
for a wood stove change-out effort.
Ms. McCarthy. I am familiar with the concerns in Fairbanks,
and I'd be happy to work with them. I do know that they need to
get in a proposal by July.
Senator Murkowski. Right.
Ms. McCarthy. But the unfortunate thing is they'll be very
competitive for that proposal given their challenge.
Senator Murkowski. I understand, and one thing that we can
do in Alaska is try our best to compete, and we will do that.
Let me ask about Waters of the United States. I mentioned
in my comments that the Agency's rule is currently stayed, but
I have heard from some that there is concern that EPA regional
offices may be trying to implement parts of the WOTUS rule in
spite of the fact that it is stayed. My question to you this
morning is whether or not EPA is taking any actions related to
Waters of the United States while the rule is stayed in the
courts.
Ms. McCarthy. We're not doing anything to implement the
rule given its stay, so if there are concerns, Senator, please
pass them along or have folks give us a call.
Senator Murkowski. So you are giving me your assurance that
the Agency is not planning on taking any actions to implement
the rule until there is final action by the courts.
Ms. McCarthy. That is correct.
Senator Murkowski. Okay. Thank you. I also mentioned
financial assurance for mining and the Agency's effort that
could result in potentially duplicative financial assurance
requirements on the hardrock mining industry using the
Superfund statute. The omnibus bill included a directive that
required the Agency to submit a market capacity study to the
subcommittee 90 days prior to the release of a rule. Included
within that omnibus measure with the study was a requirement
that the Agency would engage in extensive consultation with the
surety and with the insurance industries and then share with
the surety and the insurance industries the model that the
Agency is using to estimate the costs.
What I'm hearing now, and the concern that I want to raise,
is that the outreach to the surety and the insurance industries
at this stage has been limited to initial meetings with very
little follow-up. There is also some concern that the model has
not been shared. Can you commit to getting to me, within the
next couple weeks, a list with the names of the commercial
insurers, the financial companies, the other entities that you
are consulting with to date and who you have plans to consult
with this year? Additionally, can you advise me as to whether
you'll commit to sharing a draft of the model or the specific
components of the model with both the subcommittee as well as
these insurers and financial companies just as we laid out in
the omnibus provision?
Ms. McCarthy. Well, we do intend to comply with the
language in the omnibus provision. I think you know that by
December 1st, we have to have a proposal out according to our
court order. So we will do that, and we recognize that we need
to do consultation early in order to be able to get the study
out 90 days in advance.
You know, I would say I've also heard from some of the
western Governors looking to make sure that we also provide
significant consultation so that we don't duplicate things and
we understand what is already being managed and handled at the
State level and what our responsibility would then be at the
Federal level.
So I'll do my best to get you the information I can in a
timely way, but we will comply.
Senator Murkowski. As timely as you can make this, I think
it is going to be important. There is a great deal of concern
within the industry, at least in my State, that this is yet one
more add-on when they're already providing these financial
assurances to other Federal agencies.
Let me turn to my----
Senator Udall. Senator Tester.
Senator Murkowski. He is the best ranking member, he will
always defer to one of his other colleagues first.
Senator Tester.
Senator Tester. Well, thank you, Ranking Member Udall, and
thank you, Madam Chair. I just have a couple questions.
First of all, thank you for being here, Gina.
Brownfield utilization, you said it's at $90 million. Did
you spend all the money last year, in last year's budget, in
Brownfield?
Ms. McCarthy. We could spend that and much more.
Senator Tester. Okay. So the question is, and I know you've
got to fall within budget lines, but this is a program that I
am told in Montana is a very popular program that does a lot of
really good work. And so you wouldn't be opposed if we plussed
that up a little?
Ms. McCarthy. Well, it depends on where you get it from.
[Laughter.]
But certainly we recognize that the Brownfields program is
a valuable one for many States, and we are increasing that
budget, but we certainly understand that it could go a long
way.
Senator Tester. Just one more quick question. Is this a
grant based on need? How do you allocate the dollars? The $90
million to the communities, how is it----
Ms. McCarthy. It's a competitive grant process.
Senator Tester. And how many of those grant processes do
you do a year? Is it just one bite at the apple?
Ms. McCarthy. Do we know? Yes, just one.
Senator Tester. Okay. Thank you. Let me talk to you about
Superfund designation for a second.
Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
Senator Tester. Has there ever been a Superfund that's been
designated that has been cleaned up?
Ms. McCarthy. Yes, there has been.
Senator Tester. Can you give any examples?
Ms. McCarthy. Well, I know that we've had more than 300
sites nationwide----
Senator Tester. That have been cleaned up.
Ms. McCarthy [continuing]. That have been de-listed.
Senator Tester. Yes.
Ms. McCarthy. We have over a thousand, even beyond that,
that have been de-listed with the exception that you have
ongoing groundwater treatment that's required.
Senator Tester. Yes.
Ms. McCarthy. I'm happy to provide you a list following the
meeting, if you'd like, with specific examples.
Senator Tester. I would appreciate that if you could, and
thank you.
[Clerk's note: The list of all Superfund sites that have
been cleaned up and others that have been de-listed are in the
``Additional Committee Questions'' at the end of the hearing
under the heading ``Questions Submitted by Senator Jon
Tester.'']
Water quality for cities and towns. Almost without
exception, one of the things--and I'm not going to preface it
with anything--one of the things that cities and towns talk to
me about is that EPA comes down with regulations that they have
to meet, and there is not money associated with it. Can you
tell me in this budget if it's adequate in that regard?
Ms. McCarthy. Well, I think we're doing our best to
increase the money that would go to States and tribes and the
money that we can provide in assistance to local communities.
Senator Tester. Okay.
Ms. McCarthy. We're looking at a $77 million increase and
$30 million specifically for the tribes.
Senator Tester. Okay.
Ms. McCarthy. It is a very challenging situation for all of
us to make ends meet.
Senator Tester. Okay. So tell me how you would answer this
argument, where cities and town, the water we're dumping back
into our water source is cleaner than the water we pull out; we
think the regulations are too tight. Tell me how you would
answer that.
Ms. McCarthy. Well, I think we want to make sure that the
drinking water that we provide meets health-based standards.
That's our primary goal.
Senator Tester. Okay. And how about the return water, the
wastewater that they're claiming is cleaner than the water that
they drew out before it went through the shower or the toilet
or wherever it went?
Ms. McCarthy. Yes. Well, part of the challenge that we have
is to just work with States so we understand the water quality
so that our discharges matched to how States prioritize their
own rivers and streams.
Senator Tester. Good. Good, good, good. Real quickly, and I
appreciate your brief answers, because I'll get through this, I
want to talk about your research budget, and you've got
research for air and climate and energy and for safe and
sustainable water resources, and there's a lot of good stuff in
here. A couple things. How much research dollars are actually
dedicated towards technology that will help those cities and
towns meet--where are we at on--meet the standards that are put
out? Are we woefully inadequate or are we adequate? Where are
we at on that? And then I've got another question on that, too.
Ms. McCarthy. Well, I think on technology, we certainly do
some work. We're focused a lot on monitoring technologies
because they're ever evolving.
Senator Tester. Yes.
Ms. McCarthy. I think we have significant challenges to
look at how we push towards the type of water and wastewater
technologies that are going to be amenable to what we're seeing
today in the emerging technologies of the future.
We clearly have challenges there on the water side. Where
the Clean Air Act tends to push and motivate technology
improvements----
Senator Tester. Yes.
Ms. McCarthy [continuing]. That kind of motivation doesn't
exist as heavily when you look at drinking water and clean
water.
Senator Tester. And water. Okay. Okay. Thank you. One more
real life example. Because we had pretty good crops in Montana
the last 5, 6 years, I've been able to swap out my equipment,
my tractors.
Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
Senator Tester. And so the air coming out of those stacks
are a lot cleaner in these ones than it was in my 1985 model.
Okay. But here's the hitch: my cost per acre I was doing for a
third of a gallon, now it's two-thirds of a gallon, it's
doubled. And I asked the manufacturer, the dealer, I said,
``How come efficiency is not as good?'' and they said, ``It's
the Clean Air standards on those engines.'' I don't know if
that's BS or not, but I've heard that from many, many, many
people, that there is so much stuff attached to reduce the
output.
The question is, and it goes back to your research fund, is
there any money dedicated to the industrial side of engines to
make sure that--because I believe in the Clean Air portion of
it, but I'd like to have a little efficiency in the process,
too.
Ms. McCarthy. Well, I mean, we clearly look at efficiency
because we are now looking at regulating for both greenhouse
gases and traditional pollutants.
Senator Tester. Right.
Ms. McCarthy. We don't want tradeoffs.
Senator Tester. Right.
Ms. McCarthy. I want them to be cleaner and more efficient.
Senator Tester. Yes.
Ms. McCarthy. That's the only way we're going to get there.
Senator Tester. Yes.
Ms. McCarthy. I will come--Senator, I'm happy to come back
to you on the question of how much research we have directed at
industrial equipment as opposed to on-road.
Senator Tester. Yes.
Ms. McCarthy. I know a lot about light duty and heavy duty,
which is somewhat what you're talking about, but there's a real
challenge.
Senator Tester. Yes. And by the way, when it comes to
highway vehicles, we've accomplished both, we've accomplished
fuel efficiency and cleaner air.
Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
Senator Tester. It seems to me it would be nice to have it
the other way. Thank you.
I'm sorry I ran over. Appreciate it. Thank you, Ms.
Chairman and ranking member.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Cassidy.
Senator Cassidy. Hello, Administrator. Again, thank you for
being here.
Ms. McCarthy. Nice to be here. Thank you.
Senator Cassidy. We had Chief Tidwell from the U.S. Forest
Service--let me start over.
The Paris Accords--in the Paris Accords, the use of forests
as carbon sinks has increased by 100 percent.
Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
Senator Cassidy. Now, frankly, there are some that are
skeptical that that can be achieved because of the land that
would be required to so achieve, but let's just leave it as if
that could potentially occur.
Now, last September, EPA published an interim
recommendation for environmental standards as well as eco
levels--ecolabels for use in Federal procurement, and the
recommendation that EPA made for lumber includes the Forest
Stewardship Council's certification, but it excludes other
credible sources, such as the Sustainable Forestry Initiative
and the American Tree Farm System.
Now, Chief Tidwell from the National Forest Service came a
while ago. I've learned that the Forest Service does not use
these third-party certifications, which means that the National
Forest could not supply wood for this purpose. Secondly, that
these standards are very similar. I'll just say in Louisiana
there's about 4 million acres and 85 percent of it is certified
with either the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) or the
American Tree Farm System (ATFS), but not the one that you all
have favored, the Forest Stewardship Council.
Now, all of this may seem arcane, but Tidwell made the
point that unless a tree farmer can make money off of his
trees, he's going to use that land for its highest best use.
Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
Senator Cassidy. This recommendation would seem somewhat
arbitrary, again according to Chief Tidwell, excludes his
ability to market his wood. Now, if on the one hand, our goal
is to increase the amount of forests in the United States by
100 percent, and on the other hand, the EPA has just diminished
the economic value of all this other land, it seems as if these
are two goals that are frankly incompatible. Your thoughts.
Ms. McCarthy. Well, first of all, I think with the
continued threat of climate change and potential for
significant wildfires, sustainable forest management is
valuable in many different ways, it needs to be heavily
invested in.
Senator Cassidy. I'm not disputing that.
Ms. McCarthy. No, no, I'm agreeing with you.
Senator Cassidy. Gotcha.
Ms. McCarthy. Okay. So in terms of the ecolabels, I know
that when EPA made a limited decision here, it was based on
what was already being used by Federal agencies, in this case,
DOE. We recognize that there needs to be an expansion of that
certification so that others can be readily recognized because
I want what you want, which is to have a forest sustainably
managed and to be able to use whatever leverage we have to
provide the economic incentive for that. So we are talking to
folks and looking at that and seeing how we can expand the
certifications that are recognized.
Senator Cassidy. Okay. Very good. Thank you.
Secondly, in a previous conversation we've had, I made the
point that if the Clean Power Plan rule raises energy costs,
that will put our economy at a economic disadvantage relative
to countries overseas, which, frankly, will continue to pollute
or emit carbon. Now, we wanted to test this hypothesis, so we
took all of the States in the United States, and we looked at
those which have the easiest compliance with the Clean Power
Plan rule, i.e., they currently emit the less, and those States
that are going to have the hardest time, they emit the most.
And it turns out there is kind of an inverse correlation with
electricity costs. So if you look at Regional Greenhouse Gas
Initiative (RGGI) States, for example, the Northeast, they have
electricity costs that are three times higher than that for a
State like Montana.
Now, I think I remember you saying, no, it's possible to
lower emissions without raising the costs, but I'll just say at
baseline, these States which have the lowest emissions of
carbon already have tripled the cost of their electricity.
Now, if we're going to have an input cost, and it's going
to be energy, intuitively, if you raise that input cost, you're
going to have some industries that will move to an area of the
world with a lower input cost. As an aside, we had a question
to a group and we asked, ``What nation has successfully grown
their economy and lowered their emissions?'' they pointed out
six, all of which have de-industrialized, my point being that
de-industrialize, it doesn't the industry is not there, they
just moved to a country where they can emit as much as they
wish plus release other pollutants, so on net, on a global
issue, we're worse off. Now, I have a sense you're not going to
agree with what I just said, but I would like your thoughts on
that.
Ms. McCarthy. Well, it's just one way to look at it, but,
you know, I have kind of intimate knowledge about the Northeast
and why the energy costs are higher because I live there. And
the one thing I think you need to consider is if those States
are such high cost and they're taking action on climate,
they're either incredibly dedicated to greenhouse gas
reductions or they find value in taking those actions. And if
you look at Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, RGGI, and the
revenues that it has produced, has been a significant benefit
to those communities because it invested in energy efficiency,
and it resulted in lower costs. So there are two ways to----
Senator Cassidy. May I interrupt just for a second?
Ms. McCarthy. Well----
Senator Cassidy. The analysis I read was that probably the
lower costs were more of a product of substitution of low cost
natural gas than it was for the, quote/unquote, investment.
Ms. McCarthy. If you look at it, they've done studies, and
I know that RGGI has done a study on how much it actually
reduced costs, so I just want you to think about that. I don't
think the direct relationship, as you've outlined it, is the
most productive way to look at it or the one that best reflects
the facts on the ground.
Senator Cassidy. Empirically, though, it is true, those
States that emit the most carbon have the lowest energy costs,
those that emit the least have the highest, in some cases,
triple, and if input--if your cost of energy is an input into
your cost of production, intuitively, companies are going to
move where that cost is lower.
Ms. McCarthy. I guess I'm not disagreeing with the facts
that you've outlined there. My disagreement may be with, what
would the impact of regulating greenhouse gas emissions have?
And if RGGI is moving forward, even when they're not required
to, and they're saying it's building a clean energy economy and
jobs and lowering their costs, then maybe there is an inverse
relationship about the ability of climate action to actually
benefit every State, and I would argue that if you do it well
and let States design it, as we've done with the Clean Power
Plan, they're smart enough to understand the economics, and
we'll be able to make that work.
Senator Cassidy. I wish we could continue, but we're way
over, and I yield back.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
We will turn to Senator Udall.
Senator Udall. Thank you very much.
The EPA's Gold King Mine accident was devastating,
Administrator McCarthy, as you know, to the people downstream
in New Mexico, Colorado, and Arizona. The EPA is responsible
for a number of serious mistakes, technical failures, and
management failures, and these are deeply disappointing, and
they've had a serious long-term impact. After the accident, the
EPA was slow to notify downstream communities, communities that
depend on the river for their livelihood, and the Navajo Nation
and the people of northwestern New Mexico are still frustrated.
They spent several million dollars to respond to the emergency,
but 8 months after the spill, the State and the Navajo Nation
are still waiting to be reimbursed, and 8 months after the
spill, we're waiting for a legal decision from EPA about
whether it is responsible for individual damages so that people
can be compensated. Those impacted deserve compensation. And I
want reimbursements for New Mexico taxpayers and for the
Navajo, long-term water monitoring, and a promise that the Gold
King Mine, the source of this pollution, will be cleaned up.
Administrator McCarthy, you've said publicly several times
that EPA takes full responsibility for the spill, but the EPA
hasn't made the legal finding of tort responsibility. When will
we have that decision so that the affected communities can
finally begin seeking compensation for damages? What specific
steps have to be taken for the tort finding to be made? And can
you give us a firm date on when we will have that decision?
Ms. McCarthy. I wish I could give you a firm date. I
believe it's happening soon, sir, but I have to be independent
and hands-off of that process. It's being done by a claims
individual that's in a fairly insulated process working with
the Department of Justice. So I do know that people are
anxious. We have about 57 Federal tort claims that have been
submitted, and we certainly want to get information out to
people as soon as we can.
Senator Udall. Thank you. The tort finding is just one of
many issues raised by stakeholders. The Navajo recently sent
you a letter detailing their priorities to address the damage
caused by the spill. EPA responded in writing yesterday with a
general commitment to continue working with the Navajo Nation,
but we still need to know what specific steps EPA is going to
take to address the Navajo's concerns, and I will follow up
with you on those questions for the record. Yet specifically I
do want to ask, what is the status of claims submitted by the
Navajo and the State of New Mexico? And can I get your
commitment right now on a date certain for all of these
requests to be fully processed?
Ms. McCarthy. Well, in terms of reimbursements, we have
reimbursed the Navajo for their expenses of $158,000. There are
significant additional claims where we're working with them to
get the information we need to determine what's eligible for
payment under the law. Likewise, for New Mexico, we have
reimbursed $328,000.
