[Senate Hearing 116-419]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 3, 2019
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 8:55 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Lisa Murkowski (Chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Murkowski, Blunt, Capito, Hyde-Smith,
Daines, Udall, Tester, Merkley, and Van Hollen.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
opening statement of senator lisa murkowski
Senator Murkowski. Good morning, everyone. The subcommittee
will come to order.
We are kicking off the first of our hearings as they relate
to Interior appropriations, and you are our invited guest.
Congratulations, Administrator Wheeler, on your recent
confirmation. Thank you for being here this morning, along with
Holly Greaves, to discuss the fiscal year 2020 budget request
for the Environmental Protection Agency.
For those on the subcommittee, I think it is always good to
set the order of process around here. We have always followed
the early bird rule as long as I have been Chairman. So we are
going to call on Members in order in which they arrive, going
back and forth, for 5 minutes.
Senator Udall. Tester is a serious early bird.
Senator Murkowski. He is a very serious early bird, and we
recognize that and appreciate that. You are correct about that.
I am the one that is late. I am not the early bird this
morning. So I am going to defer to you, in fact, when we start
off.
But the goal this morning and the reason we did start a
little bit earlier, as we all know, we have a joint session
that we are required to be at 10:40. I know the Administrator
is hoping to attend that as well. So I would like to be able to
wrap this up by 10:30.
I know that there are a lot of different appropriations
subcommittee meetings at the same time. We may both be popping
in and out of them. So it is good to be able to start a little
bit earlier.
When I am home, I certainly see firsthand the impacts of
EPA on the lives of Alaskans and the health of our communities.
From restoring contaminated sites to ensuring clean drinking
water, the EPA touches the lives of Americans across our
Country every day, and that is why supporting EPA's core
responsibilities of clean air, clean water, and clean land is
so important.
I do appreciate, Administrator Wheeler, the work that you
have done on returning EPA to more of a back-to-basics
management approach instead of pushing a one-size-fits-all
regulatory agenda that exceeds the statutory authority of the
EPA.
We have seen within this administration a shift back to
prioritizing programs with actual on-the-ground cleanup and
real environmental benefits. I think you are on the right track
there.
The agency under your leadership must continue to implement
a regulatory agenda that supports responsible development and
robust environmental protections, achieved through a
cooperative Federalism approach with the States and in
consultation with the Tribes. Whether it is the work that the
agency has done in revising the WOTUS rule or addressing the
important issue of climate change, we must be partners in
supporting the responsibilities of the agency.
Turning to the fiscal year 2020 EPA budget, the budget
request totals approximately $6.1 billion, nearly a 30 percent
reduction. The agency's proposal is similar to past requests
from this administration, and I underscore that it is just
that. It is a proposal, and while I appreciate this budget's
recognition of numerous programs that do have bipartisan
support, many of the reductions would, in my view, be
inconsistent with some of the back-to-basics approach that I
just mentioned.
Many of the grant programs that are critical to EPA's core
mission of protecting the health of our communities are
proposed for significant reductions. These grant programs lead
to tangible environmental and human health benefits by
supporting contaminated site cleanup, financing drinking water
and sanitation infrastructure, and much more.
I have worked hard with folks in my State over the years to
really make sure that we are doing right by some of these
smaller programs that have on-the-ground benefit and impact.
The Targeted Airshed Grants program, which is helping to reduce
air pollution for Alaskans, particularly in Fairbanks, is
eliminated in this budget, and is a program that has a very
direct and immediate benefit.
In fact, I received a letter of support from one of the
agencies up north reminding us that this is one of the few
areas where they have been able to make some headway.
The Alaska Native Village program is proposed for an 85
percent reduction, even though this funding is critical to
supporting the water infrastructure needs of Native Alaskans
who face, as you know, pretty incredible costs of living based
on transportation, just due to the remoteness. But EPA programs
like this help meet those challenges. So I am going to continue
to provide my attention and support to them.
The agency's budget request makes large reductions to State
grant programs, such as the Clean Water and Drinking Water
State Revolving Funds, which I know is a concern to many of my
colleagues here.
I do appreciate that this request includes a proposal for a
new $50 million grant program to study and resolve
environmental hazards at our Nation's schools. I think this is
something that is a mission well deserving of our support, so I
am pleased that it is in there.
While I do understand the tough budget environment this
proposal was crafted in, the final budget for EPA, as crafted
by Congress, I think will look substantially different than
this request.
As I mentioned earlier, Congress is a critical partner of
the EPA on protecting the health of our communities and
addressing the many environmental needs of our country.
I look forward to working with you on implementing the
budget that Congress will provide the EPA for fiscal year 2020.
To close, I would like to thank you for your commitment to
continue working with me on a number of the more parochial
issues that face our State, such as fish grinding, small remote
incinerators, and PM2.5 in Fairbanks. You have heard
about all of them many, many times, and know that I will be
asking some questions about them this morning.
Now I will turn to my Ranking Member, Senator Udall, and as
I do, I just want to acknowledge, with your announcement that
you are going to be retiring at the end of this Congress, know
that it has been a privilege and a pleasure to work with you
and your team on this subcommittee.
I know we have a lot of work to do before we do real
serious thank-yous, but as we are kicking off the beginning of
this appropriations cycle, know how much I appreciate the good
working relationship we have.
statement of senator tom udall
Senator Udall. Thank you, Madam Chair. A real pleasure
always to work with you.
Administrator Wheeler, welcome today at your hearing as the
EPA Administrator.
I am sure it is a different day from when we sat here 1
year ago with your predecessor, so I first want to acknowledge
your efforts to restore basic communication with the Congress.
While we have our disagreements, I do appreciate that today we
can focus on the mission of the EPA.
Now, it is no secret that I opposed your nomination to lead
the EPA. I just do not think it is in the best interest of this
Country for a former industry lobbyist to be in charge of
agencies that regulate their former clients on environmental
policy or anything else, a lobbyist who has advocated for
easing and even dismantling protections for public health and
the environment.
While you have promised that your previous work poses no
conflict of interest with your current position, your actions
in leadership indicate that public health and the environment
do not come first in your decisionmaking.
But, Mr. Wheeler, you have been narrowly confirmed by the
Senate, and today you testify before us as the Administrator of
the EPA. And after nearly a year of experience as Acting
Administrator, now it is time to examine the record.
I am relieved that your predecessor is no longer dominating
the news cycle with daily scandals, but the bottom line is that
I do not see much of a change in terms of policy. I am deeply
troubled that as Acting Administrator and now as the confirmed
Administrator, you are continuing to implement this
administration's devastating environmental agenda.
First and foremost, this administration has abandoned all
efforts to fight climate change, and you have personally
doubled down on that by denying climate change is even a major
crisis.
Administrator Wheeler, climate change is a major and very
real crisis. In fact, climate change is by far the most
pressing crisis of our time.
People are losing their homes, their land, their farms. We
now have a new kind of refugee, ``climate refugees,'' displaced
from their homes by catastrophic weather disasters, like
drought and floods.
In the West, we have less precipitation. Rivers and
reservoirs are running at historic lows. Dry conditions are
creating more wildfires.
Look at the historic, devastating floods in the Midwest
happening as we speak. In Puerto Rico, the death toll from the
destructive Hurricane Maria was 2,975 American lives.
The planet and the people living on it are suffering,
especially those who can least afford to adapt.
Yet instead of recognizing reality, right out of the gate,
this administration began an all-out assault on efforts to
fight climate change by blocking commonsense proposals to limit
emissions from power plants, by halting efforts to control
methane from oil and gas operations, by weakening fuel economy
standards, and by walking away from the Paris Climate Accords.
If you do not change course, this will be your legacy, and
I do not think history will look upon this record very kindly.
And it is not just climate policy that is so devastating.
It seems there is not one rock overturned at the EPA where this
administration has not taken an opportunity to roll back public
health and environmental protections to benefit corporations
and industry.
Just recently, the agency dramatically scaled back proposed
limits on a deadly chemical in paint strippers. While the
chemical will be taken off the shelves in home improvement
stores, the people who face the most risk, workers exposed to
this neurotoxin every day, still have zero protections.
At the center of this administration's action plan to
protect the public from Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS) and
related chemicals, which are associated with cancer, autoimmune
diseases, and even resistance to vaccines, is a vague promise
to start thinking about setting health standards sometime soon.
Meanwhile, an estimated tens of millions of Americans are
drinking water that contain these substances at levels much
higher than what independent scientists and even the Centers
for Disease Control consider to be safe.
And that is not to mention impacts like the farmers in New
Mexico who are being forced to destroy hundreds of thousands of
gallons of contaminated milk and euthanize thousands of cattle.
EPA also recently declared that it is no longer appropriate
and necessary to limit mercury and other toxic air pollution,
pollution that is known to poison fetuses and children. EPA's
decision paves the way to undermine basic public health
standards. That is why it immediately drew bipartisan
opposition in Congress.
And contrary to a court order, EPA recently decided to let
the hard-rock mining industry shirk financial responsibility
for the environmental cost of doing business, even though
damages from abandoned mines have cost taxpayers billions of
dollars.
The nonpartisan Government Accountability Office just
recently reported that EPA political appointees directly
interfered with EPA scientists' important work related to
evaluating the hazards of chemicals we come in contact with
every day.
And we are still waiting for EPA to make good on its
promise to take care of people and farmers, including New
Mexicans and members of the Navajo Nation who were harmed by
the Gold King Mine spill. Another promise broken.
When it comes to the budget, it is just one more of the
same. The administration for the third year in a row proposes
devastating cuts to the EPA.
It is unconscionable to me that the agency responsible for
protecting public health would propose to scale back on the
very scientific research that helps us identify threats and
understand to minimize them. But this budget requests a cut of
43 percent to EPA research.
The budget also proposes a cut of 12 percent to the
enforcement laws designed to protect the water we drink and the
air we breathe. The proposed cut to enforcement even includes
criminal activities like illegally dumping sewage into drinking
water sources. I fail to understand how we need less investment
in keeping environmental cops on the beat.
The budget exposes the administration's rhetoric about
deferring to State-level environmental efforts is completely
phony. The budget proposes to cut more than a third, a total of
$1.5 billion, from States and Tribes.
Yet another fake promise from this administration is
infrastructure funding. A quick look at the budget request
shows an $875 million cut to water infrastructure. That is more
than a 30 percent cut.
I would like to talk about these proposed cuts today, but
to be honest, I am tired of the now commonplace responses from
the representatives of this administration in budget hearings.
We hear repeatedly, year after year, that they would be ``happy
to work with Congress on final spending levels.'' It is a wink
and the nod that the budget request is not really real. But
that, I submit to you, makes a mockery of the process.
Budgets are statements of policy priorities, and proposed
cuts of this terrible degree show us in clear print what this
administration is about: Industry comes before public health
and environmental protection. There is no wink or nod or
announcement at a rally that can undo that.
I continue to be thankful that this subcommittee has stuck
together, really appreciate working with the Chairman on
priorities that the American people really care about, and
doing things on a bipartisan basis and rejecting these drastic
proposals.
But the agency is still suffering. Morale is at an all-time
low among EPA scientists and other experts, and staffing levels
are waning because despite Congress rejecting budget cuts, the
agency is not hiring new staff when previous staff depart.
I know, Administrator Wheeler, you have a lot to say today
on your funding priorities for EPA, important things we can all
agree on like improving the health of school facilities and
reducing lead in drinking water, but I want to be clear that
these should not and will not distract the American people from
the failures of this administration to fight climate change and
protect public health.
I look forward to our discussion today, and thank you,
Madam Chair, for those very kind comments early on and look
forward to working through this budget process with you.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Udall.
Administrator Wheeler, you have got a lot that goes on
within the Department, a lot that is, as you know and we know,
very important to people throughout the Nation. So if you would
please commence your comments this morning with regards to the
President's fiscal year 2020 budget.
STATEMENT OF HON. ANDREW WHEELER, ADMINISTRATOR
ACCOMPANIED BY HON. HOLLY GREAVES, CHIEF FINANCIAL
OFFICER
Mr. Wheeler. Thank you, Chairman.
Good morning, Chairman Murkowski and Ranking Member Udall
and Members of the subcommittee. I am joined today by Holly
Greaves, my CFO, and we are here today to discuss EPA's
proposed 2020 budget.
The budget request ensures that the agency can continue
President Trump's bold agenda and the tremendous progress we
have made over the past 2 years. The U.S. is a global leader in
clean air and access to safe drinking water, and we are
cleaning up contaminated lands at the fastest pace in over a
decade.
At the same time, EPA has finalized 38 deregulatory
actions, saving Americans more than $3 billion in regulatory
costs. We have an additional 39 actions in development to save
billions more. The Trump administration is proving that
environmental protection and historic economic growth can go
hand in hand.
My testimony will highlight how the President's budget
would continue this progress. I believe that water issues, from
drinking water to marine litter to infrastructure, are the
largest and most immediate environmental issue affecting the
world today. The budget request provides critical support for
water quality protection.
One challenge we face is lead exposure. Through the new
Federal Lead Action Plan, EPA is coordinating with our Federal
counterparts to reduce childhood lead exposure.
On Monday, we issued a status report to hold ourselves
accountable to the public and clearly communicate the steps we
are taking to implement the action plan. To bolster these
efforts, the budget proposes $50 million to establish a new
Healthy Schools Grant program to reduce exposure to lead or
other toxics in schools.
We are also moving forward to update the lead and copper
rule for the first time in over two decades. Our proposal will
ensure that we address the most corrosive pipes in the most at-
risk communities first.
Another challenge is addressing potential sources of
contamination. In February, EPA released its Polyfluoroalkyl
Substances (PFAS) Action Plan, the most comprehensive
multimedia research and action plan ever issued by the agency
to address an emerging chemical of concern.
On the marine litter issue, billions of pounds of waste
enter our oceans each year, harming marine life and coastal
economies. EPA's Trash Free Waters program is stepping up to
help the international community capture marine litter or
prevent it from reaching the ocean.
On infrastructure, the President's budget includes a 25
percent increase to Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation
Act (WIFIA) from last year's request. This new program is
already producing tremendous results. To date, EPA has issued
eight WIFIA loans totaling more than $2 billion in Federal
credit assistance.
Last week, we announced our third round of funding, which
could support $12 billion in water infrastructure projects and
create more than 180,000 jobs.
To expand on these efforts, President Trump signed
America's Water Infrastructure Act, AWIA. While funding for
AWIA was not included in the fiscal year 2019 appropriations
that Congress enacted, EPA proposes funding of $83 million in
this budget request to begin implementation of the law.