You know, in total, we're working through the system in as
best a collaborative way as we can with the States and with the
tribes. We've also identified and continue with monitoring in
the area, and we've also identified $2 million to be able to
work with those States and tribes to define a longer term
strategy moving forward so that we can identify whether or not
there continues to be challenges moving forward.
And as you know, we have also put the Bonita Mine area as a
proposed Superfund site with the support of the local
communities as well as the State of Colorado, and we much
appreciate that significant step forward.
Senator Udall. And they really appreciate that work. And
thank you for the work on the Superfund site. I know working
through some of those local issues was very difficult.
I think it would go a long way if you could reiterate EPA's
commitment to the Navajo and other stakeholders. Could you
state for the record again that the EPA intends to make things
right for the Navajo and others affected by the spill?
Ms. McCarthy. You know, right after the spill, I went to
the area and I said EPA would take full responsibility. I still
intend to do that, and the Agency will.
Senator Udall. Great. Administrator McCarthy, as you talked
about Superfund and getting this on the National--Gold King
Mine on the National Priorities List, can you confirm that
finalizing this proposal will make the site eligible for full
and complete remediation? And does your budget request provide
enough resources to begin the cleanup?
Ms. McCarthy. Well, the fiscal year budget that we're
proposing does increase our Superfund funds by about $20
million, and so we do think that will give us an ability
certainly to add more sites into the mix. It will take, I
think, a significant amount of time to both assess that area
and to determine what to do and how to take the steps moving
forward we need to. And so we'll continue to work through that
process, and we'll continue to make steady progress. It's been
a long time coming. Now that we have it in the system, we don't
want to fail to get the work done.
Senator Udall. Administrator McCarthy, as you know, the
Clean Power Plan provides a lot of flexibility to States to
craft their particular emission targets. Has the EPA provided
guidance to States that are working on strategies under the
Clean Power Plan? And can you explain more about how EPA is
helping States develop plans to meet the new standards? And
does your budget request continue support in fiscal year 2017?
Ms. McCarthy. It does. It includes support of about $50.5
million to continue to work with States that voluntarily want
to continue moving forward to develop their plans as well as
funding to support tools that the Agency would be able to
develop for that purpose, including an accounting system. You
know, States want to work together on this. They want to know
and be prepared for when the court concludes its review of
this, to be able to move forward quickly, and we're trying to
respond to that, and that's what these monies are all about, to
provide them direct money for States to be able to develop
their plans and for us to be able to support them with the
tools they'll need to get that work done.
Senator Udall. Thank you very much.
Senator Murkowski. Senator Blunt.
Senator Blunt. Thank you, Chairman, and thanks for holding
this hearing.
In the bill we did last year, Director McCarthy, I asked
for a--I asked you all to work with the National Academy of
Public Administrators to conduct an independent study to create
a definition of community affordability, this being a situation
where a community might be protected from their water rates
going up too quickly, but they might not be protected from
their water rates hitting that cap and two or three other
things in the community hitting that cap. And I just wonder if
you would give us a little bit of an update on where we are on
that study. And I have a couple of other questions, too, so I
don't need a 5-minute update, but are we----
Ms. McCarthy. I'm happy to provide you a more detailed
update. My understanding is that a meeting has been planned,
but I'll go back and check and make sure that we're moving
aggressively. I absolutely agree with you that an integrated
planning process is the best thing to do, and we should be
looking at affordability with a more comprehensive approach to
ensure that they can move forward with integrated planning and
be comfortable that that can be done in a reasonable way.
Senator Blunt. Well, and you understand, as other
discussions we've had on this, I do believe you understand the
purpose of this is to be sure that we don't have three or four
things, or even two things, happening at the same time that
happened as if they were not having an impact----
Ms. McCarthy. Not related. That's correct.
Senator Blunt [continuing]. On those very same families
that they deal with. And in terms of impact of cost, under the
Clean Power proposal----
Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
Senator Blunt [continuing]. Certainly one of the things
that I've had a lot of input from the rural electric co-ops
that really do serve many of our lower income counties in the
country, and serve about over 70 percent of the geography of
the country, we have more than one county in Missouri where the
customers from that rural electric co-op are already at the 20
percent level of their income. If the kinds of increases in
rates occur and utility bills occur that have been anticipated
with Clean Power, what can be done to minimize the impact of
those dramatic power increases on rural electric co-op
families?
Ms. McCarthy. Yes. Well, we have spent a lot of time with
the rural electric co-ops, and I think rightly so, to continue
to work with their fairly unique challenges given the
constituencies, the customer base, that they serve. We're
working really closely with the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
both Rural Energy for America Program as well as the Energy
Efficiency and Conservation Loan Program. So we can provide
whatever support the Federal Government has to offer as they're
thinking about their strategies.
I would also point out that given the flexibilities that we
have provided, there are opportunities for rural co-ops to
actually think beyond their own borders about what they're able
to actually do that could provide them significant economic
opportunities.
And I would lastly point out that a lot of the utilities
are reaching out to the rural co-ops, the larger utilities,
because they are very much interested in renewable energy
projects because in rural communities there's a lot of wind and
there are a lot of solar opportunities, and they are becoming
very big customer bases.
So there is a dynamic in the Clean Power Plan that could
very much provide opportunities for rural co-ops to expand the
diversity of how they provide electricity but also economically
benefit from the Clean Power Plan in a very direct way.
Senator Blunt. In that case, that would involve an outside
investor you would expect?
Ms. McCarthy. It would involve just a collaboration between
them and some of the larger utilities to think about
opportunities to actually join together in a joint plan and to
be able to allow the utility that wants to make investments to
offset their greenhouse gas emissions to be able to utilize the
renewable energy that's in rural communities as an inexpensive
way to get reductions, but also a way that will reduce energy
costs for those communities.
So there are wonderful relationships that we can build, and
we'll continue to sit down and work with the rural co-ops and
try to make sure that there are no opportunities lost in terms
of their ability, not just to meet these challenges, but also
to benefit from them.
Senator Blunt. Well, you know Missouri is 80 percent
dependent on coal.
Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
Senator Blunt. We were 82 percent dependent on coal just a
few years ago, so we must be headed in the direction that you
would like to see us head, but 80 percent--and the rural co-ops
are more than 80 percent dependent on coal.
Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
Senator Blunt. The impact in those counties and those areas
is going to be greater, you know, in counties like Pemiscot
County or Shannon County, and in the southeast and south-
central Missouri, already are at the 20 percent family income
rate for utilities, and anything that impacts that has a
tremendous impact on what those families can do.
Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
Senator Blunt. On the Waters of the United States, the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that EPA had
violated the Anti-Deficiency Act when conducting a social media
campaign promoting Waters of the United States, one of many
criticisms of how that rule came together. What are you doing
about that?
Ms. McCarthy. Well, we have a report into the Office of
Management and Budget. Senator, we didn't agree with the GAO's
findings, but it doesn't mean we're not going to respect the
process. And we have a corrective action or a report into the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and we're going to do a
couple of things. We followed all the rules of OMB in terms of
how you do social media outreach. There were two issues which
the GAO found that they had concerns with, and we're going to
provide an opportunity in particular for when we do a blog post
that has what they call a hyperlink that goes to another Web
site. We found that some agencies can provide better and
clearer acknowledgement that you're leaving the Federal Web
site when you use that hyperlink. We have already taken the
same action. That should provide a, I think, level of
insulation that GAO might be looking for, but we're waiting for
OMB to do a full review of that report, but any funding that we
use was limited at best, if we use any, in terms of the two
social media outreach issues or efforts that they had concerns
with.
Senator Blunt. Thank you, Chairman. I'm out of time. I'm
sure I'll have some questions for the record. And on that issue
generally of who's paying for advertisements or things that
show up on social media Web sites, I think people should see
that that's clearly paid for by taxpayers if it's being paid
for by taxpayers.
Thank you.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Blunt.
Senator Leahy.
Senator Leahy. Thank you very much.
Administrator McCarthy, we talked earlier about the time
you joined me on the shores of Lake Champlain to see some
portions of the lake that are affected repeatedly by nutrient
pollution as a result of decades of pollution that's built up
in the lake. And Vermont wants to do the right thing. The
Environmental Protection Agency has been working for 5 years to
develop a new Total Maximum Daily Load plan, I believe you call
it TMDL, for Vermont to address this problem. Vermont has to
know how to react, but there have been many delays and that,
but we have yet to see the final document. And interestingly
enough, while developing this aggressive new plan, the
administration has not increased funding requests for work on
Lake Champlain.
Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
Senator Leahy. A number of areas have been able to get
additional funding that they thought that could help on Lake
Champlain, but it seems to go elsewhere.
This year, the administration requested a significant
reduction compared to last year's total funding level. I'm
afraid we may be getting into some kind of a Hobson's choice
here.
Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
Senator Leahy. When will Vermont see a Lake Champlain
phosphorus TMDL issued by EPA Region 1? And when we do see it,
how are you going to help fund this important and very
expensive undertaking?
Ms. McCarthy. Well, we do----
Senator Leahy. I say it because this lake has the most--
outside of the five Great Lakes, has the most freshwater in the
country. It affects New York, Vermont, and Canada, hundreds of
feet deep in parts. So it's a real jewel, but only if it's
constantly worked at to keep clean.
Ms. McCarthy. And I certainly recognize your championship
efforts on this, and, frankly, as well as the Governor in the
State. I couldn't be more pleased with the response, including
in your State legislature on this issue.
This spring EPA intends to issue the final TMDL for Lake
Champlain. We're working closely with the State of Vermont so
that we can respond to the public comments effectively and make
sure that the revisions are really going to be whatever
everybody expects to see to get Lake Champlain where it needs
to be. I do recognize that there is disappointment in the
funding for the geographic program. I wish I had an ability to
be able to fund those programs at higher levels. I think we all
know the challenges in the Agency's budget.
The good news is that the Clean Water State Revolving Fund,
as well as the Section 319 grants, are really the primary way
in which we can be supportive of Vermont's implementation to
the TMDL. So I'll work with Region 1 to make sure that there is
a commensurate commitment. I do not want any State to feel like
they have to bear this burden themselves, even one that's been
as generous and aggressive as the State of Vermont.
Senator Leahy. And our legislature goes out of session in a
couple weeks till next year, so as soon as we can know that,
the better.
Another area is a dangerous chemical known as
perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA). Apparently it's gotten into
private wells and municipal water supplies in Vermont, in North
Bennington panel. I went and visited them a couple of weeks
ago. I talked to a number of the homeowners who are hurt by
this. I've heard their concerns firsthand. Also, invited the
head of the company that now owns the manufacturing site
believed to be responsible for the North Bennington
contamination. There are more cases popping up all the time.
It's not going to be taken care of overnight.
I mention this, and some will be up in the EPA, and I want
to tell you I've heard nothing but praise for EPA Region 1 and
their reaction. Some were there when I came there, but they
weren't there just the day I was there, they were days before
and days afterward. The only problem we have with EPA is you
have to issue a uniform guidance on what level should be
considered a risk.
And I'll tell you why. Some of this is showing up in New
York just across the border from Vermont. They may be following
the EPA provisional health advisory of 400 parts per trillion
for the contamination at Hoosick Falls. Eight miles away in
North Bennington, Vermont, we have 20 parts per trillion, and
everybody wants to do the right thing, everybody wants to
protect their people, but we want to know what the numbers
should be. And actually it's going to be we're probably going
to find this in other parts of the country.
So, one, when can we have uniform guidance? And can you
tell me what your funding requests are going to be for this?
Ms. McCarthy. Well, at this point, we have been doing
national testing on PFOA and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS),
we call them perfluorinated compounds (PFCs), and we have been
doing it as an unregulated contaminant, and we identified it
and we've been doing extensive monitoring for about a year.
That is to underpin a health advisory that we want to get out
this spring and hopefully very soon. We know there is a lot of
anxiety about EPA providing some guidance on this issue.
The good news is that while we are seeing it nationally, we
are seeing it connected with localized problems, as you
indicate, and there are opportunities for current technologies
to be able to bring those levels down considerably.
So, Senator, if you can be just a short while more patient,
we're trying to make sure that we get the science right and
we're able to explain this with States and local communities so
they can understand what the health advisory is and isn't
moving forward.
Senator Leahy. Okay. Thank you. Also, I'll submit a
question for you. This is something that the distinguished
Senator from Alaska and I and others have raised, those from
States that use a lot of wood stoves.
Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
Senator Leahy. We know new standards are coming, but we
don't know when and what they're going to be, and you have
manufacturers say, okay, we've got to test or retest and set
up, and if they come at the last minute and they say, ``Here's
what you've got to do,'' they're going to be out of business
because, you know, it takes some retooling. And if that
happens, and I think the Senator from Alaska would probably
agree, if that happens, people are going to--you're going to
have worse problems, and they'll say, ``Heck, I'm not going to
spend money on one of the new ones, they don't know what
they're doing, they can't manufacture, so we'll just keep on
using the old ones.''
Ms. McCarthy. Well, Senator, we did actually work really
hard with the small businesses, which there are many in the
wood stove industry, to make sure that the rule that was passed
a while ago and those standards actually have an extended
compliance period so that those small businesses that aren't
yet prepared to deliver stoves that can meet those standards
have an opportunity to design and construct those so they don't
lose step in terms of their ability to compete.
So we've worked hard at it. We think the standards are
pretty clear, and we think they're done in a way that's very
sensitive of small businesses.
Senator Leahy. My time--I've gone over my time, but we may
have to talk more on that. Thank you.
Ms. McCarthy. Thank you.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Leahy.
Senator Daines.
Senator Daines. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Welcome back, Gina, to the subcommittee.
Ms. McCarthy. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Daines. Your budget proposal includes $235 million
for the EPA efforts to cut carbon pollution and greenhouse
gases included in the Clean Power Plan.
Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
Senator Daines. Given the Supreme Court's issue to stay the
final rule for the Clean Power Plan, I want to ask about the
costs and benefits about this final rule. You stated in the
EPA's regulatory analysis of the Clean Power Plan that the
purpose of the rule is to cut CO2 emissions from the
contribution to climate change, quoting. The EPA Web site
defines climate change to include major changes in temperature.
I'm trained in engineering, chemical engineering, looking at
numbers. Can you tell me what the impact of global warming
would be from the Clean Power Plan?
Ms. McCarthy. Actually, the Supreme Court asked us a very
similar question and agreed with us that while we can't define
the exact reductions that would be achieved from any one action
in climate, there is absolutely no reason to do that because we
know it will take a lot of efforts to actually make those
reductions. And the President's move to actually push forward
with this Climate Action Plan and the Clean Power Plan was to
recognize that the energy sector is our largest source,
stationary source, of emissions, and it will make big progress
moving forward domestically and internationally.
Senator Daines. But I think it's important to quantity
because we have quantified the tremendous impact----
Ms. McCarthy. Oh, okay.
Senator Daines [continuing]. On people----
Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
Senator Daines [continuing]. In Montana specifically
because we're one of the States hardest hit by this plan.
Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
Senator Daines. Cato ran the numbers through the magic
algorithm and assessed that the change in climate temperature
for the world would be .02 degrees Centigrade between now and
the year 2100 as a result of these regulations, which says it's
a rounding error, and yet as we look at what impact it will
have on the people of Montana, it's a loss of 7,000 jobs. This
is a study done by the University of Montana. This wasn't some
conservative think tank. This is objective, they're very
respected back home, the University of Montana, 7,000 lost
jobs, $145 million of lost tax revenues we use to support our
schools and teachers and infrastructure, double-digit increases
in utility rates, and a loss of $1.5 billion of economic
activity in Montana per year, and the conclusion was it's the
single largest economic impact and event to occur in Montana in
over 30 years.
So we've quantified the impact to families. I've stood and
looked at the families there that are going to lose their jobs
because of this. For what? For one quantitative analysis for
.02 degrees Centigrade change in temperature between now and
the year 2100. Why are we doing this?
Ms. McCarthy. Sir, the actual net benefits of this rule are
very large, not just in terms of our ability to generate the
kind of actions on climate change that are necessary to protect
those very families, but there is also----
Senator Daines. But wait a minute, but wait a minute, if
the impact on temperature is virtually negligible, what impact
are we trying to drive here?
Ms. McCarthy. We're trying to get actual domestic and
international agreements, which this Clean Power Plan has
helped to initiate to get worldwide response to what is
essentially a worldwide problem, but----
Senator Daines. So by getting at--by killing the coal
industry, which your regulations are doing----
Ms. McCarthy. No.
Senator Daines [continuing]. They're killing coal-fired
plants, the regulations are going to result in the shutdown of
Colstrip Units 1, 2, 3 and 4. It's a significant--where we--
over 50 percent of the electricity generated in Montana is from
coal-fired plants. You're going to shut them all down with
these regulations. And I lived in China for 5 years, I've
breathed the air. We need to help China continue to become
better in terms of managing their environment, but to
completely step away from the coal-fired business and to take
American innovation out of the equation to let America lead in
clean coal technology versus ceding it to the Chinese I think
is a grave strategic mistake as it relates to overall
stewardship of the planet.
Ms. McCarthy. I think there are many ways in which Montana
can achieve these standards. We've tried very hard to make sure
they're both reasonable and flexible, but, sir, you have to
look at both the positive benefits of the rule.
Senator Daines. No, wait, the proposed rule was very
different from what was actually generated. You gave us a
proposal.
Ms. McCarthy. It was correct.
Senator Daines. When the actual rule came out, it was a
bait-and-switch in Montana. It is correct. And so we've been
caught absolutely here with we're cornered.
Ms. McCarthy. No, what happened was the number did shift,
but the way in which you're allowed to achieve that number and
the flexibilities very much changed to allow that number to be
very commensurate, with the same strategy you would have used
to achieve the proposal, you can still find as an amenable
strategy----
Senator Daines. We don't--we're struggling right now. We
don't see a path forward on this at the moment other than to
have to literally look at shuttering our Colstrip Units 1, 2,
3, and 4. This is a big, big issue. And again the study says
the single biggest economic impact to hit my State in over 30
years. These are real families. This is tax revenues for our
teachers and our schools. It's $1.5 billion a year to my State.
We can't replace that.
Ms. McCarthy. Well, we share the concern for families. I
think we--I just view certainly climate change as being a very
large----
Senator Daines. Well, but wait a minute. Come back to
quantifying it, though. I challenge you to come back and tell
me why the Cato study is wrong, .02 degrees Centigrade between
now and the year 2100, it's been quantified through the magic
algorithm done for the EPA.
Ms. McCarthy. Sir, that's not the benefit that you're
trying to establish or quantify here. There are both costs and
benefits. Our regulatory impact analysis (RIA) for this rule
showed that in 2030 we are looking at upwards of $45 billion
every year in benefits. And so there are benefits from
traditional pollutant reductions, and there are certainly going
to be benefits, as Paris showed, in the United States providing
domestic leadership that will underpin strong international
efforts, and that international effort, it is what is going to
allow us to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in a way that is
going to provide a more stable world for our kids.
Senator Daines. China, as you know, China consumes 50
percent of the world's coal right now. We're about 10 percent
here in the United States, and so we've got the tail wagging
the dog here. This is where we have got to--I think the better
strategy, and you're hearing from somebody here who is a
passionate outdoorsman, loves spending time at 10,000 feet with
my backpack on, and an ardent protector of clean water and
clean air, as a fifth generation Montanan, but we've got to
also I think have the right balance here, and I think
strategically by working with us to develop clean coal
technology is a better strategic bet. And we can help the
Chinese with this ultimately, because if they don't change,
you're not going to solve some of these challenges we face
globally----
Ms. McCarthy. Well, we're certainly trying to do that as
well.
Senator Daines [continuing]. And so I just think we're
making a grave mistake by killing the industry and taking away
American innovation from boilermakers, the trade unions, and so
forth, who want to work to solve this problem, and instead
you're going to put them out of work, and that's the reality of
it.
Ms. McCarthy. All right, sir. Thank you.
Senator Daines. Thank you.
Senator Murkowski. Senator Udall.
Senator Udall. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair, for your
courtesies.
Administrator McCarthy, reducing methane emissions is a
critical part of our Nation's fight against climate change.
Methane is a serious problem. It has 25 times the heat-trapping
potential of carbon dioxide. And a recent EPA study found that
methane emissions from oil and gas production are even higher
than we had estimated. It's a serious budget issue, too. In New
Mexico alone, venting and flaring has cost the State more than
$42 million in lost royalty revenues since 2009. Reducing
methane emissions is a win-win for the environment and for our
State budgets, and that's why I'm supportive of the
administration's goal to cut methane emissions by 40 to 45
percent.
I think the proposed regulations on new and modified
sources are a good start, but we need EPA to set effective
workable standards for leak detection and repairs and to
investigate emerging technologies that could cut emissions even
more.
What is the timeline for the proposed standards? And what
is the plan for a proposal on existing sources of methane
emissions? And does the proposed rule consider industry
feedback to minimize the potential impact on production when
oil prices are low?
Ms. McCarthy. We do have proposals moving forward to
finalization this spring, but relative to the existing sources
right now, one of the biggest challenges we see is that the
most recent greenhouse gas data shows us there are a lot of
methane emissions that we had not accounted for previously. And
what we are doing instead of immediately moving to proposal is
we are putting out an information collection request to the
industry because we need to understand better where those
emissions are being generated, we need to understand exactly
what you've asked us. What are the technologies that we can
take advantage of? And what are the costs associated with those
so we could provide reasonable standards moving forward and
continue to work with States that have really good knowledge of
the industry in their own States? And many of them are
regulating them, and some very effectively, so that we're not
duplicating and we're providing the kind of benefits that we
all are looking for.
Senator Udall. Thank you. That's encouraging to hear that.
From--now talking about Navajo uranium cleanup.
Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
Senator Udall. From 1944 to 1986, 4 million tons of uranium
ore were mined in Arizona, Utah, and New Mexico from lands
belonging to the Navajo Nation. The demand for uranium mining
skyrocketed during World War II, when little was known about
the dangers. Even as we learn more, the Federal Government
repeatedly failed to take steps to protect workers and their
families. I visited the homes of workers impacted by uranium
contamination. I've met the widows of men who worked in the
mines and died in their early 30s.
Uranium mining has a tragic legacy, and it's our
responsibility to prevent more deaths. Over 500 abandoned
uranium mine claims remain in the Navajo Nation, including 145
in New Mexico. The areas around the Church Rock Mine spill, the
site of the largest accidental radiation release in U.S.
history, still needs extensive cleanup.
Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
Senator Udall. I appreciate the EPA's efforts to clean up
uranium on Navajo land during the Agency's first 5-year plan,
we worked very closely with you on that, but more work still
needs to be done given the extent of the contamination. EPA is
now starting a second 5-year cleanup plan. What are EPA's
specific goals for this second round of cleanup? And how much
funding is set aside in the budget for this year and next year?
And the Church Rock Mine near Gallup is the EPA's top
priority. I am concerned about how long cleanup is scheduled to
take. We have heard it may not begin until 2020 and may take 7
to 9 years to finish. Why will the cleanup take so long to
start and finish? And can we speed it up?
Ms. McCarthy. Well, just specific to this year, we plan to
spend $16.6 million this year looking at 46 high priority mines
that are located near homes and streams, and the work will
include replacing contaminated homes and providing water. But
the good news is with the settlements that we have been able to
achieve with Tronox, there is significant funding that we're
working on with the States in, and, in particular, with the
Navajo Nation as well, to try to continue to make steady
progress.
Relative to Church Rock Mine, you're right, it is a
complicated site. It is projected to take a little longer. I
think part of that is related to the fact that we have to go
through some Nuclear Regulatory permitting obligations
associated with that. But I will do the best I can to make sure
that we're providing the kind of prompt response that we can.
Senator Udall. Great. Thank you very much. Talking a little
bit about the Mexico border water funding.
Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
Senator Udall. Chairman Murkowski, thank you for your work
to prioritize the Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program in
2016. Our funding is tight these days, and I appreciate you
recognize the clean water challenges we face on the border.
Many border communities lack water and sewer services. This
program helps ensure that these underserved areas finally get
their basic sanitary services. It's critical in New Mexico, but
I'm concerned about the program's future. There are at least
$800 million in remaining projects that we have a huge need out
there, and I'm disappointed that the budget request is just $5
million. It's hard to imagine how we make progress at that
pace.
Administrator McCarthy, can you share more information
about the estimated need for water infrastructure projects on
the U.S.-Mexico border? What can EPA do to better meet the
long-term needs of our border communities?
Ms. McCarthy. Well, Senator, I happened to spend a little
bit of time along that border, and the needs are rather
dramatic, as you well know. It's been a very successful
opportunity to look at how we support projects in that area
that will both be protective of local public health as well as
our tremendous water resources in those areas.
We have a number of projects that are in the pipeline that
have been funded. You're right, we are looking at a fiscal year
2017 proposal of $5 million. That will allow us to continue to
add new projects into the system, but we're trying very hard to
work within limited resources to be able to continue to
construct the 14 projects that are already funded and in the
system as well as to continue to add in a reasonable way. But
certainly the more funding we have, the more that we can get
done.
Senator Udall. Great. Thank you very much.
And thank you again, Chairman Murkowski, for your
courtesies.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Udall.
And we will now go to Senator Hoeven.
Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Administrator McCarthy, thank you for being here today. The
number one regulation opposed by our farmers and ranchers, not
just in North Dakota, but really across the country, is WOTUS,
Waters of the United States, and, in fact, in Federal district
court in Fargo, North Dakota, the judge, Judge Ralph Erickson,
stayed that regulation, and that stay was upheld by the circuit
court in Cincinnati.
And so my question to you is, what are you doing to address
the concerns that WOTUS has created? And it's not just our
farmers and ranchers, it's the energy industry and many others.
But what are you doing to try to address their concerns?
Ms. McCarthy. Well, I think we tried very hard to try to
address their concerns in the Clean Water Rule that we put
forward. You're absolutely right, that rule is stayed, and
we're respecting that stay. We will see what the courts say
when they look in detail at the merits, and we'll do our best,
hopefully we'll succeed, in sticking through the courts, we're
confident of that. But in the meantime, I think we need to
continue to work with agriculture to provide the level of
certainty they're looking for.
One of the reasons we did this rule in the first place was
the uncertainty and the costs associated with that both in time
and money. And I think we tried very hard to have this proposal
be not just respectful of the exemptions and exceptions for
agriculture that were in place already, but to better define
those, to expand those, and to make this an easier opportunity
for agriculture to keep producing the food, fuel, and fiber we
rely on.
Now, clearly we have work to bridge the gap between how
people are perceiving this rule and what we think is the clear
written rule when you look at it and look at its merits. But
right now we have to respect the court's decision and make sure
that they have an opportunity for all sides to be heard, and
I'm sure they'll make a decision quickly.
Senator Hoeven. And I would encourage you to, between
yourself and your people, engage with the farm and ranch
groups, sit down and talk to them.
Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
Senator Hoeven. You know, they want to be good stewards out
there, but, as you say, they do produce the food, fuel, and
fiber for this country. And you need to sit down and have your
people sit down and talk to them and find out, you know, maybe
what you can do to actually help address their very real
concerns on this regulation.
Ms. McCarthy. Senator, thank you.
Senator Hoeven. Next I would say on the CO2
rules that the EPA has put forward.
Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
Senator Hoeven. In the case of North Dakota, we went from,
in the preliminary rule of reduction, of 11 percent to now a
required reduction of 45 percent in terms of CO2.
How are we supposed to meet that without just closing power
plants? What are you willing to do to help the industry?
Ms. McCarthy. Well, we're certainly--I think we've been to
North Dakota a number of times----
Senator Hoeven. You have come to North Dakota. We
appreciate that.
Ms. McCarthy. Not at all. We're trying to make sure that we
work with the utilities and with the States and with,
obviously, the energy regulators. One of the reasons why that
reduction number changed is we really opened this up to be seen
as much more of a regional way of approaching an issue because
that's how the energy sector works.
Senator Hoeven. Mm-hmm.
Ms. McCarthy. And part of the whole rule is trying to
follow the sector that we're regulating in a way that we don't
limit the flexibility that is already in the system.
So I would continue to encourage if you--we will be at any
meeting you want to hold so that we can try to continue to work
and talk about this while the court is reviewing the rule
itself.
Senator Hoeven. We have engaged Janet McCabe.
Ms. McCarthy. Good.
Senator Hoeven. The industry is working on this, but
they're going to need help. Obviously, we think there are real
problems with it. We're going to continue to work on it, as you
know, in terms of our concerns about it, but we do need your
support for Janet McCabe to work with our industry as they try
to address some of these issues. We met with her, but we need
your continued support to get all the flexibility and help
possible.
Ms. McCarthy. Senator, you have been terrific to work with
in terms of agreeing that while we don't agree on everything--
--
Senator Hoeven. Right.
Ms. McCarthy [continuing]. That we continue to work
together, and I very much appreciate that.
Senator Hoeven. Along that line, for our oil industry----
Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
Senator Hoeven [continuing]. Which you know right now is
challenged by oil prices, but it's a very vibrant industry,
they're very technologically savvy, they're working very hard,
not only to produce more oil, but to continue to improve
environmental stewardship. That means continued developments in
directional drilling that reduces the footprint on the surface,
finding ways to produce more oil with less impact, reducing the
amount of water that's required for things like hydraulic
fracturing, even going to CO2, sequestration using
CO2, sequestration as a way to fracture and produce
oil rather than even using water.
Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
Senator Hoeven. A lot of new technologies that can produce
more energy most effectively with better environmental
stewardship, but they need to have a regulatory environment
where they can work and deploy the investment and deploy these
new technologies to accomplish both, more energy and better
stewardship.
Right now, they're facing about, the oil industry is facing
about, 50 different regulations that they're trying to comply
with, not all from EPA, but a number of them from EPA, but
Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM). How do we get a
rationalized structure so that they can actually innovate?
Which is I think what you want as well as what we want.
Ms. McCarthy. Yes, sure do.
Senator Hoeven. But we need--all these different
regulations, and they've got to figure out how to work with
them. One regulation might stop them from putting in gas-
gathering systems on Federal land at the same time they're
trying to reduce methane emissions from flares. You see? And
the two regulations work against each other, right?
So, and, for example, in Section 114, we're right in the
middle of that, we have a State taskforce that's trying to work
with that. Again, I'm asking for some help from you to work
with our State taskforce on Section 114, that's the specific;
and, second, somehow to pull all these things together so our
industry can actually get an understanding of what it is they
need to do, particularly when we have conflicting regulations.
What can you offer? [Laughter.]
Ms. McCarthy. On Section 114, it is an enforcement
mechanism, and I know there are discussions with our
enforcement staff, and I think that's more than appropriate.
Senator Hoeven. The biggest thing would be if you could
encourage your staff to work with our taskforce that is working
on that. Our State taskforce is working on that very issue,
including our State health department and others.
Ms. McCarthy. Well, we consistently try to work with the
States so that we're making sure I think you know that we're
moving towards regulating methane from existing sources. We've
had a brief discussion about that. And there are States that
are doing a very effective job at regulating. And so I'm not
looking to reinvent the wheel, I'm not looking to one-up, but I
am looking to see what kind of technologies are available and
cost effective to take care of these emissions in the best way
that we can. I think that is what provides the stability for
the industry to continue to innovate and invest moving forward.
That is what drives innovation and provides them a level
playing field across the board to make sure that development is
happening in a way that's safe and responsible.
So I think we share the same goals, I just want to make
sure that we're doing it in a way that's consistent with
current law and that provides us the opportunity to continue to
work together.
Senator Hoeven. The biggest thing that would help with that
right now, particularly on Section 114, is your commitment to
get your people to work with our taskforce on Section 114.
That's really my ask, that's the ask.
Ms. McCarthy. Well, I certainly know that the meetings
continue.
Senator Hoeven. Pardon me.
Ms. McCarthy. I certainly know that the meetings continue,
sir, but I do take a fairly hands-off approach when it's an
enforcement issue, but I'm kept abreast of the discussions, and
I will keep doing that.
Senator Hoeven. Okay.
Ms. McCarthy. All right.
Senator Hoeven. Thank you.
Ms. McCarthy. Thanks.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Hoeven.
And, Administrator, I appreciate the exchange here on the
issue of methane. As I noted in my opening comments, what we've
seen is that, even as we have added new wells into the system,
we have seen our methane emissions from petroleum and natural
gas falling. That indicates to me that something is working
here. Our States are doing what they need to do to regulate
emissions from oil and gas.
Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
Senator Murkowski. And so your comments that you're not
looking to regulate, you're not looking to one-up, I think was
the terminology that you used----
Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
Senator Murkowski [continuing]. To try to bring some
stability. This is what we're hoping for here--making sure that
we are looking to the States and what they're doing and how
they're doing it. My observation is that this is an issue where
the EPA does not need to take a top-down, command and control
approach. A better approach is to work with the industry, and
work with the States on a more narrowly tailored basis. It
sounds like your words are in agreement, and that that's how
you would like to proceed.
Ms. McCarthy. Well, we certainly want to collaborate with
the States, because I do agree with you, there are many States
that are doing a great job, and we're learning from them and
hopefully working with them.
Senator Murkowski. Right. I mentioned in my comments about
some concerns that I'm seeing as you're proposing to move some
funds that people are looking very critically because of what's
going on with our water and waste water infrastructure.
Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
Senator Murkowski. I mentioned that the budget reduces
funding for State Revolving Funds by approximately $257
million. So you not only have the Flint issue that is still in
the news daily, but we just had a report that 28 public and
private entities in Alaska have water systems with lead levels
that exceed the Federal standard. And it's not just Michigan,
it's not just Alaska, I'm hearing it from colleagues all over.
So at the same time we're seeing this reduction in the State
Revolving Funds (SRF), we are looking at a proposal within the
Agency to increase the core regulatory programs by more than
$237 million.
I raise this because, as people are focused on the issues
that are most concerning to them, and quite honestly, having
drinking water is----
Ms. McCarthy. Where you don't need to rely on this.
Senator Murkowski. Yes, you don't need to rely on this.
Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
Senator Murkowski. The people in Flint have to have it in
the bottle. The stories about people being fearful of bathing
in the water.
So I guess the specific question is, why is the Agency
choosing to make such large cuts from the State Revolving Fund
to pay for effectively additional personnel?
Ms. McCarthy. Well, Senator, we're trying to shift the
funds that are available to us while still having an operating
Agency to be able to implement those and move forward with all
of the core needs that we intend to provide. I think the big
challenge that we have is, how do we use a combination of SRF
dollars, Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act
(WIFIA) dollars, and creative economic solutions that we can
work with to generate more private sector investment in water
and wastewater? You're right that we would all like to have
more funds, and I'm sure that the subcommittee will or the
subcommittee will recommend and the subcommittee will look at
this issue. But we're trying to respect the constraints that we
have on the bipartisan budget agreement and still provide an
opportunity for the Agency to function in a budget that really
is very consistent with what we might have looked at in 2010,
and we are well beyond that in terms of our obligations and our
commitments and the needs we see.