The budget request also includes approximately $2 billion
in Federal dollars towards the two State Revolving Funds
(SRFs). The combination of Federal grants, State matches,
repayments, and interest all flow back into each revolving
fund, creating $80 billion in the nationwide fund as of today,
well beyond the annual SRF investments.
Regarding the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, as the
President stated, this is a unique and important program. I
fully support his decision as it relates to funding the
program.
When it comes to reducing air pollution, we are moving
forward with commonsense reforms that will help more
communities reach attainment of the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) standards. For example, we are set to
announce that the Cleveland area is now meeting the standards
for particulate matter later this week.
The cleanup of contaminated lands also plays a crucial role
in revitalizing communities throughout the country. In fiscal
year 2018, EPA deleted all or part of 22 sites from the
National Priorities List, the largest number of deletions in 1
year since fiscal year 2005.
Our next responsibility is ensuring that chemicals used in
commerce and sold in the marketplace are safe for public use. I
am proud to report that EPA continues to meet the major
statutory deadlines of the amended Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA).
Earlier this month, we finalized a ban on the retail sale
of methylene chloride for consumer paint and coating removal,
the first risk management action under Section 6 of the amended
TSCA.
To ensure our efforts are effective and durable, EPA has a
healthy and robust enforcement program. At one end of the
spectrum, we are increasing compliance through self-audits,
which are often the quickest way to correct environmental
harms. At the other end of the spectrum, we are deterring
noncompliance by increasing the number of new criminal cases,
reversing a downward trend that began in 2011.
We want the public to know that when they encounter
environmental threats, we will address them head on, and we
want the world to know that when they encounter environmental
threats, we are ready to help, this type of leadership, that
gives confidence to the public, the regulated community, and
our allies around the globe.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today, and
I look forward to answering your questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Andrew R. Wheeler
Good morning, Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall, and Members
of the subcommittee. I am joined by Holly Greaves, EPA's Chief
Financial Officer, and we are here today to discuss the Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA's) proposed fiscal year 2020 budget, which
supports the goals and objectives in the Fiscal Year 2018-Fiscal Year
2022 EPA Strategic Plan.
The fiscal year 2020 budget request reflects President Trump's
vision of responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars and critical
investments in the Nation's health, safety, and long-term prosperity.
The Budget supports ongoing work at EPA to reduce unnecessary
regulatory burdens while investing in areas that demand greater
attention, such as protecting children from lead exposure and other
environmental harms through a new Healthy Schools Grant Program and
providing funding to begin implementing the America's Water
Infrastructure Act (AWIA).
The proposed budget ensures that the Agency can continue the
President's bold agenda and the tremendous progress we have made over
the past 2 years. The U.S. is a global leader with respect to clean air
and access to safe drinking water, and we are cleaning up contaminated
lands at the fastest pace in over a decade. At the same time, EPA has
supported the President's record economic gains by finalizing 38
deregulatory actions and saving Americans more than $3 billion in
regulatory costs. We have an additional 39 actions in development
projected to save billions more in regulatory costs. The Trump
administration is proving that environmental protection and historic
economic growth can go hand-in-hand.
In my testimony, I will highlight how the President's budget would
continue this progress.
I believe that water issues, from drinking water to marine litter
to infrastructure, are the largest and most immediate environmental and
public health issues affecting the world right now. The budget request
provides critical support in the area of water quality protection.
Right now, over 2 billion people worldwide lack access to safe
drinking water and proper sanitation, leading to anywhere from 1 to 3
million deaths every year. And those most likely to die from a lack of
safe drinking water are young children. According to the United
Nations, nearly a thousand children die every day due to preventable
water and sanitation-related diseases. We believe that these children
deserve our immediate attention, and we are elevating our work with our
Federal partners, like USAID, to improve global water security.
Here in the U.S., we have made tremendous progress on this front.
In the 1970s, more than 40 percent of our Nation's drinking water
systems failed to meet even the most basic health standards. Today,
over 92 percent of community water systems meet all health-based
standards, all the time.
We still face challenges, however. Our Nation's children are
particularly vulnerable to the health impacts of unsafe drinking water,
especially lead exposure. Through the new Federal Action Plan to Reduce
Childhood Lead Exposures and Associated Health Impacts, EPA is
coordinating with our Federal counterparts to reduce exposure to lead
where children live, learn, and play.
To bolster these efforts, the fiscal year 2020 budget proposes $50
million to establish a new Healthy Schools Grant Program. This flexible
grant program will help our State and local partners, including school
systems and administrators, minimize asthma triggers, reduce exposure
to lead or other toxics, and ensure children have access to clean and
safe learning environments. This new program is a top priority for the
Agency, and we look forward to partnering with Congress to advance this
effort.
We are also moving forward to update the Lead and Copper rule for
the first time in over two decades. We will get this rule out in the
summer of 2019, and we will get it done right. Our proposal would
ensure that we address the most corrosive pipes in the most at-risk
communities first. These communities can't afford to wait 5, 10, or 20
years to have their lead pipes replaced. EPA staff is currently
monitoring and mapping the location of the highest-risk lead pipes so
we can focus our work on the most impacted areas of the country first.
The other dimension of our water challenges is our ability to
identify and address potential sources of drinking water contamination.
Source protection can reduce the need for additional drinking water
treatment and avoid the associated costs. EPA is stepping up its
leadership on this front as well.
In February, EPA released its Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances
(PFAS) Action Plan. We utilized each of our program offices to produce
the most comprehensive, multi-media research and action plan ever
issued by the Agency to address an emerging chemical of concern. And
for the first time ever, we held simultaneous press conferences in all
10 of our Regional Offices to roll out the plan. This will be our
approach moving forward on issues of emerging concern.
On the marine litter issue, billions of pounds of waste enter our
oceans each year, harming marine life and coastal economies. Through
programs like Trash Free Waters, EPA is helping foreign governments and
organizations capture marine litter or prevent it from reaching the
ocean in the first place. When I travel to the G7 in France in May and
the G20 in Japan in June, I will make the issue of marine litter a
priority.
On infrastructure, we estimate that more than $700 billion will be
needed to upgrade water infrastructure in the U.S. alone over the next
20 years. The President understands that modernizing our Nation's aging
infrastructure is critical to public health and prosperity. At EPA,
this means that we will continue to make investments in water
infrastructure that not only safeguard our Nation's precious water
resources but also create well-paying jobs and ensure taxpayer dollars
achieve the maximum return on investment.
The fiscal year 2020 budget includes a 25 percent increase to the
Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) program from
last year's request. The $25 million, including $20 million in credit
subsidy, provided for WIFIA could deliver more than $2 billion in
direct credit assistance, which, when combined with other funding
resources, could spur over $4 billion in total infrastructure
investments.
This new program is already producing tremendous results. To date,
EPA has issued eight WIFIA loans totaling more than $2 billion in
Federal credit assistance. Not only will these funds improve public
health for hundreds of thousands of Americans, it is also estimated
these projects will create over 6,000 jobs. This is just the beginning.
This past year, we invited an additional 39 projects across the Nation
to apply for WIFIA loans, which, when approved and combined with other
funding sources, could help finance over $10 billion dollars in water
infrastructure and create up to 155,000 jobs.
While most water systems consistently provide safe and reliable
drinking water, many small systems face their own unique challenges. To
address these needs, President Trump signed the bipartisan America's
Water Infrastructure Act of 2018 (AWIA) on October 23, 2018. While
funding for these important new mandates was not included in the fiscal
year 2019 budget Congress recently enacted, EPA proposes funding of $83
million in this budget request to begin implementation of the law,
including five new grant programs. Funding AWIA would expand EPA's
ability to invest in water infrastructure in even more communities
across the country.
The budget request also includes approximately $2 billion in
Federal dollars towards the two State Revolving Funds (SRFs) to assist
our implementing partners in rebuilding aging water infrastructure. The
combination of the Federal capitalization grants provided over more
than 20 years, required State match, loan repayments, and interest
flows back into each State revolving fund, creating approximately $80
billion currently revolving at the State level. This recycling of funds
results in additional funding available well beyond the annual Federal
investment in both SRF programs. Across the SRFs, WIFIA loans, and the
new AWIA programs, we are providing robust support for water
infrastructure project investments.
When it comes to reducing air pollution, we are moving forward with
common-sense reforms that will help more regions throughout the Nation
reach attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
Areas in nonattainment face a variety of consequences, including
increased regulatory burdens and restrictions on infrastructure
investments. The Agency is working across multiple fronts to bring
these areas into attainment, such as converting Federal Implementation
Plans (FIPs) into State Implementation Plans (SIPs) or aggressively
tackling the backlog of SIPS we inherited. The Agency has converted an
average of almost one FIP into a SIP each month since March 2017. The
Trump EPA inherited a backlog of more than 700 SIPs, and we've taken
final action on over 400 SIPs to date.
We are also moving forward with the Cleaner Trucks Initiative.
Since 2000, nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions in the U.S. have been
reduced by 52 percent. However, it is estimated that heavy-duty trucks
will be responsible for one-third of NOx emissions from transportation
in 2025, and it's been nearly 20 years since EPA last set NOx emissions
standards for heavy-duty trucks. By working closely with States and the
private sector, we will reduce NOx emissions from heavy-duty trucks,
which is not required by statute or court order, but will help
nonattainment areas reach attainment.
The cleanup and redevelopment of contaminated lands play a crucial
role in revitalizing communities throughout the country. I'm proud to
report that in fiscal year 2018, EPA deleted all or part of 22 sites
from the National Priorities List (NPL), the largest number of
deletions in 1 year since fiscal year 2005. We believe that a site on
the National Priorities List should be just that--a national priority.
If it has languished on the NPL for decades, then it was not a
priority. We are changing that. We are in the process of cleaning up
some of the Nation's largest, most complex sites and returning them to
productive use.
While the Agency continues to request robust funding to revitalize
lands, it's important to remember that annual appropriations are just
one source of funding to help facilitate the cleanup and restoration of
contaminated lands. In 2018 alone, the Superfund Enforcement program
secured private party commitments totaling $613 million. Approximately
60 percent of ongoing remedial construction projects are performed by
Potentially Responsible Parties. EPA's enforcement program continues to
encourage private investment in the cleanup and reuse of sites.
Our next responsibility is ensuring that chemicals used in commerce
and sold in the marketplace are safe for public use. I'm proud to
report that EPA continues to meet the major statutory deadlines of the
amended Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
We've issued rules addressing the prioritization process, the risk
evaluation process, and the TSCA inventory, while also developing a new
fees program.
Not only that, we are well on our way to completing draft risk
evaluations for the first 10 chemicals; we published a final strategy
to reduce animal testing; we published a final mercury reporting rule;
we released three sets of guidance regarding confidential business
information; and we released an updated Chemical Substance Inventory.
We recently announced the next 20 high and 20 low existing
chemicals that we will prioritize for risk evaluation. In fiscal year
2020, the Agency will begin risk evaluations for the next round of 20
high-priority chemicals.
In terms of risk management, earlier this month, we finalized a ban
on retail sales of methylene chloride for consumer paint and coating
removal--the first risk management action under Section 6 of amended
TSCA. After analyzing the health impacts and listening to affected
families, we took action to protect retail consumers.
As for new chemicals, we are reviewing submissions consistent with
the statute while increasing the transparency of our decisions. We are
committed to reducing our backlog of approximately 400 new chemical
submissions within 6 months. What EPA is accomplishing should give
confidence to American consumers and certainty to the manufacturers.
To ensure that our actions are effective and durable, EPA is
assisting the regulated community in attaining and maintaining
compliance with environmental laws and, where necessary, punishing
actors that do not comply with those laws.
At one end of the spectrum, we are increasing compliance through
self-audits, which are often the quickest way to correct environmental
harms. At the other end of the spectrum, we are deterring non-
compliance by stepping up criminal cases. We increased the number of
new criminal cases in fiscal year 2018, reversing a downward trend that
began in 2011.
In fiscal year 2018, EPA enforcement actions required the
treatment, disposal, or elimination of 809 million pounds of pollutants
and waste--almost twice as much compared to 2017. And in January, EPA
and the Department of Justice announced a $490 million settlement with
Fiat Chrysler for cheating U.S. emissions standards. We will vigorously
enforce our Nation's environmental laws, and we will ensure that
hardworking Americans that follow the law and play by the rules do not
suffer a competitive disadvantage.
Within the Agency itself, we are improving how efficiently and
effectively we carry out our core responsibilities. In fiscal year
2018, the Agency introduced the EPA Lean Management System (ELMS),
which has enhanced the Agency's performance management framework. For
the first time, EPA is reviewing its performance via new measures and
taking corrective action on a monthly, rather than annual, basis. We
created over 600 performance measures across all national programs and
regional offices. We're already beginning to see dramatic improvements,
such as reducing the backlog of new permit applications older than 6
months by 34 percent between June and November 2018. The deployment of
ELMS will help us maximize the skill sets of EPA staff and ensure that
we are agile and responsive to the needs of all Americans.
We want the public to know that when they encounter environmental
threats, we will address them head on. And we want the world to know,
that when they encounter environmental threats, we are ready to help.
This is the type of leadership that gives confidence to the public,
certainty to the regulated community, and reassurance to our allies
around the globe. This is the type of leadership you can expect from
President Trump and his administration. Thank you for the opportunity
to speak with you today. I look forward to answering your questions.
PFOS AND PFOA CONTAMINATION
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Administrator.
Let me begin my questions. This relates to something that
Senator Udall has raised. I have raised it by way of letter. I
think many of us on the subcommittee have because so many
around the country are realizing the challenges that our
communities are facing when it comes to PFOS contamination.
In my State, we have communities like Utgiagvik, Fairbanks,
Dillingham, Gustavus, that are seeing groundwater that has been
contaminated with PFOS, largely due to the use of this
chlorinated firefighting foam.
So you have released this PFAS Action Plan. There are some
promises out there with regards to declaring certain compounds
as hazardous, but can you give the committee some estimate in
terms of EPA's timeline for listing PFOS or any of the
compounds as hazardous substances, and really what are these
comprehensive steps?
You have indicated in your testimony here this morning that
there is going to be a media rollout. What are we going to see?
Mr. Wheeler. Senator, first of all, I want to assure you
and the subcommittee that while we are developing the hazardous
waste for PFOS, PFOA, and the different compounds, as well as
looking at the groundwater standards to include under Toxics
Release Inventory (TRI) for releases, we are still enforcing.
We are still enforcing our health advisory of 70 parts per
trillion. We have taken, I believe, eight enforcement actions
along with the States, and have assisted the States and local
communities in dozens of other enforcement actions.