Senator Murkowski. I concur that these are constrained
budgets, but you've got a tough job----
Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
Senator Murkowski [continuing]. And that tough job is
prioritization----
Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
Senator Murkowski [continuing]. And, again, when it comes
to something as basic as safe drinking water, there is nothing
that is capturing the news more clearly and more directly than
what we're seeing. It's confusing to me that, within the
administration, you would take from that very fund that can
help the people of Flint, that can help these 28 communities,
that can help the people in Ohio or wherever. We are looking at
this issue as a subcommittee, but the signal that comes out of
the administration, I don't think--if I were the people in
Flint, I wouldn't be feeling too good about that as a
direction.
Ms. McCarthy. Well, Senator, the only thing I would
actually point out is that we are increasing the drinking water
fund commensurate with our concern for drinking water. I think
the challenge we have is, how do we do that in a way that
doesn't really reduce the level we have for clean water, our
wastewater challenges?
Senator Murkowski. Right.
Ms. McCarthy. And it's a very difficult one, but you will
see that we are significantly proposing an increase in the
drinking water side.
Senator Murkowski. Let me ask two very, very quick
questions here and then we'll wrap up because we've kept you
over the time.
Ms. McCarthy. Sure. All right.
Senator Murkowski. Fish grinding.
Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
Senator Murkowski. You know, you don't get any other
Senators that are going to talk to you about fish grinding, but
it is something that I had actually thought that we were on the
verge of a solution, getting down to the standard here. I was
disheartened to hear that now Region 10 is saying we could be
years away from a solution, which is astonishing to me that we
could be going backwards that far. So do you have any update in
terms of where we are with fish grinding on the seafood
processing vessels?
Ms. McCarthy. Well, I'm glad you raised it because it's an
issue that I told you we would try to resolve, and I really
would like to do that.
Senator Murkowski. Yes. We thought it was going to be
easier than this.
Ms. McCarthy. Yes, I did, too. We have looked at the data,
and I think there are a lot of comments that we have received
on it. And the original data really wasn't as good as the data
we have available today, which says if we make a shift in these
requirements, we'll still be able to maintain really good water
quality standards. So we are looking forward to moving that
along. There are apparently some concerns with endangered
species impacts that we have been getting the fish community
together with the services to try to resolve. I think the only
way we can do this quickly is to try to elevate those issues,
and I've asked the region to do those so that we can understand
how we can move forward with the reissuance of the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit at a time
when we both still talk to each other. [Laughter.]
Senator Murkowski. Well, I would appreciate that. There has
been considerable headway made within the industry to reduce
the amount of waste, and it's been quite notable, but I also
recognize that you've got investment in new processing
facilities that is basically put on hold right now until we
know what the requirement is going to be. So, again, it was not
unlike some of the issues that were raised here at the dais
earlier. You've got a willingness to move forward with new
technologies and new investment that make everything more
efficient, and yet no one is going to make that capital
commitment until we have some greater certainty.
Ms. McCarthy. And the industry is being very good and at
the table all the time, and I would really like to be able to
acknowledge that and to be able to make the adjustments that
the environment says we can make.
Senator Murkowski. Well, I'm with you. Yes. Let's elevate
this then and see what we can't do. And in that same vein, I
will continue to raise the issue about our small remote
incinerators.
Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
Senator Murkowski. And, again, we've been talking about
this for a number of years, but it doesn't seem at this point
in time like there's any solution outside of legislation. So as
we talk, as we get our senior teams together, know that that
remains a priority as well as the fish grinding, and then the
IGAP, the backhaul program. We're making some headway on that.
I think I mentioned to you in my phone call where we're working
on an adopt-a-barge program. We're trying to come up with
everything that we possibly can to be creative, to be
innovative, and to deal with some of the trash and the junk
that just doesn't have a way out of a State when you don't have
roads.
We want to try to work through many of these issues while
you are still at the helm there, and so if you can dedicate
some manpower to help us out, it would be greatly appreciated.
Ms. McCarthy. We certainly--on the backhaul issue, there
needs to be a solution here. We are provided some opportunity
through October 2019 to resolve this. Every Federal agency that
has anything to do with Alaska is at the table and looking at
funding strategies as well as systemic plans to be able to
address it.
You know, the small incinerator issue, we do have to
resolve it. My concern is not just that I have limited time,
but 2018 is the compliance window here, and we still have yet
to engage in a way that's going to be productive. And so your
leadership, continued leadership, on this and our engagement
one-on-one together to figure out a path forward will be really
helpful.
Senator Murkowski. Okay. I appreciate it.
Ms. McCarthy. All right.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Agency for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted to Hon. Gina McCarthy
Questions Submitted by Senator Lisa Murkowski
co2 emissions--aircraft
Question. On February 8, 2016, the International Civil Aviation
Organization (ICAO) Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection
(CAEP) unanimously agreed to establish new standards for aircraft
CO2 emissions. ICAO successfully developed the new standard
with the unanimous support of 23 member countries including the United
States. Last summer, in anticipation of this milestone the EPA
published for public comment a proposed endangerment finding and
advance notice of proposed rulemaking that it would regulate aircraft
greenhouse gas emissions subsequent to ICAO's pending actions. The EPA
has always followed the precedent developed by ICAO for previous
aircraft emissions standards and this CO2 standard will now
provide the basis for the Agency to proceed with a rulemaking process
to establish U.S. Standards.
What are the anticipated milestones and projected schedule for
proceeding with the rulemaking process for the U.S. Standards?
Does the Agency intend to propose an aircraft CO2
emissions regulation that includes a standard equivalent to the one the
U.S. Government supported at ICAO?
Answer. The EPA is currently evaluating, under the Clean Air Act,
whether emissions of Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) from certain classes of
aircraft engines cause or contribute to air pollution that may
reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. To set
aircraft engine emission standards for GHGs, the EPA must first
complete this ``endangerment finding,'' and conclude that Greenhouse
Gas (GHG) emissions from such classes of aircraft engines meet these
criteria. In 2015, the EPA proposed a positive endangerment finding,
and is expected to take final action regarding the proposed
endangerment finding this summer. If the EPA finds that GHG emissions
from such classes of aircraft engines do cause or contribute to
endangerment under the Clean Air Act, the EPA would then undertake a
domestic rulemaking with an opportunity for public input, to adopt
appropriate aircraft engine emissions standards that are at least as
stringent as the ICAO standards. The EPA would look to propose domestic
GHG emissions standards for aircraft in 2017, consistent with agency
priorities and available resources.
sediment guidance and adaptive management policies report
Question. Last year, the subcommittee requested the agency to
submit within 90 days of enactment an analysis of the degree to which
sediment guidance and adaptive management policies are being applied at
sediment sites. Can the agency provide an update on the status of that
report?
Answer. At the request of Congress, the U.S. Government
Accountability Office (GAO) began an audit of Superfund Sediment Sites
(100205) in August 2015. Based upon the GAO's questions, this audit is
expected to include an evaluation of how the EPA applies the
recommendations in the 2005 sediment remediation guidance. On June 30,
2016, an exit conference with the EPA and GAO was held to share
findings of the audit. In light of the GAO audit's completion, the EPA
will review the audit results to determine if additional analysis or
information is needed. After completing our review of the audit, the
EPA would like to discuss with the subcommittee whether a report is
still needed.
clean power plan--25 states
Question. In earlier testimony you stated that 25 States continue
to work on implementation of the Clean Power Plan. Has this number
changed since you made that statement and, if so, in what manner?
Answer. Since the stay was issued, 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, they have asked us to move
forward with our outreach and to continue providing support and
developing tools, including the Clean Energy Incentive Program (CEIP),
the proposed model rules, and the proposed evaluation, measurement and
verification (EM&V) guidance. For example, on April 28, 2016, a group
of 14 State environmental agency officials wrote the EPA to request
that we provide a final model rule or rules, additional information on
the Clean Energy Incentive Program, and other information and
assistance.
Many organizations are tracking State actions and statements
related to CPP. These include the E&E Publishing Clean Power Plan hub
(http://www.eenews.net/interactive/clean_power_plan), National
Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA), Association of Air Pollution
Control Agencies (AAPCA), and Environmental Council of States (ECOS).
clean power plan--list of 25 states
Question. Can you provide a list of the 25 States you believe
continue to work on the CPP and your understanding of the work they
have on-going?
Answer. Since the stay was issued, 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, they have asked us to move
forward with our outreach and to continue providing support and
developing tools, including the Clean Energy Incentive Program (CEIP),
the proposed model rules, and the proposed evaluation, measurement and
verification (EM&V) guidance. For example, on April 28, 2016, a group
of 14 State environmental agency officials wrote the EPA to request
that we provide a final model rule or rules, additional information on
the Clean Energy Incentive Program, and other information and
assistance.
Many organizations are tracking State actions and statements
related to CPP. These include the E&E Publishing Clean Power Plan hub
(http://www.eenews.net/interactive/clean_power_plan), National
Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA), Association of Air Pollution
Control Agencies (AAPCA), and Environmental Council of States (ECOS).
market capacity study company list
Question. Based on our discussion regarding the EPA's
implementation of the directive for a market capacity study in the
fiscal year 2016 omnibus bill, I am seeking more information to
understand the extent to which EPA is engaged in substantial
consultation to inform that study. As such, please provide the
following information.
A list the company names EPA has consulted within the financial and
insurance sectors to prepare the market capacity study required by the
fiscal year 2016 omnibus.
Answer. The EPA is conducting a market study that addresses
requests for information included with several committee reports. The
draft study examines both the current state and future outlook of the
markets for financial responsibility instruments based on publically
available and attributable data from the U.S. Department of Treasury,
U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), S&P Global Ratings,
industry leaders, and non-profit institutions.
The draft study report is currently undergoing internal review. The
EPA expects to make the report available before it issues the proposed
hard rock mining rule.
As part of its ongoing efforts to develop the proposed Hard Rock
Mining rule under CERCLA 108(b), the EPA has met with XL Catlin, ACE
group, Great American Insurance, Zurich, Liberty Mutual, Deutsche Bank,
U.S. Bank, JP Morgan Chase and Argo Surety. The EPA also has met with
the American Banking Association, the Institute of International
Banking Law and Practice, and the Surety Fidelity Association of
America. These discussions focused primarily on the agency's current
thinking related to the mechanics of the financial responsibility
instruments that owners and operators would need to obtain under the
rule.
market capacity study company--detailed information
Question. Based on our discussion regarding the EPA's
implementation of the directive for a market capacity study in the
fiscal year 2016 omnibus bill, I am seeking more information to
understand the extent to which EPA is engaged in substantial
consultation to inform that study. As such, please provide the
following information.
In addition to the list of company names, detailed information on
the initial outreach to the financial and insurance sectors, including:
the date of the first communication; and the letter, e-mail, or other
form of written communication regarding the consultation process.
Question. Based on our discussion regarding the EPA's
implementation of the directive for a market capacity study in the
fiscal year 2016 omnibus bill, I am seeking more information to
understand the extent to which EPA is engaged in substantial
consultation to inform that study. As such, please provide the
following information.
Detailed information on the consultation process, including: the
dates of each meeting or conference call held with the financial and
insurance sectors; the participants of each meeting or conference call
(including EPA headquarters and regional staff); and all materials
shared with the financial and insurance sectors during this
consultation process.
Answer. Below are the dates of each meeting or conference call held
with the financial and insurance sectors. The EPA also includes numbers
and affiliations of participants. No EPA regional staff participated in
the meetings or calls.
December 8, 2015 meeting with insurance community. Meeting
participants included Great American Insurance (one representative), XL
Catlin (three representatives), ACE group (one representative), EPA
Headquarters (HQ) (13 representatives), and two representatives of ICF
International (an EPA contractor).
January 12, 2016 meeting with banking community. Meeting
participants included Institute of International Banking Law and
Practice (four representatives), J.P. Morgan Chase (one
representative), U.S. Bank (one representative), EPA HQ (8
representatives) and two representatives of ICF International (an EPA
contractor).
January 14, 2016 meeting with surety community. Meeting
participants included Zurich (one representative), Argo Surety (one
representative), Liberty Mutual (two representatives), the Surety
Fidelity Association of America (two representatives), EPA HQ (6
representatives) and two representatives of ICF International (an EPA
contractor).
January 28, 2016 meeting with banking community. Meeting
participants included Deutsche Bank (two representatives), U.S. Bank
(five representatives), American Banking Association (one
representative), EPA HQ (8 representatives), and two representatives of
ICF International (an EPA contractor).
February 1, 2016--Follow-up clarification call with JP Morgan (one
participant) and EPA HQ (3 representatives).
February 1, 2016--Follow-up clarification call with Zurich (one
participant) and EPA HQ (3 representatives).
February 3, 2016--Follow-up clarification call with Argo (one
participant) and EPA HQ (3 representatives).
February 29, 2016--Follow-up call with U.S. Bank (five
participants) and EPA HQ (5 representatives).
market capacity study--epa plan
Question. Based on our discussion regarding the EPA's
implementation of the directive for a market capacity study in the
fiscal year 2016 omnibus bill, I am seeking more information to
understand the extent to which EPA is engaged in substantial
consultation to inform that study. As such, please provide the
following information.
Please describe the agency's plans to continue this consultation
process as it develops the proposed rule this year.
Answer. The EPA has completed its consultation process. The draft
study report is currently undergoing internal review. The EPA expects
to make the report available before it issues the proposed hard rock
mining rule. Members of the financial and insurance industry will have
additional opportunity to provide input during the public comment
period on the proposed rule. The EPA intends to monitor how the market
responds to any final CERCLA 108(b) regulations.
cercla--hardrock
Question. EPA states in its ``CERCLA Section 108(b) Hardrock Mining
Rule Structure Overview'' filed with the D.C. Circuit on August 31,
2015: ``To determine the amount of financial assurance responsibility
required for response costs, the Agency is developing a model that
would identify an amount of financial responsibility to reflect the
primary site conditions that may result in future costs.'' Has the
agency shared a draft of the model, or at minimum elements of the
model, with the financial and insurance sectors?
If yes, please include these materials with your response. If not,
please provide a detailed explanation of why such materials were not
shared to date and provide a specific timeline for when these materials
will be shared in the consultation process.
Answer. The EPA is developing a cost formula for determining the
amount of financial assurance obligations that owners and operators
will be required to cover under the rule, as noted above. The process
for determining the required financial assurance amount was not
relevant to the EPA's consultation with the financial and insurance
sectors, which was focused primarily on the mechanics of the financial
responsibility instruments that owners and operators would need to
obtain under the rule.
The development of this cost formula has been one of the more
complex components in developing the CERCLA 108(b) proposed rule for
hard rock mining. Data collection and formula development have been
very time consuming endeavors. The formula is currently in the process
of being reviewed and tested. The EPA also is drafting preamble
language and regulatory text addressing how the formula is to be used
by owners and operators. The EPA provided descriptive information on
the formula and associated inputs in a May public Webinar, which
attracted more than 400 participants. Many participants were from the
financial and insurance sectors. The Webinar is available at https://
clu-in.org/conf/tio/108b/slides/CERCLA-108b-webinar.pdf.
cercla--108b rule
Question. I understand that the EPA has consulted with the U.S.
Department of Interior's Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's U.S. Forest Service (USFS) on potential
duplication between the CERCLA 108(b) rule and their existing programs.
Please indicate the dates and duration of any consultation meetings or
conference calls between the Agency and BLM and USFS and provide the
materials shared with the departments for this consultation.
Answer. Below is a summary listing of dates upon which the EPA held
consultation meetings with BLM and USFS. These meetings were designed
to begin developing a joint path forward for requirements for hard rock
mining financial responsibility on Federal lands. Through these
meetings, the EPA learned about the other agencies' financial
responsibility regulations for hard rock mining and their
implementation, technical staff from all three agencies looked at
selected issues regarding cost estimating and financial instruments,
and the EPA communicated about CERCLA 108(b) and current thinking
regarding potential approaches for the development of a proposed rule.
EPA--BLM--USFS Meetings on CERCLA 108(b)
Policy Group
July 5, 2012
August 8, 2012
September 12, 2012
October 10, 2012
April 10, 2013
November 18, 2013
December 11, 2013
Workgroups
Kick Off Both Groups
January 25, 2013
Technical Workgroup Financial Workgroup
January 30, 2013 February 19, 2013
February 13, 2013 March 5, 2013
February 20, 2013 March 19, 2013
March 20, 2013
As the EPA thinking has progressed, the Agency has held additional
meetings with BLM and USFS. In addition, these agencies have
participated in a meeting with the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) and the Small Business Administration (SBA) in advance of the
EPA's planned SBREFA (Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
Act) panel for the rulemaking:
--July 2, 2015.--The EPA met with BLM and USFS regarding the EPA's
current thinking and approach for CERCLA 108(b) proposed
regulations for hard rock mines. Meeting duration: 1 hour.
--May 10, 2016.--The EPA met with BLM and USFS regarding the EPA's
current thinking and approach for CERCLA 108(b) proposed
regulations for hard rock mines. Meeting duration: 1 hour.
--May 11, 2016.--BLM and USFS participated in meeting with the EPA,
OMB and SBA. Meeting duration: 1.5 hours.
cercla--108b requirements
Question. Please provide the legal analysis and supporting
materials the agency relied on for concluding that Section 108(b)
requirements are distinct from Federal closure and reclamation bonding
requirements imposed under other statues.