Where we see PFOS, where we find it, where it is a threat
to drinking water, we are ensuring that it is cleaned up. We
are actually using state-of-the-art Geographic Information
System (GIS) mapping technologies to determine where we believe
it is. We know the chemicals were produced, in large part, in
Parkersburg, West Virginia, as well as Cape Fear, North
Carolina. We also know the areas where it was used the most--
airports and Department of Defense facilities.
So we are using our GIS tracking to map where we believe
PFOS is laying on top of groundwater and drinking water
systems, to identify the communities that may be at risk and
then helping them look to see if they do have a problem with
their drinking water, and where we are finding it, we are
enforcing.
So we are not stopping enforcement of cleaning up PFOS and
PFOA, where we find it, while we work on additional tools. We
have a number of tools that we already are using, such as the
health advisory of 70 parts per trillion.
At the same time, our research office is doing more
research on identifying where the chemicals are and identifying
which types. There is over, I believe, 2,000 different PFOS/
PFOA substances, long chain, short chain. We are trying to
determine which of those have the most health risk.
It is also important to note that the cleanup technologies
differ depending on the type of PFOS and PFOA chemical compound
itself. We cannot use the same cleanup technology for all of
the PFOS/PFOA compounds.
I have been at our Research Triangle Park (RTP) lab in
North Carolina and met with our researchers there. I have also
met with our researchers in some of our other regional labs.
Last week, I was at our Cincinnati lab, where they are doing
some groundbreaking research on how to clean up the PFOA/PFOS
chemicals, how to identify where they are and how to identify
which ones are the most harmful to the public health.
So we are setting the standards. We are working with the
States and other agencies that have the standards and other
health advisories for PFOS/PFOA.
We are still enforcing our health advisory. We are actually
actively looking to see where we are able to help those
communities. We are also conducting important research that
will help us identify which ones are the most harmful, how we
clean up, and the best technologies to clean them up when we
find them.
DIESEL GENERATORS--TIER 4 REQUIREMENT
Senator Murkowski. Well, I appreciate that update. Folks
that I am talking to say, ``We know that we have a serious
issue here, but how do we even get started?'' So being able to
identify, map, and obviously address it is going to be
critically important going forward. I know you are going to
have other questions on that.
Let me just ask one more quick question, and this is
something that I never thought that I was going to have to ask.
I was born down in Ketchikan, Alaska. It is a rainforest
down there. It is truly a rainforest. Well, in this rainforest,
in the Tongass, we are seeing a drought this past year. The
communities of Ketchikan, Wrangell, and Petersburg are
communities that primarily rely on hydroelectric power, and
they have faced some significant energy shortages resulting
from these drought conditions in a rainforest, crazily enough.
This is something that we hope is not a new normal. All of
these communities are not connected by any kind of a power grid
or a transmission system; they are all islands there. They rely
on diesel generation as backup for the community.
EPA gives Title V air quality permits to power plants that
allow them to operate during certain hours, establishing
allowable diesel generation operating hours, and many of these
plants in southeast Alaska normally only use a fraction of
these permitted operating hours in a year. But because of this
drought and our water reservoir levels being so low, we are
seeing increased diesel generation use.
What I need from you this morning is a commitment to work
with us to see if there is any relief for these affected
communities that are dealing with challenges with regard to the
operating hours, whether it is the city of Ketchikan or some of
the others.
I do not know if there are other options out there, but I
would like you to be working with us on this because it is a
serious challenge for them right now.
Mr. Wheeler. Absolutely, Senator. We are working to provide
regulatory relief for the owners and operators of these diesel
generators in remote areas of Alaska, and we do plan to take
action shortly to amend the regulations to remove the
problematic Tier 4 requirements that apply for remote areas of
Alaska.
Senator Murkowski. Well, I appreciate that, and I know the
communities will look forward to that as well.
Let me turn to Senator Tester, the early bird.
PFOA/PFOS COMPOUNDS
Senator Tester. Yes. Well, thank you, Madam Chair, and
thank you for being here, Mr. Wheeler. I appreciate you being
here.
I was not going to ask about PFOS, but the chairlady has
brought it up.
You guys said you were detecting it, and you are cleaning
up where found. Has it been banned?
Mr. Wheeler. Yes. There was----
Senator Tester. So you are saying----
Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. Some of the material----
Senator Tester. Some of the material has been banned, but
they are still using PFOS in firefighting?
Mr. Wheeler. Yes. Some of the PFOS/PFOA compounds, but
there are thousands of them. The worst ones were banned a
number of years ago.
Senator Tester. So I guess what I am saying is that if you
are looking on detecting it and cleaning it up, that is fine,
but why are we not banning the cause so you do not have to do
that, so it is done? It causes cancer. Is there a problem with
it? I mean, if the problem----
Mr. Wheeler. The worst substances were banned a number of
years ago. They are ubiquitous in consumer products and the
environment----
Senator Tester. So what you are saying is today, the stuff
that has been used in the firefighting foam does not cause
cancer or liver disease?
Mr. Wheeler. I would have to get back to you on the exact
ones that are in the firefighting foam. There is a number----
[The information follows:]
number of pfoa/pfos in firefghting foam
PFAS chemicals continue to be used in firefighting foam (AFFF--
Aqueous Film Forming Foam), although the types of PFAS used in AFFF
appear to be changing. At this time, EPA does not have all the
information needed to provide a comprehensive list of all PFAS
chemicals that are potentially used in AFFF.
Senator Tester. So the point here is that I think it is
much easier to do preventative medicine than to do post and----
Mr. Wheeler. We are looking at a Significant New Use Rule
for the PFOS/PFOA as well to make sure that as the substitutes
come to the marketplace that we are reviewing those substitutes
before.
Senator Tester. Thank you.
Are you familiar with Libby?
Mr. Wheeler. Yes, I am.
RISK EVALUATION REPORT--FINALIZATION
Senator Tester. Montana. Okay. So you know that its
asbestos, incredible impacts, serious problem.
You have a document coming out called the ``Problem
Formulation of Risk Evaluation for Asbestos.'' You are familiar
with that, I assume?
Mr. Wheeler. Yes, Senator.
Senator Tester. Okay. So it lays out how devastating
asbestosis is, mesothelioma, cardiovascular, pulmonary,
immunodeficiency disease. The list goes on.
Do you plan on finalizing that risk evaluation by December
of this year?
Mr. Wheeler. Asbestos is one of the first 10 chemical
substances that we are looking at under TSCA.
Senator Tester. Yes.
Mr. Wheeler. We find it very important.
Senator Tester. Yes.
Mr. Wheeler. We noted----
Senator Tester. Do you plan on finalizing that report by
December of this year?
Mr. Wheeler. That is the goal. With the----
Senator Tester. Okay.
Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. Shutdown in January, we are a
little behind on that, but----
Senator Tester. But your budget also cuts that review
account by 28 percent, nearly one-third. Is that going to have
any impact on finalizing the Risk Evaluation Report?
Mr. Wheeler. No, it should not have an impact on finalizing
it.
We are also doing a Significant New Use Rule because we
noted that there is a gap where some----
Senator Tester. When do you anticipate----
Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. Asbestos products could be
imported.
Senator Tester. How long after the--how long after the Risk
Evaluation Report has been finalized do you anticipate it will
take to pull asbestos off the market?
Mr. Wheeler. Well, as I noted, we also have a Significant
New Use Rule to try to stop the importation of new asbestos
products into the United States.
Senator Tester. Yes, but that is not the question.
Mr. Wheeler. It is the first time any administration----
Senator Tester. I want to know when it is going to be----
Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. Has addressed this----
Senator Tester [continuing]. Pulled off the market.
Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. Since the early 1990s.
Senator Tester. We got people dying from this, okay? And it
is not a pleasant death. Why is it out there? Everybody knows
what the problem is. Why are we not pulling it off the market?
You are doing a risk evaluation.
Mr. Wheeler. We are.
Senator Tester. You said it would be done by December.
Should it not be pulled off the market?
That risk evaluation, by the way, I think is going to be
absolutely rock solid, no brainer, because the evidence is
there. How long will it take you to pull it off?
Mr. Wheeler. I cannot prejudge a risk assessment before it
is finished.
Senator Tester. I can.
Mr. Wheeler. We get into people----
Senator Tester. And so if it is rock solid, how long will
it take to pull it off?
Mr. Wheeler. If it is rock solid, we will move quickly to
pull it off the market.
Senator Tester. Is that a month?
Mr. Wheeler. I will have to get back to you on the exact
timing of how long. We are dealing with a new TSCA which has
never been implemented before.
[The information follows:]
risk evaluation report--finalization
Section 6 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), as amended by
the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act,
provides EPA with the authority to prohibit or limit the manufacture,
processing, distribution in commerce, use, or disposal of a chemical if
EPA evaluates the risk and concludes that the chemical presents an
unreasonable risk to human health or the environment. EPA shares your
concern about potential risks from asbestos and is currently reviewing
asbestos as one of the initial 10 existing chemicals for review under
amended TSCA. If EPA's risk evaluation identifies unreasonable risk for
one or more of the uses considered in the risk evaluation, TSCA
requires EPA to finalize a regulation to address those risks identified
within 2 years with an option to extend the final regulation by an
additional 2 years.
Senator Tester. Gotcha.
Mr. Wheeler. This is the first set of 10 chemicals ever put
through the program.
Senator Tester. I gotcha. All right. Asbestos has been
around for a long time, though. Clean air----
Mr. Wheeler. We are the first administration to address
this in 25 years.
Senator Tester. All right. I got it, and I appreciate that.
But because they did not does not mean we should not, okay?
Mr. Wheeler. Right.
BUTTE SUPERFUND CLEANUP
Senator Tester. All right. Clean air and clean water is
something really important. We are just talking about air with
Libby. Let us talk about water.
Your predecessor said that Superfund cleanup was going to
be one of his top priorities, and by the way, for all the
criticisms put on your predecessor, he actually was moving
forward with the Butte Superfund cleanup and Berkeley Pit in a
positive way, talking with people on the ground, doing some
things that are positive.
Is Superfund cleanup still a priority for you?
Mr. Wheeler. Absolutely. I am the first EPA Administrator
to visit Butte----
Senator Tester. Thank you.
Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. And Anaconda in over 20 years.
Senator Tester. Appreciate that.
Right now, Butte has got one employee on the site for a few
days a week. Your Superfund budget is going to be cut by over
$100 million. How do you square that with cleaning up a
Superfund site?
Mr. Wheeler. Looking at our budget and looking at the
resources, we have the people and the resources we need to get
it cleaned up. Butte is on schedule to be cleaned up with
deletion by 2024. We do not believe the budget will impact that
at all.
Senator Tester. Okay. So you are telling me that one
employee on the site for only a few days a week now with this
budget and the budget coming up for next year being $100
million less is going to keep that on schedule for cleanup?
Mr. Wheeler. That one employee is not the only employee
working on this site. We have a Montana field office with four
or five employees. Last week, I was in Denver, and I had a
conference call with the Butte and Anaconda teams----
Senator Tester. Yes.
Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. Along with our Denver staff who
are working on cleaning it up and our Washington, D.C., staff.
We probably had 30 staff involved in both of those sites on the
call.
CLARK FORK RIVER
Senator Tester. Good. I appreciate your attention to it.
I just want to make a real quick comment because I am over
time, but there is a piece of land that was operated by
Smurfit-Stone, west of Missoula, Montana, on the flood plain of
the Clark Fork River. I would ask you to put that on your radar
if it is not already on your radar.
This is a piece of property that has chemicals buried on
it. We do not believe the barrels have broken open yet and
dumped into the Clark Fork, but at the point they do, it
becomes a much more expensive cleanup. And if there is an
opportunity for you guys to get in there--and there are still
people alive that know that site--and find out where that stuff
is, as much as you possibly can, it may save a lot of heartache
down the road.
Thank you for being here, Mr. Wheeler.
Mr. Wheeler. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Hyde-Smith.
FLOODING IN MISSISSIPPI
Senator Hyde-Smith. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank
you, Mr. Wheeler, for being here for sure. Thank you for taking
the time to speak with me on the telephone--I think it was
March the 21--about the catastrophic flooding that we are
having in Mississippi.
You have been so excessive, and you have been--I have
been--had the opportunity to visit with you for--at length on
the telephone. So I appreciate you being accessible to me
during that time.
Unfortunately, the flooding, which began on February the
15, continues today, and we had Acting Administrator for EPA
Region 4, Mary Walker, to join me on a flight on March the 19
to fly over with the Corps of Engineers to observe the damage,
and I certainly appreciate that time there because it has
gotten worse since our conversation. And at best, it will be
another month before the flood waters full recede, assuming the
best of conditions.
Today more than 510,000 acres in this highly productive
agricultural region is under water. To put that into
perspective, that is about 789 square miles, an area of more
than 11 times the size of the District of Columbia. It is
affecting homes, roads, bridges, churches, schools. There are
snakes swimming in these facilities right now, and overall
health and public safety to all of the area residents--I have
been over there more than once, and what we are experiencing is
truly catastrophic.
Hundreds of thousands of acres of prime agriculture and
timberland will suffer significant damage and go unplanted this
season. I am talking to farmers almost daily that are in ruins
there.
The economic impact on agriculture along will be in the
hundreds of millions.
Similar flooding has occurred not once but 10 separate
times, 10 since EPA in 2008 prohibited the Corps from
completing the final aspects of a 78-year-old comprehensive
flood control effort. It has been going on as long as I can
remember.
Because of this, residents have lost their homes and
businesses. Roads and bridges have been destroyed. Wildlife is
dying. Flying over, we saw all the wildlife on the levee
because that was the only dry land that they could get to, and
their habitat lost to contaminated floodwaters.
We can all agree that decisions made in 2008 have not only
failed to meet the intent with respect to the environment,
wildlife, and habitat, but also placed a tremendous burden on
the lives and properties of thousands in Mississippi.
I am so grateful that you are giving this the attention
that you have given us. We have been looking forward to this
day for a long time. You have been, as I said, very responsive
to us, and you are certainly a light in a very dark area to us
right now. And I am grateful, and I appreciate you for that.
But what comments will you give me that EPA will work in
good faith with the Corps of Engineers who are providing the
adequate level of flood protection promised to Mississippians
literally since 1941?
Mr. Wheeler. Thank you, Senator. My heart goes out to your
constituents and the people in Mississippi with the flood that
has been going on. We are trying to help in the emergency
response side, and I will talk about that in a second.
We are working with the Army Corps of Engineers. We are
reviewing the decision that was made in 2008 to veto the Army
Corps plan for the Yazoo pumps, trying to determine if in
particular with the latest flooding if that changes our
determination in the work that went on in 2008 on reviewing
that project. We are reviewing more recent data and talking to
the Army Corps on a near daily basis to try to figure out how
we can be helpful to you, your constituents, and the Army Corps
to make sure that the flooding is addressed, and that we do not
have floods like this going into the future.
I would be remiss, however--we have incredible emergency
responders across the agency, at our headquarters, and in all
of our regions, and they respond to emergencies almost on a
daily basis. Most of them are very small that most people are
not aware of, when a train derails, when there is a small spill
someplace. But I would be remiss if I did not point out that we
have not had a head of our Emergency Response Office for this
administration. We are waiting on the Senate confirmation for
the head of our Emergency Response.
He was nominated 394 days ago, and that is absurd that we
have waited so long to have the head of our Emergency Response.
I really hope he will be confirmed before we hit the next
hurricane season this year.
Senator Hyde-Smith. Well, thank you very much for your
response, and I really look forward to working with you because
I do think we can come up with some reasonable solutions. But
thank you for your work.
Mr. Wheeler. Thank you.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Hyde-Smith.
Senator Udall.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Madam Chair.
REPROGRAMMING AND REORGANIZATION REQUIREMENTS
Mr. Wheeler, before we get into the budget, I want to start
with some housekeeping. This subcommittee requires our agencies
to submit reprogrammings and reorganizations for approval.
Sometimes that process can take time, depending on the scope of
the proposal, and on time it takes the agency to response to
our request for information.
We require that our agencies wait to implement any
reprogrammings or reorganizations until the subcommittee has
completed our evaluations.
Can you commit in this fairly simple yes or no that you and
your staff will continue to follow these longstanding
requirements?
Mr. Wheeler. Yes, I believe we have. We are working on a
regional reorganization with you, where we first briefed your
staff last September.
Senator Udall. And can you commit to continue responding to
requests from the Minority?
Mr. Wheeler. Yes. I believe we have responded to all of
your requests, and we will continue to do so.
GREAT LAKES PROGRAM--BUDGET
Senator Udall. The budget request cuts nearly all funding
for EPA's geographic programs. These programs have made real
measurable differences in environmental quality of water
bodies, such as the Great Lakes. This subcommittee has for 3
years running rejected the President's proposal to eliminate
these programs.
Last week, at a rally in Michigan, the President announced
he now supports full funding, $300 million, for EPA's Great
Lakes program. I consider that a remarkable reversal. I have to
wonder if the President will make more announcements reversing
his budget request.
You testified in the House yesterday that an amended budget
request is in progress for the Great Lakes program; is that
correct?
Mr. Wheeler. I believe what I said was that we are talking
to OMB about what we need to do to convey the President's----
Senator Udall. Well, the proper--you know the proper thing
to do is to submit an amended budget request, and we would
expect you to do that for any of the others that he is planning
on doing, rather than playing favorites and going to particular
places that are important in next year's presidential
elections.
Mr. Wheeler. We are working with OMB on that. They are the
ones who submit the actual amended budget request.
STAFFING CRISIS
Senator Udall. I just do not like the idea of playing
favorites. I think all of these big national programs are
funded because they are important on a regional basis, and I
know that your position generally is to say, oh, the States
should do that. The reality is the States were not doing it.
Congress stepped forward as a partner, and that is the reason
we keep funding these.
So I would like you to keep that in mind when you brief the
OMB and brief the President about the importance of these
programs.
I want to talk a little bit about the staffing crisis. This
subcommittee is constantly hearing evidence that morale is at
an all-time low among EPA scientists, engineers, and other
experts, and the agency staffing levels are dropping because
despite Congress rejecting proposed budget cuts, the agency is
not hiring new staff when previous staff depart.
I see this as an intentional effort to cripple the EPA so
badly that effects last well past this administration. Since
the end of the previous administration, EPA has lost 8.5
percent of its employees. EPA's Research Office alone has lost
a staggering 14 percent of staff and staffing in the field is
suffering especially.
The region that includes my home State of New Mexico has
lost nearly 12 percent of its staff, and those numbers are from
January. I do not have more recent data because EPA has refused
to respond to your request for more recent updates.
Mr. Wheeler, when you took over as Acting Administrator
nearly a year ago, you and I discussed the need for EPA to
maintain and cultivate experienced and qualified staff. You
said one of your personal priorities was to make sure that
happened, but here we are a year later. And the numbers show
that staffing levels are falling deeper into crisis, and that
we also sit here examining a budget request to cut another
1,800 staff. Is that really where you are going to take the
agency, another 1,800 level? That is where you think in terms
of public health and the environment? That is where the EPA
should be? Eighteen hundred people lower?
Mr. Wheeler. I am----
Senator Udall. You know, that is what your budget says.
Mr. Wheeler. I am more concerned about making sure we have
the right experts.
I hired the first human right--sorry.
Senator Udall. The question is----
Mr. Wheeler. Human Resources Director.
Senator Udall [continuing]. Do you want to be 1,800 people
lower? That is what your budget, you have put before the
Congress.
Mr. Wheeler. If we are focusing on our core missions at the
agency and protecting public health and the environment, that
is the number that we believe we can accomplish those goals.
Senator Udall. Well, I do not think--Mr. Wheeler, with all
due respect----
Mr. Wheeler. But my main concern is making sure----
Senator Udall [continuing]. I do not think you can do that
Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. That we have the right expertise.
Senator Udall. Yes. I do not think you can do that with
1,800 fewer employees, and if you look at the history of the
EPA over the last couple of years, I mean, we have been
dropping down dramatically. And there are a number of areas
where you are not, on public health issues and environmental
issues, stepping up to the plate and doing the right thing.
Are you aware, Mr. Wheeler, that Congress has rejected the
President's proposals to cut EPA's budget and that we have
provided nearly steady funding for EPA's operating programs?
Mr. Wheeler. Yes, I am aware.
Senator Udall. Yes. And I do not think there is any doubt
that the staff is the key. I mean, these career people--you
should realize it by now. If you really get into an issue, that
is where you have to turn to find out what is going on, and I
just think it is deplorable that we have dropped so far and
that you are on a trend right now with this budget you
presented, you are here defending, where you are going to cut
another 1,800.
I hope, as we have done in the past--I have not asked a
question yet. I hope, as in the past on a bipartisan basis,
that we continue to see the good work that is being done and
that we do not engage in this cutting just for the sake of
cutting.
And I yield back, Madam Chair.
STAFFING ISSUES
Senator Murkowski. Administrator Wheeler, you looked like
you were going to have one more comment there, but if you do
not, I am going to go to Mr. Van Hollen.
Mr. Wheeler. Just a quick comment that the downward trend
did start before this administration, but the biggest issue we
have is 40 percent of our workforce is eligible to retire over
the next 5 years.
Last year, we hired 30 new people to work on TSCA, but we
also lost 30 people in the same year that were working on TSCA.
So we have--the challenge that we have is the high number of,
compared to other agencies and departments, people who are
eligible to retire and are retiring and trying to bring on the
people to replace them. The hiring process is a very long
process to bring on new people in the Federal Government. It
takes months to bring on a qualified scientist, and as I said,
we brought on 30 new people last year to work on TSCA. We
thought we were going to have enough people to work on it, and
then at the same time, we had 30 people leave the agency.
So we have a challenge, and I am working very hard to
address that challenge.
Thank you.
Senator Murkowski. Let us go to Senator Van Hollen, please.
Senator Van Hollen. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Welcome, both of you.
Administrator Wheeler, when you were up for your nomination
hearing before the Environmental and Public Works Committee,
you said for the record that ``The EPA is fully committed to
the Chesapeake Bay program.'' You have not changed your
position, have you?
Mr. Wheeler. No, Senator.
Senator Van Hollen. You remain fully committed to that
program and think it is a good program, right?
Mr. Wheeler. Yes, sir.
CLIMATE CHANGE
Senator Van Hollen. I appreciate that because, as you know,
in the President's budget, he slashes the program from $73
million a year to $7.3 million.
Senator Udall mentioned that when the President was out at
the Great Lakes, he on the spot restored the $300 million cut.
The other day, after Secretary DeVos defended the cut to
Special Olympics, the President reversed that.
It does indicate that the whole process on the executive
side of the ledger is a bit of a sham here, but I am pleased
that on a bipartisan basis, this subcommittee has continued to
fund these important projects.
You indicated that the mission of the EPA was to protect
the public health and the environment, and I assume you would
agree that we should do that using the best science and the
best evidence; is that right?
Mr. Wheeler. Yes, Senator.
CLIMATE CHANGE WEBSITE--INDICATORS PAGE
Senator Van Hollen. So my question is when it comes to
climate change--and we just heard Senator Hyde-Smith talk about
the catastrophic flooding in Mississippi. There is no doubt
that we see more frequent and more intense extreme weather
events.
Why you continue--the EPA continues to have taken down the
EPA--the portion of the EPA website dealing with climate
change. When you go to epa.climate these days, you got a little
headline saying ``We want to help you find what you are looking
for,'' and it goes on. It disappeared, the previous climate
change portion of the website.
Mr. Wheeler. It is my understanding that everything--and I
have asked this question of our career technical people
multiple times--that everything that was ever on the website on
climate change is still available on the website.
Senator Van Hollen. So what you did----
Mr. Wheeler. It is not highlighted to the same extent that
President Obama's EPA highlighted it.
Senator Van Hollen. So if you wanted----
Mr. Wheeler. But it is still on the website.
Senator Van Hollen. Mr. Administrator, if you want to be
taken seriously as an agency that believes in science, you
would not disappear the climate change website. Yes, you have
archived what was there before the Trump administration.
My understanding is when you look at your climate
indicators page, you have not been updating the graphs with the
newest information. Will you commit today that you will do
that, the agency?
Mr. Wheeler. I will have to look into that. Yes.
Senator Van Hollen. Would you be surprised to learn that
the climate indicators page does not allow the graphs to be
updated with the most recent information?
Mr. Wheeler. I would have to look into that.
BERNARD GOLDSTEIN'S WASHINGTON POST ARTICLE
Senator Van Hollen. Well, I would hope--I would hope that--
the credibility of the agency seems to me is on the line on
these issues. People can have their own views, but when you
have the scientific community very clear on this, the evidence
is overwhelming.
Which leads me to another question because I am worried
about the fact that science is being displaced by sort of
political science and political pressure in a number of places
around the agency.
There is an article. I do not know if you saw it this
morning. It headline is ``If I Worked at the EPA, I Would
Resign.'' It is a column in the Washington Post by Bernard
Goldstein.
Bernard Goldstein was the chair of the Clean Air Scientific
Advisory Board in the Reagan administration. He was then
appointed by President Reagan to be the head of EPA's Office of
Research and Development, and there are seven members of the
Scientific Advisory Board. And he points out that they rely a
lot on the scientific information provided by subcommittees to
the board.
And then he writes that is how it is supposed to work. In
other words, they are supposed to get input from the
subcommittee experts. But last October, Wheeler suddenly and
highhandedly terminated the subcommittees working to develop
recommendations for their particulate standards as well as the
standard for ozone pollution, which is what this advisory board
is going to review next. And he says for the first time, this
advisory committee will lack a single epidemiologist.
So my question is why. Why eliminate the panel of experts?
It seems to me it looks like another step to eliminate outside
independent expert opinion.
Mr. Wheeler. Absolutely not, Senator.
First of all, the Clean Air Act 1990 amendments requires us
to review the NAAQS every 5 years. We took a hard look at what
was causing the delay because the agency has never met the 5-
year timeframe for ozone or particulate matter (PM).
Part of the problem was the subcommittees, which are not
required under the statute, took a lot of time to go back and
forth between the subcommittee and the full Clean Air
Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC).
So we streamlined the CASAC review so we will get both of
those reviews for ozone and done within the 5 years. They will
be done by the end of next year, which is the requirement under
statute, and as I sat down with----
Senator Van Hollen. If I could just ask--if I could just
ask----
Mr. Wheeler. Certainly.
CASAC 5-YEAR REVIEW
Senator Van Hollen. I understand. Why not say to the
subcommittee experts, ``Here is your deadline. If you do not
get us the information in time, then we are not going to be
able to consider it''----
Mr. Wheeler. Previous administrations have done that.
Senator Van Hollen. Right. I am asking why this
administration wiped it out.
Mr. Wheeler. They were never able to meet the 5-year
deadline.
I have assured the head of CASAC that if they need outside
technical assistance, outside scientific review, they are still
allowed to reach out to epidemiologists and get additional
input. It is that formal subcommittee review process that took
literally months and years at----
Senator Van Hollen. So are you wiping out all the
subcommittees?
Mr. Wheeler. Yes, for the ozone and PM, and then we will
see how that goes as far as the NAAQS.
Senator Van Hollen. No, but you have not wiped out the
other ones?
Mr. Wheeler. Those subcommittees are just for the NAAQS
review process under CASAC for the NAAQS standards. As soon as
the 5-year review period is over, we start the next 5-year
review. The agency has never met the 5-year deadline that is
required under the Clean Air Act.
We tried to reform the process in order to meet the
deadline given to us by Congress.
Senator Van Hollen. I think the concern is this combined
with another policy you have where people who are providing
contracts to the EPA scientists, you are not allowing them to
participate, but you are allowing other sort of industry
lobbyists to participate.
I think I would like to continue with this conversation.
Mr. Wheeler. I would be happy to.
Senator Van Hollen. The credibility of the agency clearly
is being hurt here when you disappear the climate page, when it
appears that the important subcommittees of scientists are
being eliminated.
And just to end with a point that Senator Udall made, as I
understand it, the Assistant Administrator for Research and
Development position, which is what this gentleman held during
the Reagan administration, is unfilled, is that correct?
Mr. Wheeler. It is. We have had a hard time filling
positions because people look at how long the process takes,
and they have told us no.
When you have the head of our Superfund and Emergency
Response waiting 394 days for confirmation, we literally have
had people say, ``We do not want to go through the Senate
confirmation process.'' This confirmation process is broken,
and I really hope it can be fixed on a bipartisan basis.
Senator Van Hollen. Well, there is the----
Mr. Wheeler. We are losing qualified people.
POLITICAL CONFIRMATION
Senator Van Hollen [continuing]. Confirmation part of it.
There is the confirmation part of it. There is also the reality
that lots of people have not been appointed. We cannot go
through a confirmation process----
Mr. Wheeler. We have had people to turn down because they
look at how long the process is.
Senator Van Hollen. The suggestion in this article from the
person who held this position in the past is the reason
scientists are not applying for the job is because they think
that their work will be subject to political oversight and not
scientific peer review.
Mr. Wheeler. I have never met him, and I do not know how he
has formed these opinions about me. We have never had any
conversations. So I am not sure why he believes that.
Senator Van Hollen. Thank you.
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator.
I want to talk about some of the programs that have made a
difference.