Answer. The EPA is scheduled to propose CERCLA Section 108(b)
regulations for the hard rock mining industry by December 1, 2016. The
objective is to promulgate stand-alone financial responsibility
requirements under CERCLA, for CERCLA liabilities, and not for any
obligations under other statutes. The agency does not expect the
proposed rule to include technical requirements regulating the
operation, closure, or reclamation of hardrock mining facilities, nor
to provide for financial responsibility to ensure closure or
reclamation requirements made applicable to hardrock mining facilities
through a permit. Furthermore, the regulations are not expected to
determine that a CERCLA response is required at any given regulated
facility, nor affect CERCLA liability when an owner or operator
provides evidence of financial responsibility.
The EPA is studying how CERCLA 108(b) requirements may relate to or
interact with other Federal laws; however, this rulemaking is still
ongoing and is currently at the pre-proposal development stage. Neither
legal conclusions nor factual findings have been made.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Roy Blunt
presidential memorandum--section 1
Question. Please articulate the ``clear and consistent approach for
avoidance and minimization of, and compensatory mitigation for, the
impacts of (the agency's) activities and the projects (the agency)
approve(s)'' that EPA will adopt in accordance with Section 1 of the
Presidential Memorandum (PM). How does this approach compare to current
EPA policy and practice?
Answer. The EPA's approach for mitigating adverse impacts to
wetlands, streams, and other aquatic resources (i.e., avoidance,
minimization and compensation) is described in the agency's regulations
40 CFR Part 230, promulgated in 1980. In 2008, the EPA, in coordination
with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, revised these regulations to
include more detailed standards for compensatory mitigation. The
agency's regulations, and corresponding policies and practices, are
consistent with Section 1 of the Presidential Memorandum (PM) and,
therefore, we do not anticipate the need to make significant changes in
response to the PM.
presidential memorandum--net gain
Question. Does EPA believe the PM establishes a ``net gain'' goal
for mitigation activities required or recommended by Federal agencies
as articulated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in its draft
revised Mitigation Policy? If so, please define ``net gain,'' including
how it will be measured and how much will be required or recommended?
Answer. The Presidential Memorandum (PM) encourages agencies to
establish a net benefit goal or, at a minimum, a no net loss goal for
certain natural resources the agencies manage ``[t]o the extent
permitted by each agency's legal authorities.'' While the Fish and
Wildlife Service's draft Mitigation Policy does seek to incorporate
this goal, the EPA is currently evaluating how a ``net gain'' goal
might be applied to its programs.
presidential memorandum--clean water act--section 404
Question. Does EPA believe ``Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
codifies the significance of wetlands and other waters of the United
States as important public resources for their habitat value, among
other functions'' as stated by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in its
draft revised Mitigation Policy? How does the PM affect respective
jurisdictional responsibilities for EPA and U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service under the Clean Water Act?
Answer. The EPA regulations at 40 CFR Part 230 that implement Clean
Water Act section 404 identify wetlands and other specified resources
as special aquatic sites and provide specialized requirements aimed to
afford such resources greater protections. The Presidential Memorandum
does not alter existing jurisdictional responsibilities for the EPA and
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under the Clean Water Act.
presidential memorandum--large-scale plans
Question. Please explain how EPA's use of ``large-scale plans'' in
``identifying how proposed projects potentially impact natural
resources and to guide better decisionmaking for mitigation'' as
directed in Section 3 of the PM will compare to current practice in
terms of procedures and outcomes.
Answer. The Presidential Memorandum's recommendations regarding the
use of large-scale plans to inform mitigation decisionmaking are
consistent with the watershed approach to mitigation adopted by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the EPA joint regulations issued in
2008. The watershed approach encourages reliance on watershed plans to
make more informed decisions about the type and location of mitigation
projects. The ultimate goal of the watershed approach is to maintain
and improve the quality and quantity of aquatic resources within
watersheds through strategic selection of mitigation sites. For
additional information see 33 CFR Part 332.3(c) and 40 CFR Part
230.93(c).
national drought resilience partnership--goals #4 and #5
Question. As presented in the Federal Action Plan of the National
Drought Resilience Partnership issued in concert with the PM, what is
EPA's role relative to implementation actions ``Enhance Federal drought
resilience investments at the watershed scale'' (Goal #4) and ``Support
state local strategies for more flexible water management'' (Goal #5)?
Answer. The EPA will continue to fully engage with the National
Drought Resilience Partnership (NDRP) in support of the Goals and
Implementation Actions described in the Federal Action Plan. With
respect to Goal 4 Implementation Action ``Enhance Federal Drought
Resilience Investments at the Watershed Scale'' and Goal 5
Implementation Action ``Support State and Local Strategies for More
Flexible Water Management,'' the EPA is listed as a supporting agency
to USDA and DOI. Over the coming months, specific activities pertaining
to these and other Implementation Actions found in the Action plan will
be developed. The exact nature of each agency's role also will be
developed as the agencies move forward.
As it states within the NDRP Action Plan, the overall objective of
Goal 4 is to improve coordination and integration of drought-related
activities to enhance the collective benefits of Federal programs and
investments. The best way to accomplish this is through better
coordination and collaboration within the Federal Government and with
stakeholders on the ground. The EPA is in a position to promote this
type of work based upon our strong working relationship with the
States, specifically in terms of the State Revolving Funds (SRF). While
specific activities have not yet been determined as stated above, the
EPA's assistance could entail a review of each State's SRF intended use
plans. These plans outline a State's list of priority projects for SRF
funding. Working within the Federal partnership, the EPA can share
information as to where and when projects will be underway and assist
in identifying potential leveraging opportunities for other Federal
funds.
In terms of Goal 5, specific implementation has not been fully
determined; however, the EPA anticipates its role to be related to
working with communities that are experiencing drinking water
shortages. The EPA has many strong relationships with small communities
and tribes that could benefit from increased water use flexibility and
working with their on the ground partners, as these small communities
and tribes are usually disproportionally impacted during drought. An
important aspect of this action is ensuring that the EPA is fully
partnering with the appropriate State agencies.
presidential memorandum--wildwood missouri
Question. Residents of Wildwood, Missouri remain very concerned
with the public health risks that may still remain within the
Ellisville Site and its subsites. Past removal actions have been
undertaken, but I have heard from constituents that certain areas still
remain contaminated at concentrations above residential standards. This
is despite numerous existing residences being located adjacent to the
site and other new residences currently proposed to be developed. Has
the EPA considered a complete cleanup to residential standards and the
reinstitution of the 5-year CERCLA Review to address these concerns?
Answer. Yes, the EPA continues to consider conducting Five-Year
Reviews (FYRs) where appropriate. The Ellisville Superfund Site was
added to the National Priorities List (NPL) in 1983 and is comprised of
three non-contiguous subsites near Wildwood, Missouri, with subsite
designation as OU1 (Rosalie), OU2 (Bliss), and OU3 (Callahan). With
regards to cleanup standards and, as discussed below, the EPA does not
consider affected areas at OU2 Bliss to be ``residential'' and,
therefore, applied recreational site-specific cleanup goals to reflect
this area's current and projected land use.
--OU1 Rosalie: In 1980, more than 200 buried drums were encountered
and subsequently removed from the Rosalie subsite. The EPA
followed that work with a remedial investigation and
feasibility study, which resulted in a Record of Decision that
selected off-site disposal of contaminated soil, drums, cans
and debris to be followed by backfill and re-seeding. In 1986,
the State conducted an investigation to determine if any
residual contamination was left behind at the former excavation
areas. The investigation showed that all test results were
below the EPA's residential screening levels for soil. The
Rosalie subsite is not subject to FYRs because the subsite is
being cleaned up to allow for residential use, with no
contamination left in place. The EPA is not considering the
Rosalie subsite for deletion at this time.
--OU2 Bliss: The EPA conducted on-site soil sampling that included an
area north of a planned residential development and within the
planned residential development itself. The sampling results
within the planned residential development did not exceed
residential screening levels. In the area north of the planned
residential area, results identified soil with elevated
concentrations of dioxin. The EPA determined that site
conditions could pose a threat to public health and welfare and
completed the removal and the disposal of 1,545 tons of dioxin-
contaminated waste in March 2015. A residential standard was
not deemed appropriate because, among other reasons, it is an
area of brush, trees, meadow and drainage that do not meet the
residential use. The EPA continues to engage in discussions
with the community, State agencies, and elected officials to
collaboratively ensure long-term stewardship and
protectiveness.
--OU3 Callahan: After a 2012 removal action, the partial NPL deletion
process was started for the Callahan subsite since no waste was
left in place. An evaluation of all subsite data concluded that
the Callahan property no longer posed unacceptable human health
risks for any type of exposure, including residential use. The
Callahan subsite is not subject to FYRs because the subsite is
being cleaned up to allow for residential use, with no
contamination left in place. Based on all requirements in the
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan (40 CFR 300.425(e)) being met, the EPA concluded that the
Callahan subsite could and should be deleted from the NPL. The
proposed partial deletion was published in the Federal Register
on March 18, 2016, and the EPA is currently evaluating public
comments on the proposed partial deletion.
community affordability
Question. EPA was asked to work with the National Academy of Public
Administrators to conduct an independent study to create a definition
of community affordability, this being a situation where a community
might be protected from their water rates going up too quickly, but
they might not be protected from their water rates hitting that cap and
two or three other things in the community hitting that cap. Can EPA
provide an update on where we are on this study?
Answer. The EPA is discussing possible approaches for the study
with the National Academy of Public Administrators and will proceed
with funding once a plan is finalized.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Steve Daines
methane emissions
Question. As you are aware, many States, including Montana, have
already implemented regulations to address methane emissions. Montana
has set a flaring limit of 100MCFG per day, and other States, including
Wyoming, have set even stricter rules. Can you confirm that your
pending rules on methane will allow those State existing regulations,
which meet the EPA's rule for new sources, to apply, thereby avoiding
unnecessary conflict and administrative burden for the States, EPA, and
industry while resulting in no added environmental benefit?
Answer. On May 12, 2016, the EPA issued three final rules that
together will curb emissions of methane, smog-forming volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), and toxic air pollutants, such as benzene, from new,
reconstructed and modified oil and gas sources, while providing greater
certainty about Clean Air Act permitting requirements for the industry.
A number of States regulate, or are considering regulating, air
pollution from the oil and natural gas industry, and the EPA's rules
allow them to continue to do so. Under the Clean Air Act, States have
the authority to regulate air emissions from sources within their
boundaries, provided their requirements are at least as protective as
Federal requirements. Because the EPA recognizes the importance of not
requiring industry to comply with duplicative requirements, the final
rule provides a pathway for companies to demonstrate that State
requirements to which they may be subject are equivalent to the
requirements established in the New Source Performance Standards
(NSPS). This pathway is in addition to States' ability to seek an
equivalency determination from the EPA.
clean air act
Question. In an attempt to regulate air quality, BLM has proposed a
rule that will regulate existing sources on Federal and Indian lands.
BLM has claimed their rule is necessary, and that it doesn't conflict
with EPA's pending methane rules because your rules cover only new
sources. However, you recently announced that EPA will, under the Clean
Air Act, pursue the nationwide regulation of methane from the very same
existing sources that BLM proposes to regulate. This appears to be in
direct conflict. Will you recommend that BLM remove the overlapping
requirements to avoid the conflict of two agencies contemporaneously
implementing rules on the exact same facilities?
Answer. The EPA is currently developing an ICR that will allow the
agency to collect the information that it needs to develop a proposal
regarding existing sources of oil and gas methane, so it is premature
to identify the requirements as overlapping.
As with the EPA's New Source Performance Standards for new,
modified, and reconstructed sources, EPA and BLM, where there is the
potential for overlap on existing source requirements, will coordinate
closely to ensure that the regulations do not conflict and that they
minimize any potential for duplication. BLM is still working to
complete its final rule and the EPA will continue to work with them to
identify ways to minimize potential conflicting requirements and will
continue to coordinate through the agencies' respective proposals and
final rulemakings.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Bill Cassidy
naaqs--2008 standard
Question. EPA is requesting $5.3 million to support the timely
issuance of National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) guidance and
implementation tools.
The 2015 revised ground level ozone standard resulted from a 7-year
review period at a time when the 2008 standard had not fully been
implemented. The implementation rules for the 2008 standard were not
even released until February 2015. Then, in October 2015, EPA
subsequently lowered the 2008 ozone standard from 75 parts per billion
(ppb) to 70 ppb.
In the Agency's budget request, it says, ``The agency will continue
to engage communities to be full partners in agency programs that make
a visible difference in their community by working to provide holistic
central mechanisms to support, assist, and engage with disadvantaged
communities and vulnerable populations, including tribal populations,
rural communities and children.
In 2015, I and several of my colleagues with medical backgrounds
wrote you to express our concern with lowering the ozone standard. In
that letter, it says, ``If the true intent here is to improve public
health, then the Agency should factor how its ozone proposal affects
every aspect of human health--including impacts from unemployment,
poverty, and reduced access to health insurance. Public health should
not be viewed in a vacuum, but rather considered holistically, mindful
of the correlation between health and the economy.''
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) predicts that ozone
levels will continue to improve through the next decade and that a vast
majority of these counties will attain a 70 ppb standard by 2025 under
other existing Federal, State, and local requirements and industry
efforts.
Doesn't it makes sense to get the 2008 standard implemented before
burdening States with double-regulation?
The National Association of Clean Air Agencies testified to EPA
that the new ozone standard ``will have a profound impact on the work
of State and local air pollution control agencies.'' Did EPA assess
what impact implementing the new ozone standards would have on State
and local agencies already implementing the 2008 standard--shouldn't
these standards be harmonized?
EPA chose to project the costs of its new ozone standard to 2025.
Since EPA bases its entire economic analysis on predicted 2025 air
quality, will the Agency support extending compliance deadlines under
the standards to 2025?
EPA chose to project the costs of its new ozone standard to 2025
since that would be the year in which most counties would have to
attain the standards if granted compliance extensions. If EPA assumed
longer compliance deadlines, would it support legislation extending
those deadlines?
EPA has said that most counties won't need to attain its stringent
ozone standards until 2025. But counties in nonattainment areas will
face severe regulatory consequences in just 3 years, and the new
standards become immediately effective for permits to expand business.
EPA seems to want us to think these standards are a ``next decade''
problem, but aren't they a now problem?
Answer. The EPA and State co-regulators share a long history of
managing ozone air quality under the Clean Air Act (CAA), underpinned
by previously issued EPA rules and guidance. The overall framework and
policy approach reflected in the implementing regulations for the 2008
ozone standards provide an effective and appropriate template for the
general approach States would follow in planning for attainment of the
2015 ozone NAAQS. Planning and implementation work to meet the 2015
ozone standard will build on progress States already have made to plan
for and meet the 2008 standards. In particular for areas where States
are still actively working toward attaining the 2008 ozone NAAQS, 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. Following past
precedent, the EPA intends to propose revoking the 2008 standards and
provide transition rules intended to help avoid any potential
inefficiencies as States begin implementing the Clean Air Act's
requirements for the 2015 standards. Accordingly, States' planning will
not need to focus on the 2008 and 2015 standards concurrently.
The Clean Air Act governs the process and timing for initial area
designations and associated compliance deadlines after the EPA
establishes a new or revised NAAQS.
Following Clean Air Act requirements, the EPA anticipates the
following schedule for the 2015 ozone NAAQS:
--By October 2017: The EPA will issue final area designations. Those
designations likely will be based on 2014-2016 air quality
data. If preconstruction permitting program requirements for
the nonattainment area do not already exist, Federal permitting
regulations will apply until they are replaced by State-adopted
programs.
--2019: States will submit area specific inventories of ozone-
producing emissions.
--2020 to 2021: For nonattainment areas classified as ``moderate''
and above, States, and any tribes that choose to do so will
complete development of implementation plans, outlining how
they will reduce pollution to meet the standards. State and
tribal plans can include Federal measures and any local or
statewide measures needed to demonstrate that a nonattainment
area will meet the standards by its attainment date.
--2020 to 2037: Nonattainment areas are required to meet the primary
(health) standard, with deadlines depending on the severity of
an area's ozone problem.
The EPA views any delay in implementation of the ozone standards as
unnecessary and harmful to public health and the environment. Delaying
the implementation schedule for the 2015 ozone standard would
jeopardize progress toward cleaner air and delay health protections for
millions of Americans, including children, older adults, and people
with asthma. For ozone, the EPA estimates that meeting the 70 ppb
standard will yield health benefits valued at $2.9 billion to $5.9
billion annually in 2025 nationwide, not counting the health benefits
that will be achieved in later years in California. These benefits
include avoiding 320 to 660 premature deaths; 230,000 asthma attacks in
children; and 160,000 days when children do not attend school. Delaying
the designations process also would deny citizens in potential
nonattainment areas the information they need about air quality to
protect their families from ozone exposure. Forty-five years of clean
air regulation have shown that a strong economy and strong
environmental and public health protection go hand-in-hand.
ecolabels
Question. Last September, EPA published an interim recommendation
for environmental standards as well as ecolabels for use in Federal
procurement. EPA's recommendation for lumber includes the Forest
Stewardship Council (FSC) Certified but excludes other credible sources
such as the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) and the American Tree
Farm System (ATFS). In Louisiana, nearly 4 million acres or 85 percent
of all certified lumber is SFI or ATFS certified.
During the hearing you said, ``. . . EPA recognizes that their
needs to be an expansion of that certification so that others can be
readily recognized, because I want what you want which is to have our
forests sustainably managed and to use whatever leverage we have to
provide the economic incentive for that so we are talking to folks and
looking at that in seeing how we can expand the certifications that are
recognized"
How is EPA reconsidering its lumber recommendations to ensure that
other credible and certified standards SFI and ATFS are recognized?
Answer. 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 in
order 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 the agency has updated the
Web site 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 Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-119. Finally, Sustainable
Forestry Initiative (SFI), American Tree Farm System (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 determination
Question. Last September, EPA published an interim recommendation
for environmental standards as well as ecolabels for use in Federal
procurement. EPA's recommendation for lumber includes the Forest
Stewardship Council (FSC) Certified but excludes other credible sources
such as the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) and the American Tree
Farm System (ATFS). In Louisiana, nearly 4 million acres or 85 percent
of all certified lumber is SFI or ATFS certified.
During the hearing you said, ``. . . EPA recognizes that their
needs to be an expansion of that certification so that others can be
readily recognized, because I want what you want which is to have our
forests sustainably managed and to use whatever leverage we have to
provide the economic incentive for that so we are talking to folks and
looking at that in seeing how we can expand the certifications that are
recognized"
When will this determination be made?
Answer. 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.
dicamba
Question. Given your past public statements on concluding your
agency's registration for new uses of dicamba in conjunction with
soybean and cotton products already in the market, will your agency
finalize the registration by the end of this summer so that
corresponding State registrations will enable farmers to have the full
flexibility of weed control options for the 2017 growing season?
Answer. On April 1, 2016, the EPA released the proposed decision to
register dicamba for public comment. The public comment period,
originally 30 days, was extended to May 31, 2016. The comment period
having now closed, the EPA will consider the comments received and make
a registration decision. The EPA expects to issue a decision by late
summer or early fall of 2016.
corn rootworm
Question. I understand that the EPA has been reviewing a new mode
of action to control corn rootworm for a number of years and has
recently completed a preliminary step in the process. As growers will
need additional modes of action to most effectively deal with this
pest, can you please provide the subcommittee with an update on when
registration for his new mode of action to control corn rootworm might
be expected?
Answer. The EPA recognizes that the corn rootworm is one of the
most troublesome pests confronting the Nation's corn growers. At this
time, the use of Plant Incorporated Protectants (PIPs), including Bt
corn, is one of the safest methods of insect control. If used properly,
PIP crops greatly reduce the need for conventional pesticides and the
risks they may pose to human health and the environment. For these
methods to continue to be available, it is essential that they remain
effective. Recognizing this, on February 18, 2016, the EPA released new
requirements to address corn rootworm resistance to Bt corn. The goal
of the requirements is to maintain the effectiveness of Bt corn by
delaying resistance and applying corrective measures if resistance is
confirmed. The EPA believes that these requirements will help growers
effectively deal with corn rootworm now and in the future.
The EPA is currently reviewing a corn rootworm application for
commercial use. This application represents a new mode of action to
control corn rootworm. This new mode of action is based on a natural
process that occurs in all living organisms called ``RNA
interference'', or ``RNAi''. Using RNAi, an organism can control when
key substances needed to grow and survive are turned on and off, and
how much is produced. The pesticide proposed for corn rootworm control
co-opts the RNAi process to shut off a key housekeeping function that
the corn rootworm needs to grow and live.
The agency plans to consult with the FIFRA Scientific Advisory
Panel (SAP) in the fall of 2016 on our risk assessment, which is
informed in part by an earlier SAP convened in January 2014 on
considerations for the assessment of RNAi used as a pesticide. The
agency hope to make a decision on the current application in the spring
2017.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Jack Reed
snep
Question. Can you share your thoughts on the value of efforts like
SNEP in taking a regional and integrated approach to issues of
combating nutrient pollution, ocean acidification, and other problems
with water quality? How can we make such efforts even more effective?
Answer. The EPA and Southern New England partners recognize that
addressing the impacts of nutrient pollution, loss of habitat, and
climate change on our coastal watersheds requires targeted regional and
watershed-wide solutions that reach upstream and downstream and across
State boundaries. The EPA also recognizes that these broad solutions
are best implemented at the local and municipal level. Since 2014, the
Southern New England Program (SNEP) has solicited and funded project
proposals that range from broad policy, technology, and management
innovations to municipal capacity-building and resource sharing.
Projects selected include testing innovative methods to treat and
remove nutrients, such as ``nature-based'' approaches involving
shellfish aquaculture and green infrastructure, exploring new financing
approaches, and data-sharing for wastewater management, including
septic systems. Other projects have fostered improved collaboration
across city and State lines to develop shared monitoring programs and
integrated planning, and have provided access to tools such as GIS,
improved septic system technology, and stormwater Best Management
Practice (BMP) design and construction improvements.
grant funding
Question. As you know, the fiscal year 2016 Omnibus Appropriations
Act allowed EPA to adjust the distribution of air monitoring
categorical grants. The problem is that without additional funding for
these grants, some States could lose important resources as the formula
is changed. The Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management is
particularly concerned about losing funding and possibly staff because
of changes in distribution of these resources. Can you explain how you
are working within a limited budget to make sure that States don't lose
funding and capacity because of the change in formula?
Answer. The EPA recognizes the challenges posed to State and local
air agencies in any region that might experience decreased resources
and the agency has consistently stated its intent to limit any region's
loss of resources to no more than 5 percent of its prior year funding
as a result of the revised allocation.
The EPA has determined that it is appropriate to apply additional
mitigating measures to prevent disruptions to ongoing State and local
air program operations in this first year of transition, given that the
EPA and State and local air agencies are well into fiscal year 2016.
For fiscal year 2016, the EPA is implementing the revised
allocation as follows:
--All regions will receive at least their fiscal year 2015 post
rescission funding levels.
--Regions slated to gain resources using the revised allocation
methodology from 2010 with updated data will receive modest
increases in funding.
beach act grant
Question. Can you please help me to understand why the fiscal year
2017 budget request eliminates funding for the Beach Act grant program?
Answer. After more than 15 years of States and tribes receiving
BEACH Act grants, they now have the technical expertise and procedures
in place to run beach monitoring programs. The agency is proposing to
eliminate certain mature program activities that are well-established,
well understood, and where there is the possibility of maintaining the
human health benefits through implementation at the local level.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Jon Tester
superfund sites
Question. Can EPA provide a list of all Superfund sites that have
been cleaned up and others that have been de-listed?
Answer. Deletion of a site from the Superfund National Priorities
List (NPL) signifies that all remedial action objectives for the site
have been achieved and no further response actions are required to
protect human health and the environment. The EPA equates deleted NPL
sites to the list of sites that have been ``cleaned up'' as stated in
the question, though institutional controls may be in place if waste
remains at the site at levels that prohibit unrestricted access. As of
May 19, 2016, 391 sites have been deleted from the NPL. The list of
deleted sites below is sorted by State and then site name. The EPA's
Superfund Web site contains current information on deleted sites:
https://www.epa.gov/superfund/npl-site-totals-status-and-milestone.
EPA's Superfund Web site also contains current information on sites
where all physical cleanup construction has been completed: https://
www.epa.gov/superfund/construction-completions-npl-sites-state.
TABLE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deleted
State Site Name City Zip County \1\ Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AK ALASKA BATTERY FAIRBANK 99701 FAIRBANKS 7/26/1996
ENTERPRISES S NORTH STAR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AK ARCTIC SURPLUS FAIRBANK 99701 N/A 9/25/2006
S
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AK STANDARD STEEL & ANCHORAG 99501 ANCHORAGE 9/30/2002
METAL SALVAGE E
YARD (USDOT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AL MOWBRAY GREENVIL 36037 BUTLER 12/30/1993
ENGINEERING CO. LE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AL REDWING SARALAND 36571 MOBILE 9/28/2015
CARRIERS, INC.
(SARALAND)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AR CECIL LINDSEY NEWPORT 72112 JACKSON 9/22/1989
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AR FRIT INDUSTRIES WALNUT 72476 LAWRENCE 10/14/1997
RIDGE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AR GURLEY PIT EDMONDSE 72332 CRITTENDEN 11/6/2003
N
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AR INDUSTRIAL WASTE FORT 72901 SEBASTIAN 4/7/2008
CONTROL SMITH
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AR JACKSONVILLE JACKSONV 72076 LONOKE 3/14/2000
MUNICIPAL ILLE
LANDFILL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AR MONROE AUTO PARAGOUL 72450 GREENE 9/29/2014
EQUIPMENT CO. D
(PARAGOULD PIT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AR ROGERS ROAD JACKSONV 72076 PULASKI 10/12/2010
MUNICIPAL ILLE
LANDFILL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AR SOUTH 8TH STREET WEST 72301 CRITTENDEN 9/28/2004
LANDFILL MEMPHIS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AS TAPUTIMU FARM PAGO 96799 N/A 3/7/1986
PAGO
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AZ LUKE AIR FORCE GLENDALE 85309 MARICOPA 4/22/2002
BASE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AZ MOUNTAIN VIEW GLOBE 85501 GILA 4/18/1988
MOBILE HOME
ESTATES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AZ NINETEENTH PHOENIX 85041 MARICOPA 9/25/2006
AVENUE LANDFILL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA CELTOR CHEMICAL HOOPA 95546 HUMBOLDT 9/30/2003
WORKS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA COALINGA COALINGA 93210 FRESNO 4/24/1998
ASBESTOS MINE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA DEL NORTE CRESCENT 95531 DEL NORTE 9/18/2002
PESTICIDE CITY
STORAGE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA FIRESTONE TIRE & SALINAS 93901 MONTEREY 4/21/2005
RUBBER CO.
(SALINAS PLANT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA JIBBOOM JUNKYARD SACRAMEN 95814 SACRAMENTO 9/10/1991
TO
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA LIQUID GOLD OIL RICHMOND 94804 CONTRA COSTA 9/11/1996
CORP.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA LOUISIANA- OROVILLE 95965 BUTTE 11/21/1996
PACIFIC CORP.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA RALPH GRAY WESTMINS 92683 ORANGE 9/28/2004
TRUCKING CO. TER
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA SAN FERNANDO GLENDALE 91209 LOS ANGELES 10/12/2004
VALLEY (AREA 3)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA SOLA OPTICAL PETALUMA 94952 SONOMA 10/31/2013
USA, INC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA SOUTHERN VISALIA 93277 TULARE 9/26/2009
CALIFORNIA
EDISON CO.
(VISALIA
POLEYARD)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA T.H. AGRICULTURE FRESNO 93727 FRESNO 8/21/2006
& NUTRITION CO.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA WESTERN PACIFIC OROVILLE 95965 BUTTE 8/29/2001
RAILROAD CO.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO SAND CREEK COMMERCE 80022 ADAMS 12/20/1996
INDUSTRIAL CITY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO SMUGGLER ASPEN 81611 PITKIN 9/23/1999
MOUNTAIN
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO WOODBURY COMMERCE 80022 ADAMS 3/22/1993
CHEMICAL CO. CITY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CT CHESHIRE GROUND CHESHIRE 6410 NEW HAVEN 7/2/1997
WATER
CONTAMINATION
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CT NUTMEG VALLEY WOLCOTT 6716 NEW HAVEN 9/23/2005
ROAD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CT REVERE TEXTILE STERLING 6377 WINDHAM 9/2/1994
PRINTS CORP.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DE COKER'S CHESWOLD 19936 KENT 8/2/2011
SANITATION
SERVICE
LANDFILLS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DE NEW CASTLE SPILL NEW 19720 NEW CASTLE 6/12/1996
CASTLE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DE NEW CASTLE STEEL NEW 19720 NEW CASTLE 3/17/1989
CASTLE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DE SEALAND LIMITED MIDDLETO 19709 NEW CASTLE 7/1/1997
WN
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DE SUSSEX COUNTY LAUREL 19956 SUSSEX 9/28/2001
LANDFILL NO. 5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DE TYLER SMYRNA 19977 KENT 3/29/2004
REFRIGERATION
PIT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DE WILDCAT LANDFILL DOVER 19901 KENT 3/14/2003
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FL ALPHA CHEMICAL LAKELAND 33810 POLK 6/28/1995
CORP.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FL ANACONDA MIAMI 33147 MIAMI-DADE 7/9/1998
ALUMINUM CO./
MILGO
ELECTRONICS
CORP.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FL B&B CHEMICAL HIALEAH 33010 MIAMI-DADE 8/5/2014
CO., INC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FL BEULAH LANDFILL PENSACOL 32506 ESCAMBIA 6/22/1998
A
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FL BMI-TEXTRON LAKE 33403 PALM BEACH 11/18/2002
PARK
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FL BROWN WOOD LIVE OAK 32060 SUWANNEE 9/22/1995
PRESERVING
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FL CALLAWAY & SON LAKE 33850 POLK 8/4/2009
DRUM SERVICE ALFRED
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FL CHEMFORM, INC. POMPANO 33069 BROWARD 7/28/2000
BEACH
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FL COLEMAN-EVANS WHITEHOU 32220 DUVAL 5/27/2014
WOOD PRESERVING SE
CO.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FL DAVIE LANDFILL DAVIE 33314 BROWARD 8/21/2006
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FL DUBOSE OIL CANTONME 32533 ESCAMBIA 10/1/2004
PRODUCTS CO. NT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FL GOLD COAST OIL MIAMI 33155 MIAMI-DADE 10/9/1996
CORP.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FL HIPPS ROAD DUVAL 32222 DUVAL 2/27/2011
LANDFILL COUNTY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FL KASSAUF- TAMPA 33619 HILLSBOROUGH 10/2/2000
KIMERLING
BATTERY
DISPOSAL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FL MUNISPORT NORTH 33161 MIAMI-DADE 9/24/1999
LANDFILL MIAMI
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FL NORTHWEST 58TH HIALEAH 33012 MIAMI-DADE 10/11/1996
STREET LANDFILL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FL PARRAMORE MOUNT 32352 GADSDEN 2/21/1989
SURPLUS PLEASAN
T
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FL PIONEER SAND CO. WARRINGT 32506 ESCAMBIA 2/8/1993
ON
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FL SCHUYLKILL PLANT 33566 HILLSBOROUGH 8/22/2001
METALS CORP. CITY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FL SIXTY-SECOND TAMPA 33619 HILLSBOROUGH 10/1/1999
STREET DUMP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FL STANDARD AUTO HIALEAH 33010 MIAMI-DADE 10/26/2007
BUMPER CORP.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FL TRI-CITY OIL TAMPA 33617 HILLSBOROUGH 9/1/1988
CONSERVATIONI
ST, INC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FL VARSOL SPILL MIAMI 33159 MIAMI-DADE 9/1/1988
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FL WILSON CONCEPTS POMPANO 33069 BROWARD 4/4/1995
OF FLORIDA, BEACH
INC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FL WOODBURY PRINCETO 33032 MIAMI-DADE 11/27/1995
CHEMICAL CO. N
(PRINCETON
PLANT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FL YELLOW WATER BALDWIN 32234 DUVAL 5/18/1999
ROAD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FM PCB WASTES PALAU 96950 N/A 3/7/1986
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GA CEDARTOWN CEDARTOW 30125 POLK 9/19/2006
INDUSTRIES, N
INC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GA CEDARTOWN CEDARTOW 30125 POLK 3/10/1999
MUNICIPAL N
LANDFILL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GA LUMINOUS ATHENS 30622 CLARKE 12/30/1982
PROCESSES, INC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GA MONSANTO CORP. AUGUSTA 30903 RICHMOND 3/9/1998
(AUGUSTA PLANT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GA POWERSVILLE SITE PEACH 31074 PEACH 11/1/2010
COUNTY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HI SCHOFIELD SCHOFIEL 96857 HONOLULU 8/10/2000
BARRACKS D
(USARMY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IA AIDEX CORP. MINEOLA 51554 MILLS 10/21/1993
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IA E.I. DU PONT DE WEST 52656 LEE 9/25/1995
NEMOURS & CO., POINT
INC. (COUNTY
ROAD X23)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IA FARMERS' MUTUAL HOSPERS 51238 SIOUX 11/13/2001
COOPERATIVE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IA JOHN DEERE OTTUMWA 52501 WAPELLO 1/22/2001
(OTTUMWA WORKS
LANDFILLS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IA LABOUNTY CHARLES 50616 FLOYD 10/6/1993
CITY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IA MID-AMERICA SERGEANT 51054 WOODBURY 9/24/2004
TANNING CO. BLUFF
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IA NORTHWESTERN MASON 50401 CERRO GORDO 8/31/1995
STATES PORTLAND CITY
CEMENT CO.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IA RED OAK CITY RED OAK 51566 MONTGOMERY 9/26/2005
LANDFILL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IA SHELLER-GLOBE KEOKUK 52632 LEE 9/24/2001
CORP. DISPOSAL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IA WHITE FARM CHARLES 50616 FLOYD 10/30/2000
EQUIPMENT CO. CITY
DUMP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ID ARRCOM (DREXLER RATHDRUM 83858 KOOTENAI 12/23/1992
ENTERPRISES)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ID PACIFIC HIDE & POCATELL 83201 BANNOCK 11/4/1999
FUR RECYCLING O
CO.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ID UNION PACIFIC POCATELL 83201 BANNOCK 9/22/1997
RAILROAD CO. O
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IL A & F MATERIAL GREENUP 62428 CUMBERLAND 6/11/2012
RECLAIMING,
INC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IL BELVIDERE BELVIDER 61008 BOONE 2/9/2015
MUNICIPAL E
LANDFILL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IL ILADA ENERGY CO. EAST 62957 ALEXANDER 1/8/2001
CAPE
GIRARDE
AU
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IL KERR-MCGEE (REED- WEST 60185 DUPAGE 2/8/2010
KEPPLER PARK) CHICAGO
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IL KERR-MCGEE WEST 60185 DUPAGE 4/22/2013
(SEWAGE CHICAGO
TREATMENT
PLANT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IL PETERSEN SAND & LIBERTYV 60048 LAKE 2/11/1991
GRAVEL ILLE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN CARTER LEE INDIANAP 46222 MARION 7/9/1996
LUMBER CO. OLIS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN COLUMBUS OLD COLUMBUS 47201 BARTHOLOMEW 1/24/2014
MUNICIPAL
LANDFILL #1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN INTERNATIONAL TERRE 47802 VIGO 2/11/1991
MINERALS (E. HAUTE
PLANT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN NEAL'S DUMP SPENCER 47460 OWEN 10/4/1999
(SPENCER)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN POER FARM HANCOCK 46117 HANCOCK 2/11/1991
COUNTY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN SOUTHSIDE INDIANAP 46221 MARION 7/3/1997
SANITARY OLIS
LANDFILL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN TRI-STATE COLUMBUS 47201 BARTHOLOMEW 7/14/1997
PLATING
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN WASTE, INC., MICHIGAN 46360 LA PORTE 10/20/2008
LANDFILL CITY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN WEDZEB LEBANON 46052 BOONE 9/10/1991
ENTERPRISES,
INC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN WHITEFORD SALES SOUTH 46619 ST. JOSEPH 9/6/1996
& SERVICE INC./ BEND
NATIONALEASE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
KS 29TH & MEAD WICHITA 67219 SEDGWICK 4/29/1996
GROUND WATER
CONTAMINATION
------------------------------------------------------------------------
KS ARKANSAS CITY ARKANSAS 67005 COWLEY 3/1/1996
DUMP CITY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
KS BIG RIVER SAND WICHITA 67205 SEDGWICK 10/14/1992
CO.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
KS HYDRO-FLEX INC. TOPEKA 66618 SHAWNEE 11/9/1993
------------------------------------------------------------------------
KS JOHNS' SLUDGE WICHITA 67212 SEDGWICK 1/6/1992
POND
------------------------------------------------------------------------
KY A.L. TAYLOR BROOKS 40165 BULLITT 5/17/1996
(VALLEY OF
DRUMS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
KY GENERAL TIRE & MAYFIELD 42066 GRAVES 10/27/2000
RUBBER CO.