I am listening to the comments from my colleague here, and
while I respect the line of inquiry, what is on the website is
not what people in Alaska are talking about. They say, ``What
are you doing to fix PM2.5? What are you doing on
our fish grinding issue? What are you doing on these things
that are making a difference?''
I want to talk you about some of them because there is
frustration here with EPA. We have that in Alaska. We have that
throughout all of our States.
But to know that we are making a little bit of headway
there is important. I mentioned in my opening that when it
comes to the PM2.5 issue, and how Fairbanks is
located in a geographically constrained area with really no
viable options for folks to keep their homes warm in the
wintertime so they turn to wood burning, we have got some real
particulate issues.
The Borough has been reclassified for non-attainment. The
State is required to formulate and submit this air quality plan
to demonstrate attainment by December 31. We have been
struggling with this for years.
That is why I mentioned the Targeted Airshed Grants. That
has been the one thing that has been somewhat helpful to the
Fairbanks North Star Borough doing these woodstove change-outs.
I am working with Senator Carper now on our bill, the Wood
Heaters Emission Reduction Act. That is another little bright
glimmer of hope.
Right now EPA has been providing some technical assistance
to the Borough in formulating this plan that is due at the end
of the year. People are very nervous. They are very anxious
because there are very real on-the-ground repercussions. How is
EPA taking into account the unique situation that Fairbanks
faces with its geography, an area with extremely low
temperatures in the winter, and lack of access to cleaner fuels
like natural gas? How are you working with the Borough to
address a plan by year-end?
Mr. Wheeler. Fairbanks, as you know, has very unique
issues, problems with the air quality. A lot of it is
geographic, the way the city sits, and of course, the wood
burning heat sources as well.
We are working very closely with not only the City of
Fairbanks, but also the State to try to make sure that they can
submit a State Implementation Plan before the end of the year.
As you know, we have been sued. The EPA has been sued over
this. If we cannot get the State Implementation Plan by the end
of the year, we will be forced to work on a Federal
Implementation Plan, which is something we do not want to do.
Senator Murkowski. We do not want it either.
Mr. Wheeler. Yes. The Obama administration issued more
Federal Implementation Plans than the previous four
administrations combined. Since March of 2017, we have turned
one FIP into a SIP on a monthly basis, working with the States.
So we have a very good track record of working with States and
local communities to avoid FIPs and to change FIPs back into
SIPs. The State Implementation Plan is where we want to be.
I know my Region 10 regional administrator has been up in
Alaska multiple times with the City of Fairbanks and the State
trying to provide additional tools, additional assistance,
technical assistance as well. We will continue to do that
because our goal is to make sure that there is a SIP in place
before the end of the year.
SMALL REMOTE INCINERATORS
Senator Murkowski. Well, that is definitely what the
Borough is looking for. We need your help there, and again, the
sooner the better. So we look forward to some of these
important conversations moving forward.
One of the things that we have dealt with in this
Committee, in this subcommittee, is the issue of small remote
incinerators up North in very remote areas that are
inaccessible by road. They are critical for solid waste
disposal. The options for using solid waste disposal are
substantially more difficult, really unfeasible up North in
some of these areas.
Year after year, we have included language within our
appropriations subcommittee bill that gives us just yet a
little bit more time. I have gone to my colleagues on the
subcommittee on the House and the Senate side, and I have
promised them, ``EPA is working with us to resolve this. It is
going to be resolved this year, and we will not need to worry
about this.''
I cannot keep going back to my colleagues and saying it is
going to be resolved, it is going to be resolved. I really need
to know that we will have an administrative solution on these
very few small remote incinerators.
Can you give me some assurance that we are going to resolve
this, this year?
Mr. Wheeler. We are certainly trying. This is another area
where we have to work with the State for a State Implementation
Plan.
Senator Murkowski. Right.
Mr. Wheeler. We are trying to make sure that they have the
data that they need to submit a plan to us.
Senator Murkowski. Well, I know that Senator Udall and
Congresswoman McCollum will be really pleased when I come to
them and say, ``We do not need this anymore because we have
resolved that.''
So we will be working with you and the State on that.
Mr. Wheeler. My ultimate goal is to make sure that all four
of you are very pleased.
Senator Murkowski. Well, that sounds like a good goal.
Let me turn to Senator Udall.
ENFORCEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS
Senator Udall. I just want a brief comment about the
staffing issue that you talked about.
First of all, labor economists have been predicting baby-
boomer retirement effects for decades. This is not news. Your
agency has simply failed to plan and prepare and deal with the
staffing deficit.
My opinion is you have known this was coming. The people in
the Department have known it is coming. You promised us you
were going to be on top of it, and you failed on that front.
One of the fundamental responsibilities of the EPA is to
enforce our Nation's environmental laws, but this
administration is literally taking the cops off the beat.
Administrative and civil penalties in fiscal year 2018 declined
to the lowest level since EPA established a dedicated
enforcement office 25 years ago.
EPA also initiated roughly 1,800 civil enforcement cases in
fiscal year 2018, the lowest level in a decade.
I know the administration's party-line response is that it
is focusing on compliance ahead of problems rather than after-
the-fact enforcement, but the numbers do not tell that story.
EPA's own data indicates that the agency conducted 10,600
inspections in 2018, which is the lowest number in the last
decade and less than half of the inspections conducted in the
peak year of 2010.
With fewer inspections, there are fewer opportunities to
identify facilities that are out of compliance. It really is
not more complicated than that, and this focus on compliance,
the budget request you bring us today asks for a $12 million
cut to compliance. That is a full 12 percent cut.
This administration's money is not where its mouth is, and,
Mr. Wheeler, the staffing levels for the headquarters
enforcement office has plummeted by 19 percent. That is more
than double the loss of the rest of the agency, and this
subcommittee has not cut one dollar from EPA enforcement.
It is clear to me that this administration is turning its
back on enforcing our environmental laws, and while that is
friendlier to industry, it is a five-alarm fire for air quality
and our water quality.
Mr. Wheeler, if the administration's focus is on compliance
and not enforcement, what are you specific goals and metrics to
show that this approach will result in cleaner air and water,
specific metrics and goals?
Mr. Wheeler. Absolutely. First of all, when a State has
primacy on the environmental programs, they are the ones that
generally do the inspections, which is why the inspection
numbers have been doing down since 2010. But we have----
METRICS
Senator Udall. But also, mind you, the budgets that have
come up here have savaged money to the States. The budgets you
have been presenting year after year, this administration, and
your partners are the straights. You have delegated, but then
you do not want to give them money to do the job. I do not know
how you can get in this situation where you say, ``Oh, we are
going to let the States do it,'' but then when they are vital
partners, it is very important for you to give them the money
to do that.
Focus in on the metrics.
Mr. Wheeler. Sure.
Senator Udall. Show me that what you are doing is providing
cleaner air and water to the American public.
Mr. Wheeler. The past metrics have focused on targeting
industry sectors as a sector. What we are now targeting is non-
attainment areas to get them to attainment. We are targeting
impaired waters to get them to be safe drinking water. So we
are focused on the environmental outcome.
The pounds of pollution reduced because of our enforcement
actions went up last year dramatically.
We have stopped over, for example, 1 million after-market
defeat devices from being used in the cars here in the United
States, which helps us on the non-attainment side because of
the auto emissions contributing to non-attainment.
In 2019, we have already stopped approximately 2,200
illegal vehicles and engines at the border. So what we are
doing is trying to focus on areas where there is not
attainment, to get those areas to attainment, using our
enforcement tools.
I would point out that last year, the number of criminal
cases went up for the first time since 2011. It has been on a
downward trend, and we are reversing that trend.
So, yes, we are focusing on compliance and audits at the
beginning of the process, but we are making sure that if people
are violating the law, we are taking actions, including
criminal action against them, so at both ends of the
enforcement spectrum. But in the middle, we are working with
the States to provide them more tools so that they do
inspections.
When we do inspections--and, actually, we just started this
last year, and Region 8 is a pilot. Our inspectors are going
out inspecting. Now we do the inspection, and then we provide a
written report back to the facility afterwards. That has
actually cut down in some of the inspection times of our people
because they are spending extra days working on the reports to
give the facility so that they reach compliance faster.
Senator Udall. But, mind you, you have also sent a budget
up here to cut your compliance 12 percent.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Blunt.
Senator Blunt. Thank you, Chairman.
Administrator, it is good to see you here.
In September of 2018, really in your first few weeks on the
job, you dealt with a big problem that has been a problem in
our State, a big enough problem that it had been on the
Superfund Priority List for 29 years. Hard to imagine anything
that is really a priority that is on the Priority List for 29
years.
Mr. Wheeler. Absolutely.
WEST LAKES LANDFILL
Senator Blunt. And you and your predecessor worked from day
one when you were the Deputy Administrator and now the
Administrator to come to a conclusion and did. The local
feedback from West Lakes Landfill, that area has been very
positive. I think you have hit the right spot here to get this
done.
This morning, though, would you give me an update on what
is going on there now and what are the next steps we need to
take to get to the end of your planned way to deal with that?
Mr. Wheeler. We have been working on the ground. We have
already started the remediation. We are continuing to keep the
local citizen groups updated on our progress, and at this
point, we are still on track of getting the site cleaned up and
completed.
Senator Blunt. Is this a process of bidding someone to
remove the things that are going to be removed or to----
Mr. Wheeler. I believe so at this point. I can give you a
better update afterwards, but I believe so.
Senator Blunt. If you want to, take that for the record----
Mr. Wheeler. Sure.
[The information follows:]
west lake landfill update
--On February 6, 2019, EPA finalized an enforceable agreement with
the potentially responsible parties (PRPs) to perform an
investigation of the groundwater beneath and around the site.
--The EPA is working to reach a legal agreement with the PRPs to
perform remedial design for the operable unit that contains
radiologically impacted materials.
--The Agency is engaging the PRPs regarding their implementation of
the remedial action after the design is complete.
--As a site on the Administrator's Emphasis List, the EPA met the
commitments to citizens by releasing a record of decision
amendment by September 2018. EPA also made improvements to the
proposed plan to reduce exposure to the community and cleanup
workers, shorten construction time, and allow the flexibility
to more efficiently remove contamination from the landfill.
SMALL REFINERY EXEMPTION PROGRAM
Senator Blunt [continuing]. And then I would like a sense
of where you are now and maybe your projected calendar, how you
are going to deal with those issues.
Let me talk about one more thing while you are here. Under
the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) volume obligations, EPA
grants retroactively waivers. I think we have talked about this
when you were confirmed.
When you retroactively grant waivers and do not reallocate
the volume that those waivers would have represented
effectively, you decided on your own to reduce the volume of
ethanol that is out there.
I think whenever we had your confirmation hearing, you said
you are going to look at how that exemption process works and
make sure that the exemptions are warranted. I think you also
were going to outline the process for review and really look
seriously at what happens when you give a waiver and there is
no reallocation of that amount.
I think you have got 39 pending waivers, and I would just
like you to talk a little bit about how you are going to look
at those waiver issues, and if there is a way you can do this
so that the legislated volume or the volume actually that you
have determined should be the right volume actually is either
the volume that year or added on to the volume for the next
year.
Mr. Wheeler. Well, Senator, the Small Refinery Exemption
Program, which is our process of providing waivers to the small
refineries, which decreases the gallons on the RFS program, is
set up by statute.
Previous administrations did not implement the program, and
EPA was sued three times and lost three times. So we now have
three court orders and how to run the program in addition to
the statute as well as appropriations language at one point.
But once we set the Renewable Volume Obligation (RVO) for
the year, for the following year----
Senator Blunt. Right.
Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. Which we have done on time the
last 2 years, first time that has ever happened----
Senator Blunt. Right.
Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. After that, when we receive the
small refinery waivers and those come in after the RVOs are
set, we do not have a process to go back to readjust the RVO.
If we were to try to do that, that would probably send more
small refiners into financial hardship based on the number of
gallons that would then be spread out over fewer refineries.
We have taken the move to be more transparent with small
refineries.
Senator Blunt. But when you exempt the small refiners, do
not you spread out the gallons over the larger refiners?
Mr. Wheeler. No, we do not. I believe that is the crux of
the issue is we are not redistributing the small refinery
gallons back into the marketplace.
Senator Blunt. Into the system.
Mr. Wheeler. Into the system, right.
We do not have a mechanism to do that because we have
already set the RVO for the compliance year, and that would
throw all of the----
Senator Blunt. You need to give yourself a mechanism, or do
we need to give you one? Or is it just unreasonable to have
that mechanism?
Mr. Wheeler. I think we would need to be given that
mechanism, but I also think it would be very hard to try to
implement something like that after the fact.
On the 39 that you referred to, we have not actually
received those yet from the Department of Energy. The way the
process works is that they apply to the Department of Energy.
The Department of Energy reviews the small refinery exemption
applications. They have given us a list of the small refineries
that have applied this year, but they have not given us their
underlying rationale and recommendations yet for those
refineries.
So, as soon as we receive those, we then process them and
either move forward to either grant or deny the small refinery.
Senator Blunt. And when you do that, by the time you get to
that, it is retroactive because the year is basically already
behind us; is that right?
Mr. Wheeler. Yes, that is correct.
Senator Blunt. All right. You can I can talk about this
more, and we will. Again, thank you for your leadership on West
Lakes, and thank you for the last 2 years of getting that RFS
number out on time.
Mr. Wheeler. Thank you.
Senator Blunt. Thank you, Chairman.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Merkley.
CLIMATE CHANGE PROGRAMS--BUDGETS
Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and
thank you, Administrator Wheeler, for coming before the
subcommittee.
When you were being considered for nomination, I asked you
on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being very concerned, how
concerned were you about climate change, and you responded an 8
or 9, which means it is a pretty significant concern.
So did you increase or decrease funding for climate
programs in the 2020 budget as a result of your high level of
concern about climate?
Mr. Wheeler. Which climate programs are you referring to?
Because we are still moving forward on our two big climate
regulations. We should finalize those this summer, the----
Senator Merkley. Did you increase financing or decrease
financing for the Global Change Research Program?
Mr. Wheeler. That has been eliminated, but we believe we
can address those through our regulatory programs and other
programs at the agency.
Senator Merkley. And did you increase or decrease funding
for the Atmospheric Protection Program?
Mr. Wheeler. That has been decreased. Yes.
Senator Merkley. Was that the $365 million decrease for air
quality programs, or also you decreased other programs as well?
Mr. Wheeler. I am sorry. I will have to get back to you on
that specifically.
[The information follows:]
climate change programs--budgets
Our agency will provide a response as part of the ``Additional
Committee Questions'' at the end of the hearing.
Senator Merkley. Okay. So if you have a high level of
concern, how come you are cutting the funding for key climate
programs?