(MAYFIELD
LANDFILL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
KY HOWE VALLEY HOWE 42732 HARDIN 7/26/1996
LANDFILL VALLEY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
KY LEE'S LANE LOUISVIL 40216 JEFFERSON 4/25/1996
LANDFILL LE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
KY NATIONAL HAWESVIL 42348 HANCOCK 10/5/2015
SOUTHWIRE LE
ALUMINUM CO.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
KY NEWPORT DUMP NEWPORT 41072 CAMPBELL 6/3/1996
------------------------------------------------------------------------
KY RED PENN PEEWEE 40014 OLDHAM 9/14/2001
SANITATION CO. VALLEY
LANDFILL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LA BAYOU SORREL BAYOU 70764 IBERVILLE 9/29/1997
SORREL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LA CENTRAL WOOD SLAUGHTE 70722 EAST 9/18/2009
PRESERVING CO. R FELICIANA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LA CLEVE REBER SORRENTO 70778 N/A 12/30/1997
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LA D.L. MUD, INC. ABBEVILL 70510 VERMILION 3/7/2000
E
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LA DELATTE METALS PONCHATO 70454 N/A 8/8/2005
ULA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LA DUTCHTOWN ASCENSIO 70734 N/A 11/16/1999
TREATMENT PLANT N
PARISH
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LA GULF COAST ABBEVILL 70510 N/A 7/23/2001
VACUUM SERVICES E
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LA MALLARD BAY GRAND 70542 N/A 9/19/2005
LANDING BULK CHENIER
PLANT E
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LA OLD INGER OIL DARROW 70725 N/A 8/12/2008
REFINERY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LA PAB OIL & ABBEVILL 70510 N/A 1/3/2000
CHEMICAL E
SERVICE, INC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LA RUSTON FOUNDRY ALEXANDR 71302 N/A 7/13/2010
IA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LA SOUTHERN SLIDELL 70459 N/A 6/16/1998
SHIPBUILDING
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MA CANNON BRIDGEWA 2324 PLYMOUTH 9/24/2013
ENGINEERING TER
CORP. (CEC)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MA FORT DEVENS- SUDBURY 1775 MIDDLESEX 1/29/2002
SUDBURY
TRAINING ANNEX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MA MATERIALS WATERTOW 2172 MIDDLESEX 11/21/2006
TECHNOLOGY N
LABORATORY
(USARMY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MA NORWOOD PCBS NORWOOD 2062 NORFOLK 5/31/2011
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MA PLYMOUTH HARBOR/ PLYMOUTH 2360 PLYMOUTH 11/19/1993
CANNON
ENGINEERING
CORP.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MA SALEM ACRES SALEM 1970 ESSEX 7/23/2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MD CHEMICAL METALS BALTIMOR 21230 BALTIMORE 12/30/1982
INDUSTRIES, E CITY
INC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MD MID-ATLANTIC HARMANS 21077 ANNE ARUNDEL 7/18/2000
WOOD
PRESERVERS,
INC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MD MIDDLETOWN ROAD ANNAPOLI 21401 ANNE ARUNDEL 4/18/1988
DUMP S
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MD SOUTHERN HOLLYWOO 20636 ST. MARY'S 4/5/2005
MARYLAND WOOD D
TREATING
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ME O'CONNOR CO. AUGUSTA 4330 KENNEBEC 7/22/2014
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ME PINETTE'S WASHBURN 4786 AROOSTOOK 9/30/2002
SALVAGE YARD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ME SACO TANNERY SACO 4072 YORK 9/29/1999
WASTE PITS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MI ANDERSON ADRIAN 49221 LENAWEE 1/26/1996
DEVELOPMENT CO.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MI AVENUE ``E'' TRAVERSE 49684 GRAND 3/20/2007
GROUND WATER CITY TRAVERSE
CONTAMINATION
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MI BERLIN & FARRO SWARTZ 48473 GENESEE 6/24/1998
CREEK
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MI BURROWS HARTFORD 49057 VAN BUREN 7/14/2015
SANITATION
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MI CARTER DETROIT 48208 WAYNE 3/25/1997
INDUSTRIALS,
INC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MI CEMETERY DUMP ROSE 48442 OAKLAND 4/19/1995
CENTER
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MI CHARLEVOIX CHARLEVO 49720 CHARLEVOIX 12/2/1993
MUNICIPAL WELL IX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MI CLIFF/DOW DUMP MARQUETT 49855 MARQUETTE 11/17/2000
E
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MI FOLKERTSMA GRAND 49504 KENT 4/10/1996
REFUSE RAPIDS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MI GRATIOT COUNTY ST. 48880 GRATIOT 9/8/1983
GOLF COURSE LOUIS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MI H & K SALES BELDING 48809 IONIA 5/21/1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MI KENT CITY MOBILE KENT 49330 KENT 3/20/1995
HOME PARK CITY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MI LOWER ECORSE WYANDOTT 48192 WAYNE 7/1/2005
CREEK DUMP E
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MI MASON COUNTY PERE 49431 MASON 9/9/1999
LANDFILL MARQUET
TE TWP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MI METAL WORKING LAKE ANN 49650 BENZIE 12/23/1992
SHOP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MI NOVACO TEMPERAN 48182 MONROE 7/14/1998
INDUSTRIES CE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MI OSSINEKE GROUND OSSINEKE 49766 ALPENA 1/31/1996
WATER
CONTAMINATION
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MI SPIEGELBERG GREEN 48116 LIVINGSTON 6/13/2011
LANDFILL OAK
TOWNSHI
P
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MI WASTE MANAGEMENT HOLLAND 49424 OTTAWA 1/14/2013
OF MICHIGAN
(HOLLAND
LAGOONS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MI WHITEHALL WHITEHAL 49461 MUSKEGON 2/11/1991
MUNICIPAL WELLS L
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MN ADRIAN MUNICIPAL ADRIAN 56110 NOBLES 12/30/1992
WELL FIELD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MN AGATE LAKE FAIRVIEW 56473 CASS 8/1/1997
SCRAPYARD TOWNSHI
P
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MN BOISE CASCADE/ FRIDLEY 55432 ANOKA 2/15/1995
ONAN CORP./
MEDTRONICS,
INC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MN DAKHUE SANITARY CANNON 55031 DAKOTA 7/24/1995
LANDFILL FALLS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MN EAST BETHEL EAST 55011 ANOKA 5/7/1996
DEMOLITION BETHEL
LANDFILL TOWNSHI
P
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MN KOCH REFINING ROSEMOUN 55058 DAKOTA 6/15/1995
CO./N-REN CORP. T
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MN KUMMER SANITARY BEMIDJI 56601 BELTRAMI 4/26/1996
LANDFILL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MN LAGRAND SANITARY LAGRAND 56308 DOUGLAS 10/23/1997
LANDFILL TOWNSHI
P
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MN MORRIS ARSENIC MORRIS 56267 STEVENS 3/7/1986
DUMP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MN NL INDUSTRIES/ ST. 55426 HENNEPIN 5/21/1998
TAR ACORP/ LOUIS
GOLDEN AUTO PARK
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MN OAK GROVE OAK 55011 ANOKA 10/17/1996
SANITARY GROVE
LANDFILL TOWNSHI
P
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MN OLMSTED COUNTY ORONOCO 55960 OLMSTED 2/15/1995
SANITARY
LANDFILL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MN PINE BEND DAKOTA 55075 DAKOTA 6/23/1998
SANITARY COUNTY
LANDFILL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MN ST. AUGUSTA ST. 56301 STEARNS 11/14/1996
SANITARY AUGUSTA
LANDFILL/ENGEN TOWNSHI
DUMP P
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MN TWIN CITIES AIR MINNEAPO 55450 HENNEPIN 12/16/1996
FORCE RESERVE LIS
BASE (SMALL
ARMS RANGE
LANDFILL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MN UNION SCRAP IRON MINNEAPO 55411 HENNEPIN 9/10/1991
& METAL CO. LIS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MN UNIVERSITY OF ROSEMOUN 55068 DAKOTA 2/6/2001
MINNESOTA T
(ROSEMOUNT
RESEARCH
CENTER)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MN WASHINGTON LAKE 55042 WASHINGTON 5/16/1996
COUNTY LANDFILL ELMO
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MN WASTE DISPOSAL ANDOVER 55304 ANOKA 6/5/1996
ENGINEERING
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MN WHITTAKER CORP. MINNEAPO 55418 HENNEPIN 2/11/1999
LIS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MN WINDOM DUMP WINDOM 56101 COTTONWOOD 10/6/2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MO KEM-PEST CAPE 63701 CAPE 9/20/2001
LABORATORIES GIRARDE GIRARDEAU
AU
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MO NORTH-U DRIVE SPRINGFI 65801 GREENE 9/8/1994
WELL ELD
CONTAMINATION
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MO SHENANDOAH MOSCOW 63362 LINCOLN 9/25/2001
STABLES MILLS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MO TIMES BEACH TIMES 63025 ST. LOUIS 9/25/2001
BEACH
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MO WHEELING AMAZONIA 64421 ANDREW 10/30/2000
DISPOSAL
SERVICE CO.,
INC., LANDFILL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MP PCB WAREHOUSE GARAPAN 96950 SAIPAN 3/7/1986
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MS FLOWOOD SITE FLOWOOD 39208 RANKIN 2/16/1996
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MS NEWSOM BROTHERS/ COLUMBIA 39429 MARION 9/27/2000
OLD REICHHOLD
CHEMICALS, INC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MS WALCOTTE GREENVIL 38701 WASHINGTON 12/30/1982
CHEMICAL CO. LE
WAREHOUSES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NC MARTIN-MARIETTA, CHARLOTT 28214 MECKLENBURG 1/20/2012
SODYECO, INC. E
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NC NEW HANOVER CNTY WILMINGT 28401 NEW HANOVER 9/20/2012
AIRPORT BURN ON
PIT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NC ROADSIDE PCB 210 27589 WARREN 3/7/1986
SPILL MILES
OF
ROADS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ND ARSENIC TRIOXIDE SOUTHEAS 58053 N/A 7/5/1996
SITE T
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ND MINOT LANDFILL MINOT 58701 WARD 4/1/1997
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NE WAVERLY GROUND WAVERLY 68462 LANCASTER 11/20/2006
WATER
CONTAMINATION
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NH TOWN GARAGE/ LONDONDE 3053 ROCKINGHAM 7/21/2014
RADIO BEACON RRY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NJ ASBESTOS DUMP MILLINGT 7946 MORRIS 7/12/2010
ON
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NJ BEACHWOOD/ BERKELEY 8722 OCEAN 1/6/1992
BERKELEY WELLS TOWNSHI
P
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NJ COMBE FILL NORTH MOUNT 7828 MORRIS 6/2/2004
LANDFILL OLIVE
TOWNSHI
P
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NJ COOPER ROAD VOORHEES 8043 CAMDEN 2/22/1989
TOWNSHI
P
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NJ CROWN VANTAGE ALEXANDR 8848 HUNTERDON 8/28/2015
LANDFILL IA
TOWNSHI
P
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NJ DELILAH ROAD EGG 8221 ATLANTIC 10/13/2009
HARBOR
TOWNSHI
P
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NJ DENZER & SCHAFER BAYVILLE 8721 OCEAN 12/29/1998
X-RAY CO.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NJ FEDERAL CREOSOTE MANVILLE 8835 SOMERSET 6/18/2014
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NJ FLORENCE LAND FLORENCE 8518 BURLINGTON 5/13/2004
RECONTOURING, TOWNSHI
INC., LANDFILL P
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NJ FORT DIX PEMBERTO 8562 BURLINGTON 9/24/2012
(LANDFILL SITE) N
TOWNSHI
P
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NJ FRIEDMAN UPPER 8514 MONMOUTH 3/7/1986
PROPERTY FREEHOL
D TWP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NJ GLEN RIDGE GLEN 7028 ESSEX 9/2/2009
RADIUM SITE RIDGE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NJ GRAND STREET HOBOKEN 7030 HUDSON 9/18/2007
MERCURY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NJ HOPKINS FARM PLUMSTEA 8533 OCEAN 8/27/2002
D
TOWNSHI
P
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NJ INDUSTRIAL LATEX WALLINGT 7057 BERGEN 4/21/2003
CORP. ON
BOROUGH
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NJ JACKSON TOWNSHIP JACKSON 8527 OCEAN 9/13/1995
LANDFILL TOWNSHI
P
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NJ KRYSOWATY FARM HILLSBOR 8853 SOMERSET 2/22/1989
OUGH
TOWNSHI
P
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NJ LODI MUNICIPAL LODI 7644 BERGEN 12/29/1998
WELL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NJ M&T DELISA ASBURY 7755 MONMOUTH 3/21/1991
LANDFILL PARK
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NJ MANNHEIM AVENUE GALLOWAY 8213 ATLANTIC 8/27/2007
DUMP TOWNSHI
P
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NJ MONROE TOWNSHIP MONROE 8520 MIDDLESEX 2/3/1994
LANDFILL TOWNSHI
P
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NJ MONTCLAIR/WEST MONTCLAI 7044 ESSEX 9/2/2009
ORANGE RADIUM R/WEST
SITE ORANGE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NJ PEPE FIELD BOONTON 7005 MORRIS 7/11/2003
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NJ PIJAK FARM PLUMSTEA 8533 OCEAN 3/3/1997
D
TOWNSHI
P
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NJ POMONA OAKS GALLOWAY 8240 ATLANTIC 5/7/1998
RESIDENTIAL TOWNSHI
WELLS P
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NJ RENORA, INC. EDISON 8837 MIDDLESEX 3/20/2000
TOWNSHI
P
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NJ SAYREVILLE SAYREVIL 8872 MIDDLESEX 9/29/2011
LANDFILL LE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NJ SOUTH BRUNSWICK SOUTH 8852 MIDDLESEX 2/27/1998
LANDFILL BRUNSWI
CK
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NJ SPENCE FARM PLUMSTEA 8533 OCEAN 3/3/1997
D
TOWNSHI
P
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NJ TABERNACLE DRUM TABERNAC 8088 BURLINGTON 5/8/2008
DUMP LE
TOWNSHI
P
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NJ UPPER DEERFIELD UPPER 8302 CUMBERLAND 6/9/2000
TOWNSHIP DEERFIE
SANITARY LD
LANDFILL TOWNSHI
P
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NJ VINELAND STATE VINELAND 8360 CUMBERLAND 5/7/1998
SCHOOL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NJ W.R. GRACE & WAYNE 7470 PASSAIC 9/30/2012
CO., INC./WAYNE TOWNSHI
INTERIM STORAGE P
SITE (USDOE)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NJ WILSON FARM PLUMSTEA 8533 N/A 9/8/2009
D
TOWNSHI
P
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NJ WITCO CHEMICAL OAKLAND 7436 BERGEN 9/29/1995
CORP. (OAKLAND
PLANT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NM AT & SF (CLOVIS) CLOVIS 88101 CURRY 3/17/2003
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NM CAL WEST METALS LEMITAR 87823 SOCORRO 12/20/1996
(USSBA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NM CLEVELAND MILL SILVER 88062 GRANT 7/23/2001
CITY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NM PAGANO SALVAGE LOS 87031 VALENCIA 10/14/1992
LUNAS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NY ACTION COPIAGUE 11701 SUFFOLK 9/29/1995
ANODIZING,
PLATING, &
POLISHING CORP.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NY ANCHOR CHEMICALS HICKSVIL 11801 NASSAU 9/30/1999
LE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NY BATAVIA LANDFILL BATAVIA 14020 GENESEE 11/29/2005
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NY BEC TRUCKING VESTAL 13850 BROOME 10/14/1992
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NY BIOCLINICAL BOHEMIA 11716 SUFFOLK 9/9/1994
LABORATORIES,
INC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NY C & J DISPOSAL HAMILTON 13346 MADISON 9/20/1994
LEASING CO.
DUMP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NY CLOTHIER TOWN OF 13069 OSWEGO 2/8/1996
DISPOSAL GRANBY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NY CONKLIN DUMPS CONKLIN 13748 BROOME 4/25/1997
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NY CONSOLIDATED NEWBURGH 12550 ORANGE 12/3/2014
IRON AND METAL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NY HITEMAN LEATHER WEST 13491 HERKIMER 2/13/2011
WINFIEL
D
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NY HOOKER (102ND NIAGARA 14304 NIAGARA 8/5/2004
STREET) FALLS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NY HOOKER (HYDE NIAGARA 14304 NIAGARA 10/23/2013
PARK) FALLS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NY JONES SANITATION HYDE 12538 DUTCHESS 9/23/2005
PARK
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NY KATONAH TOWN OF 10536 WESTCHESTER 3/20/2000
MUNICIPAL WELL BEDFORD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NY KENMARK TEXTILE FARMINGD 11735 SUFFOLK 5/1/1995
CORP. ALE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NY LOVE CANAL NIAGARA 14304 NIAGARA 9/30/2004
FALLS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NY LUDLOW SAND & CLAYVILL 13322 ONEIDA 12/2/2013
GRAVEL E
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NY MARATHON BATTERY COLD 10516 PUTNAM 10/18/1996
CORP. SPRINGS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NY NIAGARA COUNTY WHEATFIE 14150 NIAGARA 7/30/2004
REFUSE LD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NY NORTH SEA NORTH 11968 SUFFOLK 9/27/2005
MUNICIPAL SEA
LANDFILL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NY PASLEY SOLVENTS HEMPSTEA 11530 NASSAU 9/26/2011
& CHEMICALS, D
INC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NY PETER COOPER DAYTON 14138 CATTARAUGUS 9/20/2010
CORPORATION
(MARKHAMS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NY PFOHL BROTHERS CHEEKTOW 14225 ERIE 9/22/2008
LANDFILL AGA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NY RADIUM CHEMICAL QUEENS 11377 QUEENS 3/24/1995
CO., INC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NY SMS INSTRUMENTS, DEER 11729 SUFFOLK 9/13/2010
INC. PARK
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NY SUFFERN VILLAGE VILLAGE 10901 ROCKLAND 5/28/1993
WELL FIELD OF
SUFFERN
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NY SYOSSET LANDFILL OYSTER 11791 NASSAU 4/28/2005
BAY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NY TRONIC PLATING FARMINGD 11735 SUFFOLK 10/15/2001
CO., INC. ALE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NY VESTAL WATER VESTAL 13850 BROOME 9/30/1999
SUPPLY WELL 4-2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NY WARWICK LANDFILL WARWICK 10990 ORANGE 7/6/2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NY WIDE BEACH BRANT 14027 ERIE 8/30/1994
DEVELOPMENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OH ALSCO ANACONDA GNADENHU 44629 TUSCARAWAS 11/5/2001
TTEN
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OH ARCANUM IRON & DARKE 45304 DARKE 8/31/2001
METAL COUNTY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OH BOWERS LANDFILL CIRCLEVI 43113 PICKAWAY 10/29/1997
LLE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OH CHEMICAL & CLEVELAN 44102 CUYAHOGA 12/30/1982
MINERALS D
RECLAMATION
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OH COSHOCTON FRANKLIN 43812 COSHOCTON 10/7/1998
LANDFILL TOWNSHI
P
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OH LASKIN/POPLAR JEFFERSO 44047 ASHTABULA 9/5/2000
OIL CO. N
TOWNSHI
P
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OH REPUBLIC STEEL ELYRIA 44035 LORAIN 11/12/2002
CORP. QUARRY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK COMPASS TULSA 74107 TULSA 7/18/2002
INDUSTRIES
(AVERY DRIVE)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK DOUBLE EAGLE OKLAHOMA 73152 OKLAHOMA 8/21/2008
REFINERY CO. CITY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK FOURTH STREET OKLAHOMA 73117 OKLAHOMA 8/21/2008
ABANDONED CITY
REFINERY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK IMPERIAL ARDMORE 73402 CARTER 9/19/2013
REFINING
COMPANY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK MOSLEY ROAD OKLAHOMA 73117 OKLAHOMA 9/26/2013
SANITARY CITY
LANDFILL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK SAND SPRINGS SAND 74063 TULSA 3/17/2000
PETROCHEMICAL SPRINGS
COMPLEX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK TENTH STREET OKLAHOMA 73111 OKLAHOMA 11/21/2000
DUMP/JUNKYARD CITY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OR ALLIED PLATING, PORTLAND 97211 MULTNOMAH 11/14/1994
INC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OR GOULD, INC. PORTLAND 97208 MULTNOMAH 9/30/2002
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OR HARBOR OIL INC. PORTLAND 97217 MULTNOMAH 6/5/2014
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OR JOSEPH FOREST JOSEPH 97846 WALLOWA 11/4/1999
PRODUCTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OR MARTIN-MARIETTA THE 97058 WASCO 7/5/1996
ALUMINUM CO. DALLES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PA ALADDIN PLATING SCOTT 18411 LACKAWANNA 11/16/2001
TOWNSHI
P
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PA AMBLER ASBESTOS AMBLER 19002 MONTGOMERY 12/27/1996
PILES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PA AMP, INC. (GLEN GLEN 17327 YORK 10/2/1996
ROCK FACILITY) ROCK
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PA AUSTIN AVENUE DELAWARE 19050 DELAWARE 4/18/2002
RADIATION SITE COUNTY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PA BERKLEY PRODUCTS DENVER 17517 LANCASTER 3/19/2007
CO. DUMP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PA BERKS LANDFILL SPRING 19608 BERKS 11/14/2008
TOWNSHI
P
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PA BRODHEAD CREEK STROUDSB 18360 MONROE 7/23/2001
URG
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PA BRUIN LAGOON BRUIN 16022 BUTLER 9/18/1997
BOROUGH
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PA CRAIG FARM DRUM PARKER 16049 ARMSTRONG 9/30/2013
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PA ENTERPRISE PHILADEL 19153 PHILADELPHIA 3/7/1986
AVENUE PHIA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PA HEBELKA AUTO WEISENBE 18062 LEHIGH 9/20/1999
SALVAGE YARD RG
TOWNSHI
P
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PA HRANICA LANDFILL BUFFALO 16055 BUTLER 9/18/1997
TOWNSHI
P
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PA LACKAWANNA OLD 18518 LACKAWANNA 9/28/1999
REFUSE FORGE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PA LANSDOWNE LANSDOWN 19050 DELAWARE 9/10/1991
RADIATION SITE E
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PA LEHIGH ELECTRIC OLD 18518 LACKAWANNA 3/7/1986
& ENGINEERING FORGE
CO.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PA MCADOO MCADOO 18237 SCHUYLKILL 12/13/2001
ASSOCIATES BOROUGH
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PA METROPOLITAN FRACKVIL 17931 SCHUYLKILL 8/16/2005
MIRROR AND LE
GLASS CO., INC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PA MIDDLETOWN AIR MIDDLETO 17057 DAUPHIN 7/10/1997
FIELD WN
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PA MOYERS LANDFILL EAGLEVIL 19426 MONTGOMERY 5/27/2014
LE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PA PRESQUE ISLE ERIE 16505 ERIE 2/13/1989
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PA PUBLICKER PHILADEL 19148 PHILADELPHIA 11/1/2000
INDUSTRIES INC. PHIA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PA REESER'S UPPER 18051 LEHIGH 5/31/1990
LANDFILL MACUNGI
E TWP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PA RESIN DISPOSAL JEFFERSO 15025 ALLEGHENY 10/21/2003
N
BOROUGH
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PA RIVER ROAD HERMITAG 16148 MERCER 1/29/2004
LANDFILL (WASTE E
MANAGEMENT,
INC.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PA ROUTE 940 DRUM POCONO 18350 MONROE 11/30/2000
DUMP SUMMIT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PA TAYLOR BOROUGH TAYLOR 18517 LACKAWANNA 9/30/1999
DUMP BOROUGH
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PA VOORTMAN FARM UPPER 18034 LEHIGH 5/31/1989
SAUCON
TWP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PA WADE (ABM) CHESTER 19013 DELAWARE 3/23/1989
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PA WESTLINE WESTLINE 16740 MCKEAN 10/14/1992
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PA YORK COUNTY HOPEWELL 17363 YORK 2/14/2005
SOLID WASTE AND TOWNSHI
REFUSE P
AUTHORITY
LANDFILL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PR BARCELONETA FLORIDA 617 N/A 10/3/2011
LANDFILL AFUERA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PR FRONTERA CREEK RIO 661 HUMACAO 12/29/1998
ABAJO
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PR GE WIRING JUANA 665 N/A 10/16/2000
DEVICES DIAZ
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PR NAVAL SECURITY SABANA 749 N/A 10/7/1998
GROUP ACTIVITY SECA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PR RCA DEL CARIBE BARCELON 617 N/A 6/17/2005
ETA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PR V&M/ALBALADEJO ALMIRANT 763 VEGA BAJA 10/22/2001
E NORTE
WARD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RI DAVIS (GSR) GLOCESTE 2828 PROVIDENCE 8/13/1999
LANDFILL R
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SC GEIGER (C & M RANTOULE 29494 CHARLESTON 1/6/2014
OIL) S
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SC GOLDEN STRIP SIMPSONV 29681 GREENVILLE 9/10/1998
SEPTIC TANK ILLE
SERVICE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SC INDEPENDENT NAIL BEAUFORT 29902 BEAUFORT 4/3/1995
CO.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SC KOPPERS CO., FLORENCE 29503 FLORENCE 9/13/2013
INC. (FLORENCE
PLANT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SC PALMETTO COLUMBIA 29203 RICHLAND 10/13/2000
RECYCLING, INC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SC ROCHESTER TRAVELER 29690 GREENVILLE 10/9/2007
PROPERTY S REST
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SD WHITEWOOD CREEK WHITEWOO 57793 LAWRENCE 8/13/1996
D
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SD WILLIAMS PIPE SIOUX 57107 MINNEHAHA 4/2/1999
LINE CO. FALLS
DISPOSAL PIT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TN AMNICOLA DUMP CHATTANO 37406 HAMILTON 4/30/1996
OGA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TN CHEMET CO. MOSCOW 38057 FAYETTE 10/9/1996
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TN GALLAWAY PITS GALLAWAY 38036 FAYETTE 4/29/1996
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TN ICG ISELIN JACKSON 38301 MADISON 1/7/2002
RAILROAD YARD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TN LEWISBURG DUMP LEWISBUR 37091 MARSHALL 2/21/1996
G
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TN NORTH HOLLYWOOD MEMPHIS 38108 SHELBY 12/31/1997
DUMP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TX BAILEY WASTE BRIDGE 77611 ORANGE 10/15/2007
DISPOSAL CITY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TX BIO-ECOLOGY GRAND 75051 DALLAS 8/5/1996
SYSTEMS, INC. PRAIRIE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TX BRIO REFINING, FRIENDSW 77089 HARRIS 12/28/2006
INC. OOD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TX CRYSTAL CITY CRYSTAL 78839 ZAVALA 3/23/1995
AIRPORT CITY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TX DIXIE OIL FRIENDSW 77546 HARRIS 8/21/2006
PROCESSORS, OOD
INC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TX HARRIS (FARLEY HOUSTON 77034 HARRIS 4/18/1988
STREET)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TX ODESSA CHROMIUM ODESSA 79762 ECTOR 7/19/2004
#2 (ANDREWS
HIGHWAY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TX PALMER BARGE PORT 77640 JEFFERSON 2/6/2012
LINE ARTHUR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TX PESSES CHEMICAL FORT 76110 TARRANT 9/28/1995
CO. WORTH
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TX STATE MARINE OF JEFFERSO 77642 JEFFERSON 2/6/2012
PORT ARTHUR N
COUNTY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TX STEWCO, INC. WASKOM 75692 HARRISON 10/4/1995
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TX TRIANGLE BRIDGE 77611 ORANGE 4/8/1997
CHEMICAL CO. CITY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
UT INTERNATIONAL TOOELE 84074 TOOELE 10/11/2011
SMELTING AND
REFINING
------------------------------------------------------------------------
UT MIDVALE SLAG MIDVALE 84047 SALT LAKE 4/8/2015
------------------------------------------------------------------------
UT MONTICELLO MONTICEL 84535 SAN JUAN 2/28/2000
RADIOACTIVELY LO
CONTAMINATED
PROPERTIES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
UT PETROCHEM SALT 84116 SALT LAKE 6/30/2003
RECYCLING CORP./ LAKE
EKOTEK PLANT CITY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
UT ROSE PARK SLUDGE SALT 84116 SALT LAKE 6/30/2003
PIT LAKE
CITY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
UT SHARON STEEL MIDVALE 84047 SALT LAKE 9/24/2004
CORP. (MIDVALE
TAILINGS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VA DIXIE CAVERNS SALEM 24153 ROANOKE 9/28/2001
COUNTY LANDFILL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VA MATTHEWS ROANOKE 24153 ROANOKE CITY 1/19/1989
ELECTROPLATING
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VA RHINEHART TIRE FREDERIC 22601 FREDERICK 9/30/2005
FIRE DUMP K
COUNTY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VA SUFFOLK CITY SUFFOLK 23434 SUFFOLK CITY 1/24/1995
LANDFILL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI ISLAND CHEMICAL CHRISTIA 820 ST. CROIX 10/16/2009
CORP/VIRGIN NSTED
ISLANDS
CHEMICAL CORP.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VT DARLING HILL LYNDON 5851 CALEDONIA 9/29/1999
DUMP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VT TANSITOR BENNINGT 5404 BENNINGTON 9/29/1999
ELECTRONICS, ON
INC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WA ALCOA (VANCOUVER VANCOUVE 98660 CLARK 9/30/1996
SMELTER) R
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WA BONNEVILLE POWER VANCOUVE 98666 CLARK 9/23/1996
ADMINISTRATION R
ROSS COMPLEX
(USDOE)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WA FORT LEWIS TACOMA 98433 PIERCE 5/22/1995
(LANDFILL NO.
5)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WA HAMILTON ISLAND NORTH 98648 SKAMANIA 5/25/1995
LANDFILL (USA/ BONNEVI
COE) LLE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WA HANFORD 1100- BENTON 99352 BENTON 9/30/1996
AREA (USDOE) COUNTY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WA MCCHORD AIR TACOMA 98438 PIERCE 9/26/1996
FORCE BASE
(WASH RACK/
TREATME NT
AREA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WA NAVAL AIR WHIDBEY 98278 ISLAND 9/21/1995
STATION, ISLAND
WHIDBEY ISLAND
(SEAPLANE BASE)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WA NORTHWEST EVERSON 98247 WHATCOM 9/28/1999
TRANSFORMER
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WA NORTHWEST EVERSON 98247 WHATCOM 9/26/1997
TRANSFORMER
(SOUTH HARKNESS
STREET)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WA OLD INLAND PIT SPOKANE 99216 SPOKANE 8/31/1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WA PESTICIDE LAB YAKIMA 98902 YAKIMA 9/1/1993
(YAKIMA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WA PORT HADLOCK INDIAN 98358 JEFFERSON 6/14/2005
DETACHMENT ISLAND
(USNAVY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WA SILVER MOUNTAIN LOOMIS 98827 OKANOGAN 9/22/1997
MINE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WA SPOKANE JUNKYARD/ SPOKANE 99207 SPOKANE 9/23/1997
ASSOCIATED
PROPERTIES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WA TOFTDAHL DRUMS BRUSH 98606 CLARK 12/23/1988
PRAIRIE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WA TULALIP LANDFILL MARYSVIL 98270 SNOHOMISH 9/18/2002
LE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WA YAKIMA PLATING YAKIMA 98902 YAKIMA 8/23/1994
CO.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WI EAU CLAIRE EAU 54701 EAU CLAIRE 5/27/2014
MUNICIPAL WELL CLAIRE
FIELD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WI FADROWSKI DRUM FRANKLIN 53132 MILWAUKEE 9/6/2005
DISPOSAL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WI NORTHERN SPARTA 54656 MONROE 10/29/1997
ENGRAVING CO.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WI OMEGA HILLS GERMANTO 53022 WASHINGTON 12/11/1996
NORTH LANDFILL WN
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WI TOMAH TOMAH 54660 MONROE 8/20/2001
FAIRGROUNDS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WI WASTE RESEARCH & EAU 54701 EAU CLAIRE 2/5/1993
RECLAMATION CO. CLAIRE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WI WHEELER PIT LA 53545 ROCK 4/20/2004
PRAIRIE
TOWNSHI
P
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WV FOLLANSBEE FOLLANSB 26037 BROOKE 1/16/2004
EE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WV LEETOWN LEETOWN 25430 JEFFERSON 8/29/1996
PESTICIDE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WY BAXTER/UNION LARAMIE 82070 ALBANY 12/6/1999
PACIFIC TIE
TREATING
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Please note that not every location listed has a County (i.e.,
Tribal lands, U.S Territory, etc.).
CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS
Senator Murkowski. Thank you. And with that, the
subcommittee stands adjourned.
Ms. McCarthy. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 12:37 p.m., Wednesday, April 20, the
hearings were concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to
reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.]