Mr. Wheeler. Because we are moving forward on our two
regulations, our ACE regulation would reduce CO2 from power
plants by 34 percent, and our CAFE standard, which we also plan
to finalize later this spring or early summer, will reduce CO2
emissions on par with what the Obama administration----
LEAD DUST REGULATION
Senator Merkley. I think the world is well aware that that
effort will increase carbon pollution.
But let us turn to lead. You are probably aware that lead
is one of the major health threats for young children in our
country, nearly half a million U.S. children ages 1 through 5
have blood levels at or above the 5-microgram level, which is
where the CDC recommends public health actions be taken.
I think you probably understand that there is no safe blood
level, but that this is a very serious impact on the developing
brains of our children across Americas, and yet your 2020
proposed budget slashes EPA's lead program. Why?
Mr. Wheeler. It is the lead paint, and we are working
closely with HUD. We are moving forward with our lead dust
regulation. That should be finalized by June. We are also
proposing our lead and copper pipe rule, which is the first
time that regulation has been modernized in over 20 years.
So we are moving forward very aggressively on lead, but
that particular lead program that you referred to, we found
that within the administration, it was duplicative of what HUD
was doing. So we are deferring to HUD on the lead paint, but we
are moving forward on the regulations for lead dust, which
again will be out in June. And we will be proposing the lead
and copper rule this summer, which will go a long ways to
reducing lead exposure to families, and we are looking at
mandatory testing in both schools and daycare centers.
LEAD TESTING IN SCHOOLS
Senator Merkley. Well, that is funny because while you are
talking about some future regulation, you are cutting the
program for State and Tribal assistance grants for lead testing
in schools, which means less lead is detected, less action is
taken, and so the net impact is that more children get
poisoned. And that is really unfortunate under your leadership
that more children are going to be poisoned.
Mr. Wheeler. We also requested $50 million for Healthy
Schools program, which will be working with schools, not just
public schools and private schools, but also Tribal schools to
address lead and other contaminants located in the schools.
CLEAN WATER AND DRINKING WATER STATE REVOLVING FUNDS
Senator Merkley. The Clean Water and Drinking Water State
Revolving Funds are something very valuable to particularly my
rural communities. I go to every county every year. I hold a
public town hall. I meet with the commissioners and any other
electeds beforehand--school boards, city commissioners, and so
forth. Almost always what comes up is the challenge of clean
water supply and wastewater treatment. It is just a critical
piece of infrastructure.
Under your proposed budget, States would lose 31 percent of
their potential funding. Under the Clean Water State Revolving
Fund and the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, I know that
my rural communities are desperate for more assistance because
it is so expensive for a small town to do a treatment center.
You just cannot spread among enough residents in those smaller
towns.
So this might have a huge impact on infrastructure in rural
America. Why would you want to do that to rural America?
Mr. Wheeler. The amount they are asking for this year is at
a reduction, but you have to remember that the overall funds
currently available in the overall SRFs across the whole
country is $80 billion.
We also asked for more funding for AWIA this year--I am
sorry--for WIFIA this year, and AWIA, which passed by Congress
last fall, did not receive any money this year, but we are
requesting $83 million for that. There is a number of different
small grant programs in the new AWIA legislation.
We know we have been successful in the SRFs, but in order
to reach more smaller communities, we think some of the funding
mechanisms and the AWIA legislation might be very helpful
there. So that is why we are asking for money for that
legislation--or for that new statute that was passed last fall.
So we are asking for $83 million for AWIA. We asked for an
increase from over our budget request last year for WIFIA, and
with the total amount of money available through the SRFs, we
are looking at $80 billion because every time we put money out
through the SRF, it gets repaid . We are also earning interest
on it. So that bank of money has increased substantially over
the years.
WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE INNOVATION ACT
Senator Merkley. Well, I am glad you mentioned WIFIA, Water
Infrastructure Finance Innovation Act, because it is an act
that I wrote, and I am pleased it is there. But, unfortunately,
it is not working for small communities because the fees, the
administrative fees that are being charged by the
administration, are too high.
I would like to encourage you to take a look and advocate
within administration how to make that program work for small
communities.
Mr. Wheeler. We are trying that. We have looked at trying
to get a few small communities to band together for a loan. We
are looking at that in Indiana, for example, where there are
several small communities, but we think the new AWIA
legislation might actually be better for small communities. So
that is why we requested money for AWIA.
Senator Merkley. Thank you.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Merkley, and thank
you for clarifying that because I think we recognize certainly
in my State that the opportunities with AWIA are considerable
for the smaller communities.
Let us go to Senator Daines.
SILVER BOW CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
Senator Daines. Thank you, Chairman Murkowski.
Administrator Wheeler, I want to commend you for your
leadership of the agency and a renewed focus on achieving
results for the American people.
One area where Montanans have really seen an increased
focus is on our Superfund sites. I am pleased you have ranked
our Silver Bow and Anaconda sites with the highest priority for
cleanup and restoring to reuse and our Lobby asbestos site on
the EPA's list with greatest potential of redevelopment. That
is direction from the top that Montanans have long sought for.
Now we need to make sure the actions are executed effectively
for Montana.
One aspect of the remedy involved for restoration of the
Silver Bow Creek site is restoring Silver Bow Creek to a
natural stream. I have heard from EPA and ARCO that there may
be some limitations to restoring a full functioning natural
stream in this area.
My question is, what do we need to do in Congress to remedy
these obstacles?
Mr. Wheeler. Well, first of all, Senator, thank you for
showing me both of those sites last summer. I enjoyed that
visit to Montana, and it was really educational to see that
firsthand.
Senator Daines. And you were the first EPA Administrator to
ever visit both of those sites.
Mr. Wheeler. I believe in at least over 20 years.
Senator Daines. Thank you. Thanks for coming.
Mr. Wheeler. Yes. I was very happy to do that, and it was
very educational for me.
I just actually had a briefing on this last week. I was in
our Denver office. I had a teleconference call with our Montana
field office, our Denver people who are working on these two
sites, and our D.C. people working on these two sites for an
update.
I have to be careful because some of this has not been
announced yet. We are working with ARCO and then the parties.
We have to go back to the court for this as well, but we are
trying to make sure that in the future, if a water source is
identified for the creek that that would be a possibility.
Some of that, though, is not within the remediation side of
a Superfund site. It might be more on the natural resource
damages side but not the remediation side.
So we are constrainted in some aspects of what we can do,
but we have communicated to the potentially responsible parties
(PRPs) the importance of that for the community. We are trying
to make sure that our Superfund remediation effort there will
allow the restoration of that creek in the future and the
remediation techniques will not impede that from happening.
Senator Daines. Well, thank you. I can tell by just you are
responding that you are actively engaged on this issue.
Mr. Wheeler. Yes, I am, sir.
ANACONDA SMELTER SUPERFUND SITE
Senator Daines. I can tell you are not looking at your
notes. You are talking about it from firsthand experience, and
I appreciate that greatly for your engagement.
I know the folks in the community there cannot wait to see
this come to some closure.
Regarding the Anaconda Superfund site, it is my
understanding there has been some progress made on the consent
decree----
Mr. Wheeler. Yes.
Senator Daines [continuing]. For the Anaconda Smelter
Superfund site, but I have heard there may be a speedbump. Can
you assure me that the EPA is staying form to ensure the site
will be secure into perpetuity?
Mr. Wheeler. Yes. I am not aware of the speedbump, and I
would be happy to talk to you and your staff about that
afterwards.
It is my understanding we are still on plan to execute the
consent decree by this December.
Senator Daines. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Wheeler. That is what I was told the last time I----
Senator Daines. Yes. It is the in perpetuity piece that we
want to make sure.
Mr. Wheeler. Sure.
SIGNIFICANT NEW USE RULE--ASBESTOS
Senator Daines. I know you are engaged. Thank you for
working with us closely and particularly for the EPA's active
presence on the ground with the community, restoring that trust
and that dialogue.
I want to shift gears and talk about asbestos for a moment.
As you know, due to asbestos contamination, mining vermiculate
in northwest Montana, there has been a terrible legacy of
asbestos-related pulmonary problems for my constituents
throughout that area. We are talking about Libby primarily. In
fact, there were 2,000 individuals in northwest Montana that
have been diagnosed with an asbestos-related pulmonary disease
at Libby's CARD Clinic.
In fact, furthermore, just last summer, a preschool in
Missoula was found to have an unacceptably high level of
asbestos exposure, and children had to be immediately
relocated. Clearly, our Country has known for a while that
asbestos presence can be dangerous to human health.
I believe it is very important as a chemical engineer that
we base decisions on sound science. You said that your goal
remains to have it complete, this EPA's risk evaluation--and
Senator Tester brought this up earlier--to have this completed
by December.
My communities in Montana are eager, eager for progress. We
have known for a while the dangers of asbestos, and we want to
protect others from the tragedies that we have seen in Montana.
So I want to thank you for going a step beyond what is
required under TSCA with a Significant New Use Rule regarding
asbestos. My question is, why did the EPA list specific uses of
asbestos instead of banning all new uses?
Mr. Wheeler. We are about to go final on the Significant
New Use Rule, and we are looking at that. We took comment, and
that is part of our deliberation at this point.
There was a lot of misinformation in the press last year
when we announced the Significant New Use. The TSCA process
takes several years from start to finish. We wanted to make
sure that no new--I have to be careful not to prejudge. We were
concerned that there could be importation of asbestos products
into our country. We are seeing asbestos showing up in products
from Russia and China. So the only way to ensure that the EPA
is aware of that ahead of time is the Significant New Use Rule,
which would allow us before an importer could import a new
product containing asbestos that they would have to go to us
for permission. We could then deny it.
There was no mechanism to do that prior to our Significant
New Use Rule. So that is what we are trying to do to close that
loophole.
Senator Daines. Right.
Mr. Wheeler. I was accused last year in the press of trying
to open up the markets to all kinds of asbestos products, and
that is the furthest thing from the case.
Senator Daines. Thank you for staying very engaged and
active on this issue as well. I want to work with you. I want
to work on legislation to do just that. I think it is more
predictable for all parties involved. I want to see an outcome
that protects the people of this country and in Montana, and my
goal is to help prevent these future tragedies like we have
seen in places like Libby.
Mr. Wheeler. When I was a career staffer at EPA in the
early 1990s in the toxics office, the EPA program had a setback
on the asbestos regulation. Part of that was overturned by the
court, and the agency has not tried to address asbestos since
then.
With the new TSCA, I think we can address these issues. The
Significant New Use Rule is supposed to be the stop-gap measure
until we finish the risk assessment and the regulation of
asbestos, but we are moving forward for the first time in over
25 years to try to address the asbestos.
Senator Daines. Okay. Thank you, Administrator.
OFFSHORE FISH GRINDING
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Daines.
Administrator Wheeler, I have a couple more quick ones, and
I am going to run over to Homeland Security approps hearing and
ask a couple questions over there before we gavel out. Senator
Blunt is going to be here with Senator Udall as we wrap up.
We have made some headway working with you on the offshore
fish grinding. Thank you for helping us with that effort, but
we are still dealing with the onshore processing issue, even
with the best available technology. One hundred percent
compliance with the permit requirements is not achievable
because of the nature of the seafood waste. This results in
extensive noncompliance reporting under the EPA permit, serving
as a constant threat of enforcement risk and loss.
I would ask once again for your commitment to work with me
to ensure that our onshore fish processors are not going to
face fines for simply doing everything that they can to comply
with the regulation. I do not know if you have any updates for
me, but that is something that we have to get resolved.
Mr. Wheeler. We are supposed to have our draft general
permit for public review published early this month for public
comment.
Senator Murkowski. Okay. This month, April?
Mr. Wheeler. Yes, April.
Senator Murkowski. So sometime in the next week or so?
Mr. Wheeler. Yes. I have planned for early April. Yes,
Senator.
DIESEL GENERATORS
Senator Murkowski. Okay. We will look forward to that.
Another perennial issue relates to diesel generators in our
remote communities and the EPA regulation that requires any
diesel generator purchased after model year 2014 to have a
diesel particulate filter installed, even if it is used as a
primary power generator.
So you know this issue very well in terms of the high cost
of compliance to many of our small remote communities, and your
regulatory review panel set up as a result of Executive Order
13777. We have asked the EPA to reexamine the reg related to
these diesel engines.
Do you have a current status on that? Please do anything
you can to demonstrate your commitment to work with us with
regard to our micro grids scattered all throughout the State.
Mr. Wheeler. I am told that we should be issuing a Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking and direct Final Rule in June of this
year.
Senator Murkowski. Looking forward to it.
Administrator, I really appreciate your in-depth responses
to some of these questions, and getting into real performance
on initiatives, many of which have been hanging out there for a
long period of time. Know that I look forward to working with
you.
I am going to yield the rest of my time here to Senator
Udall, and thank you for being here this morning.
Mr. Wheeler. Thank you.
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
Senator Udall. Thank you, Madam Chair.
We are, as you know, Administrator Wheeler, almost 3 years
since the passage of overwhelming bipartisan reform of TSCA,
and I know you are aware how involved I was in that. So you can
imagine my disappointment when the very first chemical
regulation you took, methylene chloride, was a watered-down
rule that walks back protections for workers.
EPA recently finalized a ban on all consumer uses of the
methylene--chemical methylene chloride in paint strippers.
Inexplicably, the ban failed to cover workers, as the
originally proposed ban did, despite the fact that the vast
majority of more than 50 deaths from this chemical have
occurred in the workplace.
In fact, I have met with the mother of Kevin Hartley, who
died at age 21 while working, using a methylene chloride-based
stripper he had been trained to use. We know that people are
dying using these strippers on the job.
In finalizing the consumer ban, EPA found unreasonable risk
of acute human lethality. That means that EPA has already found
that this chemical in paint strippers and coating removers
poses an unreasonable risk of acute human lethality. Is that
correct that you found that?
Mr. Wheeler. Yes. I believe that is correct, but you are
being very specific. I would like to get back to you on that
line.
[The information follows:]
methylene chloride
On March 27, 2019, EPA published a final rule on methylene
chloride. In that final rule, EPA determined that the use of methylene
chloride in consumer paint and coating removal presents an unreasonable
risk of injury to health due to acute human lethality. While EPA
previously proposed a determination of unreasonable risk from the use
of methylene chloride in commercial paint and coating removal, EPA did
not finalize that determination in this rule. EPA is soliciting
comment, through an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM)
published separately from the final rule for consumer paint and coating
removal use. The ANPRM focusses on questions related to a potential
training, certification, and limited access program as an option for
risk management for all of the commercial uses of methylene chloride in
paint and coating removal.
Senator Udall. I believe you have made the finding----
Mr. Wheeler. Yes.
Senator Udall [continuing]. Unreasonable risk of acute
human lethality. I am using the actual words of your agency,
and the answer clearly is yes.
Mr. Wheeler. Yes.
Senator Udall. EPA found that this chemical in paint
strippers and coating removers posts an unreasonable risk of
acute human lethality, and the EPA is aware that workers have
died using this product on the job. Is that correct?
Mr. Wheeler. That is, but what we did was institute a
comment period for training and certification, which has never
been in place before. During the comment period, if we
determine that we cannot have a program that we are guaranteed
training and certification that we will safeguard the workers,
then we can move to ban it for the workers as well.
Senator Udall. Yes. Well, the young man that I spoke about
was trained, and he----
Mr. Wheeler. But he was not trained by a program set up by
the Federal Government. That was a training by his employer or
by the manufacturer. So what we are looking at is whether or
not the product can be safely used by trained people under a
training and certification program by the EPA and the Federal
Government.
PFOS/PFOA CONTAMINATION
Senator Udall. Well, I understand you have a preproposal to
consider measures that could address any unreasonable risk that
EPA could potentially find to be presented by methylene
chloride when used for commercial paint and coating removal.
But we know that the EPA has already found that there are
unreasonable risks of human lethality from methylene chloride,
and we know that workers are at risk.
To me, it is clear that workers as well as consumers need
protection. I know that Kevin Hartley's mother, Wendy, would
agree with that. This is not the TSCA reform we all spent so
much time and effort working on.
Now I would like to turn quickly to an important regulatory
issue that EPA is working on in my home State. That is the
cleanup of the chemical PFOS.
As you know, Mr. Administrator, the way the EPA is set up
to interact with the State environment departments is very
different from how other agencies are set up. State environment
departments have delegated authority, as we have talked about
here, for things like the Safe Water Drinking Act and the
Resource Recovery Act.
So EPA delegates primary enforcement responsibility to
States and Indian tribes to clean up the contamination. As you
probably know, the State of New Mexico is currently trying to
compel the Air Force to clean up PFOS contamination of
groundwater that has resulted from firefighting foam used at
two Air Force Bases in New Mexico, and now there is also
ongoing litigation.
Given that the New Mexico Environment Department has
primacy and delegation agreements from EPA, I think the EPA is
obligated to provide technical and legal assistance on
groundwater cleanup on these matters. Will you commit to
provide EPA's assistance to the State of New Mexico's
Environment Department as they work to clean up PFOS
contamination?
Mr. Wheeler. It is my understanding we have already offered
assistance to them. If we have not, we certainly will, but we
have worked with a couple dozen States and local communities on
enforcement actions for PFOS/PFOA across the country, and I do
not know why we would not do that for New Mexico.
Senator Udall. We are happy to have that commitment.
The tricky part--and, Mr. Chairman, I just want to clarify
this. The very tricky part is they are in litigation with the
Department of Justice and----
Mr. Wheeler. I understand.
Senator Udall [continuing]. The Department of Defense. So
we hope that the information you share with the State, it is
not shared with their opponents, that it can be held
confidential, because are in an unusual situation where the Air
Force is trying to push down the standards. And the Department
of Defense--there are a lot of reports on this-- they want the
PFOS standards to be lower.
So it is important to us that you share information with
New Mexico on a confidential basis. Can you do that?
Mr. Wheeler. Yes. We do that with Federal facilities all
around the country in a number of different statutes.
Senator Udall. Thank you very much.
Back to the Chairman.
Senator Blunt [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Udall.
Thank you, Administrator Wheeler, for being with us today.
Mr. Wheeler. Thank you.
Senator Blunt. The record will stay open for 1 week for
additional questions and your responses.
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. Andrew Wheeler
Questions Submitted by Senator Lisa Murkowski
diesel generators
Question. Many remote Alaskan Villages use diesel generators to
generate power for their communities. EPA regulation on such generators
requires that any diesel generator purchased after Model Year 2014 is
required to have a ``Diesel Particulate Filter'' installed if it is
used as the primary power generator. These filters have a high failure
rate and even simple upgrades can be difficult. This regulation carries
a very high cost of compliance that many rural Alaskan communities
cannot bear.
In our hearing on April 3, you stated that EPA would take action to
provide regulatory relief to these Alaskan communities through an
amended regulation. Can you provide us with a timeline for EPA's
planned regulatory actions on providing relief on this issue?
Answer. The EPA is working to amend the standards of performance
for stationary compression ignition (CI) internal combustion engines to
address these issues. We issued a direct final rule and parallel
proposed rule in June 2019. The direct final rule was withdrawn due to
adverse comments. We are working on responding to the comments and
consider those comments when preparing a final rule.
iris handbook
Question. The lack of transparency in the Integrated Risk
Information System (IRIS) Program and its process continues to be of
concern. Releasing the already delayed IRIS handbook will be a critical
tool to bring more clarity and transparency to the IRIS process.
When can we expect the handbook to be made available for public
review and comment? Is there a schedule for having the handbook placed
into operation? And will the handbook clearly describe the Agency's
process for evaluating and integrating scientific data?
Answer. To ensure transparency and consistency across assessments,
the IRIS Handbook was developed and implemented internally as a
standard operating procedures document for staff in the IRIS Program.
The goal is to also release the handbook for public comment and peer
review when broader Agency review is complete. In the meantime,
chemical-specific IRIS products provide detailed descriptions of the
systematic review methods applied to each assessment. A number of these
products were recently released for public comment early in the draft
development process (https://www.epa.gov/iris).
______
Question Submitted by Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith
tire crumb
Question. I understand a report on Recycled Tires Used on Playing
Fields is past due but imminent and realize the study is not yet
complete.
When this information is released to the public, will it answer the
questions of any associated exposure risks in artificial turf or
playgrounds as the public and industry have been seeking?
Answer. The timeline the EPA, Centers for Disease Control (CDC),
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), and the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) initially set for the
research activities included under the Federal Research Action Plan
(FRAP) on Recycled Tire Crumb Rubber Used on Synthetic Turf Playing
Fields and Playgrounds has been affected by a number of factors
including the time needed to obtain important Federal approvals and the
need to address external peer review comments.
A goal of the FRAP is to characterize potential human exposures to
the substances contained in recycled tire crumb rubber used on
synthetic turf fields. Results of the effort will be reported in two
parts. Part 1 (Recycled Tire Crumb Characterization report)
communicates the research objectives, methods, results, and findings
for the tire crumb rubber characterization research (i.e., what is in
the material). Part 1 was released to the public on July 25, 2019. In
general, the findings from the report support the premise that while
chemicals are present, as expected, in the tire crumb rubber, human
exposure may be limited based on what is released into air and/or
simulated biological fluids. Part 2, to be released at a later date,
will document the results from the exposure characterization (i.e., how
people come in contact with the materials, how often, and for how
long), including a biomonitoring study being conducted by CDC/ATSDR.
CPSC is conducting the work on playgrounds and results from that effort
will be reported separately.
When finalized, neither Part 1 nor Part 2 of this study, separately
or combined, will constitute an assessment of the risks associated with
playing on synthetic turf fields with recycled tire crumb rubber
infill. When this study was ordered in 2016, it was not supposed to be
a risk assessment. The results of the research described in the final
versions of both Part 1 and Part 2 of this study should inform future
risk assessments.
For more information, please visit: https://www.epa.gov/chemical-
research/federal-research-recycled-tire-crumb-used-playing-fields.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Tom Udall
peer review of ``application of systematic review in tsca risk
evaluations'' document by national academy of sciences
Question. In your January 2019 letter to Senator Tom Carper, you
stated that EPA would ``promptly submit the methodology for deciding
how to collect and evaluate scientific research related to a chemical's
safety that was recently developed by the Office of Chemical Safety and
Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
for peer review and feedback and, at the same time EPA will use the
Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act Section
26(o) mandated advisory committee, a FACA committee, whose purpose is
to provide independent advice and expert consultation with respect to
the scientific and technical aspects of issues related to TSCA, to
provide its independent advice on the methods used by OCSPP to collect
and evaluate scientific research in the first 10 risk evaluations. I
also commit to make public the review, feedback and any recommendations
received from both the NAS and the advisory committee within 30 days of
their receipt. Finally, EPA will incorporate feedback and
recommendations as appropriate.''
Have you submitted this methodology to the NAS and to EPA's
advisory committee?
Answer. The current systematic review approach document is
available online for public review and the link to the document and the
public comments has been shared with the EPA's Scientific Advisory
Committee on Chemicals (SACC).
The EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention
(OCSPP) has been working with the NAS to engage the Academy in
reviewing EPA's Systematic Review Method for TSCA risk evaluations. EPA
awarded a contract to the NAS in July of 2019 and the Task Order
specific to this effort was executed in December of 2019. NAS will hold
one public meeting and issue a report by June of 2020.
The SACC was established under the authority of the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA) to provide independent scientific advice
and recommendations to EPA. During the first peer review meeting, the
SACC received a briefing on this document and how it was implemented.
In the charge questions for the SACC on the first chemicals to undergo
peer review (pigment violet 29, HBCD, 1,4-dioxane, and 1-bromopropane),
EPA received feedback on the systematic review procedure in the context
of its use for the particular chemical evaluation. We look to
incorporate both these comments as well as those from the NAS into
potential future updates into our systematic review procedure.
Question. If yes, on what date, and when do you expect to receive
feedback or recommendations?
Answer. EPA received feedback on the systematic review procedure in
the context of its use for the particular chemical during the SACC
review of pigment violet 29, held from June 18 to 21, 2019, HBCD and
1,4-dioxane, held from July 29 to August 2, 2019, and 1-bromopropane,
held from September 10 to 12, 2019. The EPA's Office of Chemical Safety
and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) has been working with the National
Academies of Science (NAS) to engage the Academy in reviewing EPA's
Systematic Review Method for TSCA risk evaluations. EPA awarded a
contract to the NAS in July of 2019 and recently issued a task order to
the contract which includes the charge questions to the Academy along
with the necessary timeframe for the work to be completed.
Question. If no, why not?
Answer. The EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution
Prevention (OCSPP) has been working with the National Academies of
Science (NAS) to engage the Academy in reviewing EPA's Systematic
Review Method for TSCA risk evaluations. EPA awarded a contract to the
NAS in July of 2019. EPA recently issued a task order to the contract
that includes the charge questions to the Academy along with the
necessary timeframe for the work to be completed.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
fuel economy standards
Question. Administrator Wheeler, I have been a long-time champion
of the fuel economy standards. In 2007, the Ten-in-Ten Fuel Economy Act
became law. This followed a decade-long effort and is a testament to
bipartisan cooperation.
This law sets requirements for fuel economy standards to be carried
out by the Secretary of Transportation. Similar requirements for
vehicle emission standards under the Clean Air Act and carried out by
EPA and the State of California. All three of these authorities are
today implemented as a single, coordinated national program.
As a result, new cars are on a path to surpass 50 miles per gallon
by 2025, saving more than $79 million in fuel costs for American
families and 250 million metric tons of carbon dioxide. I strongly
believe we should maintain this successful program.
Unfortunately, the administration has decided not to preserve the
coordinated national program of standards. Rather than work with
California, you have publicly cancelled negotiations and proposed to
overturn the State's authority over air pollution. If this is the
approach you take, it will only lead to litigation and failure.
Before you finalize a rule that undermines the national program of
standards, I urge you to reconsider your approach.
Administrator Wheeler, when do you expect to issue your final rule
for the 2022 to 2025 standards?
Answer. Despite the administration's best efforts to reach a
common-sense solution, the EPA, DOT, and the White House have
acknowledged that California has failed to put forward an actual
alternative since the SAFE Vehicles Rule was proposed. Accordingly, the
administration is moving forward to finalize a rule with the goal of
promoting safer, cleaner, and more affordable vehicles. The agencies
sought comment on a wide range of stringency alternatives and received
numerous comments on the proposal. The EPA will carefully consider the
public comments, data and information we have received as we continue
to develop the final rule.
Question. If the administration refuses to reach an agreement with
California, that guarantees a lengthy court battle. Who does that
benefit?
Answer. Despite the administration's best efforts to reach a
common-sense solution, the EPA, DOT, and the White House have
acknowledged that California has failed to put forward an actual
alternative since the SAFE Vehicles Rule was proposed. Accordingly, the
administration is moving forward to finalize a rule with the goal of
promoting safer, cleaner, and more affordable vehicles. The agencies
sought comment on a wide range of stringency alternatives and received
numerous comments on the proposal. The EPA will carefully consider the
public comments, data and information we have received as we continue
to develop the final rule.
Question. Do you intend to maintain the standards on a path to
surpass 50 miles per gallon, or will you hold them to less than a 1
percent increase per year?
Answer. Despite the administration's best efforts to reach a
common-sense solution, the EPA, DOT, and the White House have
acknowledged that California has failed to put forward an actual
alternative since the SAFE Vehicles Rule was proposed. Accordingly, the
administration is moving forward to finalize a rule with the goal of
promoting safer, cleaner, and more affordable vehicles. The agencies
sought comment on a wide range of stringency alternatives and received
numerous comments on the proposal. The EPA will carefully consider the
public comments, data and information we have received as we continue
to develop the final rule.
region 9--leadership
Question. Administrator Wheeler, I have serious concerns about the
leadership in Region 9. Last year, I raised these concerns before Mr.
Stoker was appointed, and my concerns have recently been validated by
EPA's Office of the Inspector General. According to an EPA inspector
general alert dated March 2019, from May 2018 through January 2019,
Region 9 Administrator Mike Stoker spent 50 percent of his time on
official travel, 16 percent teleworking, 20 percent in the San
Francisco regional office, and 13 percent of his official time in the
Los Angeles field office. This is unacceptable.
a. Administrator Wheeler, it is very difficult to lead a team
while absent. Is there a legitimate need for Region 9 Administrator
Stoker's constant travel instead of being present to lead his team?
b. Is his travel an appropriate use of taxpayer money?
c. I understand Mr. Stoker may view his role as an
``ambassador.'' Ambassadors also have staff on the ground to meet with
stakeholders. Wouldn't it be more appropriate and fiscally responsible
to have local staff meet with stakeholders instead of constantly
sending the Region 9 Administrator?
d. Stoker refused to move closer to the San Francisco regional
office, even though 93 percent of the staff live there. He prefers to
live by the Los Angeles Field office, where only 3 percent of staff
live, yet still spent 16 percent of his time teleworking verses 13
percent actually in the Los Angeles field office, where he chose to be
based. This seems like an ineffective way to work and a waste of
resources. Do you believe Mr. Stoker can run an entire region in this
manner?
e. In addition, Stoker appointed a Chief of Staff who lives in Las
Vegas where, according to the OIG report, no other staff are located.
Do you believe a Chief of Staff can be effective if he lives in a
different State than the vast majority of the staff?
Answer. The work of senior level positions at the EPA is and must
be highly portable. That is especially true with the positions of
regional administrators whom we expect to regularly travel throughout
their regions and be accessible to State regulators, the regulated
community, and a wide variety of stakeholders. In fact, the EPA already
recognizes and has for some time the portability of senior career
positions by authorizing regular travel throughout the country and
among EPA offices to allow those individuals to perform their
responsibilities. In the case of regional administrators and other
senior level positions, policy setting and managerial duties are often
done from remote locations, either because the individual is traveling
to meetings or because they are connected by phone or video
conferencing to national meetings. We want to continue to encourage
that at the EPA because it has been so well received.
Concerning Mr. Stoker, in particular, the EPA evaluated where he
should be best placed when he joined the Agency in May 2018. Since his
appointment, Mr. Stoker has demonstrated that he has been able to
perform his duties of regional administrator while maintaining a
regular travel schedule placing him in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and
many locations elsewhere in Region 9. Nevada also is within Region 9.
Having a political appointee working in an EPA office in a State other
than California within Region 9 is very important. Finally, the EPA has
another political appointee working as a senior advisor to Mr. Stoker
working in San Francisco. I think it is important to point out,
although I know it is not your intent, but your question does not
recognize that Region 9 has very capable senior career staff who help
lead the programs and the hundreds of EPA employees in Region 9.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
pfas/pfoa
Question. There are communities in Vermont and across the county
that are facing toxic contamination from per- and polyfluoroalkyl
substances (PFAS/PFOA) as a result of industrial manufacturing and a
lack of property monitoring, reporting, and protections for drinking
water source quality. The EPA has now released its plan to address the
widespread PFAS/PFOA contamination.
What specific kinds of guidance and resources will the EPA provide
for communities and States dealing with PFAS/PFOA contamination?
Answer. The EPA released the PFAS Action Plan that identifies both
short-term approaches for addressing PFAS chemicals and long-term
strategies that will help provide the tools and technologies States,
Tribes, and local communities need to clean up sites and provide clean
and safe drinking water to their residents.
Consistent with the Plan, the EPA released draft interim guidance
for addressing groundwater contaminated with PFOA and/or PFOS for
public review and comment. These draft recommendations are designed to
help protect human health in communities across the country by
providing clear guidance on addressing PFOA and PFOS in groundwater in
a consistent manner under Federal cleanup programs and may also be
useful for State and Tribal cleanup programs, and in carrying out other
Federal regulatory authorities (e.g., Federal facility cleanup
programs, approved State Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
corrective action programs.)
The PFAS Action Plan is the first-ever multi-media, multi-program,
national research, management, and risk communication plan to address a
challenge like PFAS. The Plan identifies short-term solutions for
addressing these chemicals, and long-term strategies that will help
provide the tools and technologies that States, Tribes, and local
communities need to provide clean and safe drinking water to their
residents. The EPA is making progress on the PFAS Action Plan by
developing tools and expanding the body of scientific knowledge needed
to understand and effectively manage risk from PFAS compounds.
Additionally, the EPA has conducted sampling, testing, and
identification of PFAS substances in 32 States and the District of
Columbia through our Superfund program.
As noted in the Plan, the EPA is working with partners to develop
and disseminate sampling, measurement, risk communication, and
treatment tools to help communities and stakeholders prevent and
mitigate exposure to PFAS chemicals. For example, the EPA intends to
continue to update the Drinking Water Treatability Database for PFAS
chemicals, including treatability and cost information for different
technologies and additional PFAS chemicals of concern.
As discussed in the plan, the EPA is also developing new analytical
methods and tools for detecting, understanding, and managing PFAS
chemical risk. For example, the EPA expanded the current drinking water
Method 537 to include GenX chemicals and additional PFAS chemicals.
Furthermore, the agency is developing a new drinking water method for
additional short-chain PFAS chemicals not measured by Method 537. The
EPA is also developing and validating methods for other water matrices
(wastewater, surface waters, groundwater), solids (soil, sediment,
biosolids, fish tissue), and air (ambient air, stack emission, off-
gases).
Additionally, the EPA is coordinating with Federal, State, Tribal,
and local partners to provide information about PFAS chemical
detections for government and public users in areas related to
sampling, data sharing, and data evaluation. This coordination includes
working with other agencies on PFAS-related research, in areas that
encompass toxicology studies of a broad number of PFAS, with the
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences National Toxicology
Program. Additionally, the EPA is working with other Federal agencies
such as the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, the Food
and Drug Administration, the United States Department of Agriculture,
and the Department of Defense to examine PFAS exposures and to ensure
we are providing clear and consistent risk communications. The
coordination with other agencies encompasses many aspects of matrices
of concern for addressing PFAS.
Question. What is the specific timeline for the EPA's establishment
of a maximum contaminant (MCL) for PFAS/PFOA in drinking water, and how
does this compare to the EPA's timeline for establishing MCL's for
other chemicals?
Answer. The EPA is committed to following the Maximum Contaminant
Level rulemaking process as established by the Safe Drinking Water Act.
As the next step in this process, a regulatory determination which
includes the PFOA and PFOS chemicals, is currently under Executive
Order 12866 review. Once finalized, the EPA will then work through the
rulemaking process as expeditiously as possible.
geographic programs
Question. Your budget proposes eliminating or dramatically cutting
every one of the EPA's Geographic Programs in the 2020 budget.
What specific factors led to your determination this funding is no
longer necessary? Does the Trump administration claim that these lakes,
bays, gulfs, and other regions are all cleaned up and their problems
solved?
Answer. The EPA's fiscal year 2020 budget request focuses on
funding to maintain core environmental protection programs with a
national scope and returns responsibility for regional and local
environmental work to State and local entities.
The Budget reflects the EPA's role on core programs at the Agency
while working with our State and Tribal partners and is guided by
congressional direction core environmental statutory, and regulatory
obligations, and encourages local entities to continue to make
progress. However, we have many other programs which support the goals
of these geographic programs.
Question. Just weeks after his budget proposed a 90 percent cut to
the EPA's Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, President Trump reversed
his position at a campaign event in Grand Rapids, Michigan, a reversal
that you have now supported. What new information led you and President
Trump to change your mind about cutting more than $65 million from the
Great Lakes program?
Answer. The EPA is committed to working with Congress, as well as
our Federal and State partners, to protect human health, support
economic growth, and improve environmental conditions for Americans
that live and work in the Great Lakes region.
Question. Now that your position on Great Lakes restoration has
supposedly changed, do you also plan to reverse your position on other
water quality programs such as the Lake Champlain program that the
budget eliminates?
Answer. The EPA's fiscal year 2020 budget request focuses on
funding to maintain core environmental protection programs with a
national scope and returns responsibility for regional and local
environmental work to State and local entities.
The Budget reflects the EPA's role on core programs at the Agency
while working with our State and Tribal partners and is guided by
Congressional direction core environmental statutory, and regulatory
obligations, and encourages local entities to continue to make
progress.
Question. Does the EPA plan to submit an amended budget request to
fund the EPA's Geographic Programs, as required? When can the Committee
expect to receive this amended request? What will you use for an
offset?
Answer. Amended budget requests are submitted by the Office of
Management and Budget. The amendment package was sent on May 13, 2019.
new source performance standards
Question. In August 2018, the EPA proposed to modify the New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) to extend the sell-through for new
residential hydronic and new forced-air furnaces through May 2022 in
order to provide manufacturers and retailers additional time to sell
units that were compliant at the time of their production, and to ease
the transition to the NSPS emissions reductions.
Why did the EPA not also propose extending the sell-through for
residential wood and pellet stoves?
Answer. The proposed amendments to the New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS) for Residential Wood Heaters would allow retailers
additional time to sell the existing inventory of hydronic heaters and
forced-air furnaces. The EPA also took comment on a similar sell-
through provision for wood stoves and on whether the pellet fuel
requirements should be revised. In addition, the EPA issued an Advance
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) to seek comment on several aspects
of the 2015 NSPS, including the feasibility of the upcoming May 2020
compliance date for manufacturers of hydronic heaters and forced-air
furnaces to meet a second, more stringent emission limit, known as the
Step 2 limit. The EPA did not propose a sell-through for wood and
pellet stoves because at the time of proposal, there were roughly 78
wood/pellet stoves that were certified to meet the Step 2 limit. There
were only 9 hydronic heaters and 1 forced air furnace meeting the Step
2 limit at the time of proposal.
The EPA received 366 comments in response to the proposed
amendments from manufacturers, retailers/distributors, pellet fuel
industry, States, private citizens, and health and environmental
organizations and 39 comments in response to the ANPRM. The EPA is
reviewing the public comments to inform the next steps.
emission standards rule
Question. John Graham, an environmental adviser appointed to the
EPA's Science Advisory Board by former Administrator Pruitt, has
predicted that the EPA's proposed rule to scale back vehicle emissions
standards would stall long-term automotive innovation and ultimately
increase costs to consumers as they are forced to spend more money on
gasoline. The analysis estimates that the new rule would lead to the
creation of 236,000 fewer jobs than if the Obama administration rule
were left in place. The EPA's emissions rule would stall American
ingenuity, thwart job creation and technological advances, and cut
Americans out of the coming green economic boon.
Upon what analysis is the EPA or the administration relying for
this new emissions rule?
Answer. In the SAFE Vehicles proposal, the EPA and the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimated that the
proposed revisions would result in a $2,260 decrease in the average
price of new vehicles. More information on the analysis for the SAFE
Vehicles proposal is available at: Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0283.
Commenters provided views and information on these issues, as well as
comments related to impacts on the competitiveness of the U.S. auto
industry. The EPA will carefully consider these comments as we develop
the final rule.
Question. As the international automobile market continues to
invest in fuel efficient vehicles, how will you ensure that easing
standards on purely domestic vehicles will not jeopardize U.S.
competitiveness?
Answer. Please see answer shown above.
clean water act--definition
Question. Current estimates predict that for every, one mile of
mapped streams in the United States, there are 1.5 miles of unmapped
ephemeral streams that flow inconsistently but play a critical role in
the interconnectivity of the Nation's water system, provide ecosystem
services, and impact drinking water quality.
Does the EPA have a plan to more accurately determine exactly how
much water would lose protection under the Clean Water Act with the
implementation of the more restrictive Waters of the United States
definition?
Answer. The proposed definition of ``waters of the United States''
would provide a straightforward definition that would protect the
Nation's navigable waters, help sustain economic growth, and reduce
barriers to business development. This proposed rule provides clarity,
predictability, and consistency with the goal of the regulated
community being able to more the regulated community can easily
understand where the Clean Water Act applies--and where it does not.
The EPA and the Department of the Army's proposal is consistent with
the statutory authority that was given to the agencies by Congress, the
legal precedent set by key Supreme Court cases, and the February 2017
Executive Order entitled ``Restoring the Rule of Law, Federalism, and
Economic Growth by Reviewing the `Waters of the United States' Rule.''
The EPA and the Department of the Army provided supporting
documentation for the proposed ``Waters of the United States'' rule in
the Resource and Programmatic Assessment for the Proposed Revised
Definition of `Waters of the United States' and Economic Analysis for
the Proposed Revised Definition of `Waters of the United States.' These
documents estimate, where possible, how the proposed definition might
affect categories of water resources across the country and potential
effects on Clean Water Act programs. The agencies have also identified
significant data limitations that prevent quantitative national
estimates of the potential change in jurisdictional waters, due in
large part to the fact there is no nationwide map depicting ``waters of
the United States'' under previous regulations or waters that would be
jurisdictional under the proposed rule.
Regarding existing information, State-based information on
ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial stream miles and wetland
acreage, as mapped in the National Hydrography Dataset and National
Wetlands Inventory, is presented in Table A-1 of the Economic Analysis.
However, the numbers and percentages of streams and wetlands by
category presented in Table A-1, do not equate to a quantification of
waters that would or would not be jurisdictional under the proposed
rule or existing regulation. The agency will consider any data on water
resources submitted during the public comment process as it develops a
final rule. Recognizing the limitations of existing datasets to
characterize jurisdictional waters, the agencies solicited comment in
the proposed rule preamble on partnering with States, Tribes, and other
Federal agencies to develop geospatial datasets of waters of the United
States that could be developed over time and made publicly available.
The agencies are currently in the process of scoping out this effort
and considering public comments.
Question. How will the EPA respond to the tens of thousands of
comments already received on this new rule? What is the timeline for
addressing those responses?
Answer. The comment period for the proposed rule closed on April
15, 2019. The EPA and the Army are currently in the process of
reviewing the comments and will develop responses and are working
toward finalizing the rule this winter.
methylene chloride
Question. The recent final rule issued by the EPA to prevent the
consumer use of methylene chloride is a positive step but falls well
short of the complete ban proposed by President Obama. You have said
that the EPA plans to determine if there is a safe way to train
employees for commercial use of this highly toxic chemical.
Will there be a temporary ban while the EPA determines whether or
not such a training exists? If not, why not?
Answer. No. The EPA is soliciting comment, through an advance
notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM), on questions related to a
potential training, certification, and limited access program as an
option for risk management for commercial uses of methylene chloride in
paint and coating removal. On March 27, 2019, the EPA issued a final
rule to ban the manufacture (including import), processing, and
distribution of methylene chloride in all paint and coating removers
for consumer use, among other requirements. The EPA is also conducting
a risk evaluation on the remaining conditions of use of methylene
chloride, including as paint and coating remover for commercial users,
and will finalize this risk evaluation in accordance with the statutory
deadlines of TSCA.
Question. Does the EPA plan to establish one universal training and
certification program required by all commercial users of this
chemical? Considering you have proposed a $12 million cut to compliance
monitoring, what will the EPA technical assistance and enforcement look
like should a program be agreed upon?
Answer. The EPA is currently accepting public comment on an ANPRM
to solicit public input on training, certification, and limited access
requirements that could address any unreasonable risks that the EPA
could potentially find to be presented by methylene chloride when used
for commercial paint and coating removal. Such a program could allow
access to paint and coating removal products containing methylene
chloride only to commercial users who are certified as properly trained
to engage in use practices that do not present unreasonable risks. It
is premature to predict the approach and future year budget resources
for implementation if the EPA finalizes a determination of unreasonable
risk and then addresses it through a training, certification, and
limited access program for commercial paint and coating removal.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Blunt. This Committee is adjourned.
Mr. Wheeler. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 10:32 a.m., Wednesday, April 3, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]